U

S

F

S 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

Eastside Township Fuels 

and Vegetation Project 

Volume I

April 2007 

Cottonwood Field Office
It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations. 

BLM/ID/PT-06/004-5000 

ID-420-2005-EIS-952 

Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

1. Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management 

2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

3. Document Status: Draft ( ) Final (X) 

4. Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes four alternatives for managing the 

public lands and resources, within the project area administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s Cottonwood 

Field Office and the Nez Perce National Forest’s Red River Ranger District, located in northern central Idaho, in 

Idaho County. BLM is the Lead Federal Agency and the NPNF is a Cooperating Agency on this project. BLM 

proposes to use and construct roads on the NF and, as a result of the analysis in this EIS, the NPNF may authorize 

the use and construction of identified roads. 

The Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project (Eastside Project) was developed to address the forest health, 

fuels, safety, and watershed issues in the Elk City area. The four alternatives include Alternative A (the “no action” 

alternative), Alternative B (proposed action-preferred alternative), and Alternatives C and D, which are variations 

of Alternative B developed to respond to issues raised by the public. The project alternatives are designed to 

address declining forest health issues, accumulation of fuels due to fire suppression, and effects of historic 

activities such as road construction and mining. Restoration activities are being proposed to address watershed, 

water quality, and fisheries conditions, and a plan for improved public access. The alternatives address the need for 

an upward trend in fish habitat condition, as well as the economic and social well being of area users and local 

residents.

5. The Final EIS for the Eastside Project will be available for public review for 30 calendar days following 

publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

6. For further information contact: 

 Robbin B. Boyce 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 Cottonwood Field Office 

 1 Butte Drive 

 Cottonwood, Idaho 83522-5200 

 Telephone: (208) 962-3594 

 FAX: (208) 962-3275 

 Email: robbin_boyce@blm.gov 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

i

Summary _________________________________ 

The Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) Cottonwood Field Office of the Coeur d’Alene District, is the 

lead federal agency in preparing this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Nez Perce National 

Forest (NPNF) is a Cooperating Agency for this project because access across NPNF lands may be 

needed to implement the BLM actions proposed in this area. 

This EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other 

relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the three action alternatives and the no action alternative. 

The project area is located in north central Idaho, near the southern part of the Idaho Panhandle in Idaho 

County, near the small, isolated town of Elk City, Idaho. The Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation 

Project (Eastside Project) is located in the American River watershed, within the larger upper South Fork 

Clearwater River watershed (Appendix A, Map 1). The majority of the Elk City township occurs in the 

American River watershed and is completely surrounded by NPNF lands. The project area, which 

encompasses approximately 3,300 acres, borders the town of Elk City and surrounding wildland urban 

interface (WUI) areas. Actual BLM-administered acres to be treated total approximately 1,300. 

Purpose & Need for Action 

The BLM initiated the project to deal with the increasing fuel load resulting from the combined effects of 

long-term fire suppression and an ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Elk City area. Also, 

aquatic and riparian conditions in the area, particularly fish habitat, have been degraded, primarily by 

historic mining activities. The Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan (MFP) requires concurrent 

watershed restoration actions when implementing timber management activities of this scale, to improve 

the fish habitat conditions and to continue an upward trend. The purpose of this project is to: 

x Reduce the risk of high-intensity wildland fire to life, property, and natural resources in the 

Elk City and surrounding WUI area; 

x Manage forest stands to create conditions that will contribute to sustaining long-lived fire 

tolerant tree species; 

x Design a public transportation system that provides safe travel routes for the public, while 

meeting watershed and fisheries management goals, in a cost effective manner; 

x Create an upward trend in fish habitat condition; 

x Contribute to the economic and social well being of area users and local residents; and 

x Implement intensive forest management decisions from the MFP. 

Proposed Action 

The Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project would reduce existing and potential fuel loads 

through a combination of vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments. The proposed action is the 

preferred alternative. Vegetation manipulation includes removing mainly dead and dying trees and 

selectively harvesting live trees in both lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands. Fuels treatments include 

biomass utilization, piling and burning, and prescribed burning. The project would treat approximately 

1,293 acres requiring approximately 15.1 miles of temporary road construction. Upon completion of the 

project, including road decommissioning, there would be no net change of road density per square mile in 

the American River watershed and a decrease of 2.12 miles of permanent road in the project area. 

The project implements watershed improvement activities that would provide for an upward trend in 

aquatic habitat and water quality. These include riparian planting, road decommissioning, relocation of 

road segments along the American River, stream crossing improvements (ford closures, ford hardening, 

and ATV bridge replacement), reconnection of Queen Creek to the American River, road to ATV trail 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

xii

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Winter Rearing Habitat Well below objective for 

all streams 

Measurable short-term degradation (i.e., greater than 10%) predicted in Whitaker and Queen Creek

No measurable change predicted to existing condition in all subwatersheds 

MedegthaWh

Issue 8: The American River has been heavily affected by historic instream mining activities that have reduced complexity, e.g., meanders, pools, large woody debris, and pool riffle ratios. Also roads are encroaching on the are impacting riparian/aquatic habitat. Pool riffle ratios & number of pools Chronic sources of 

erosion/sediment such as stream fords, roads, and historic dredge mined areas would continue to contribute sediment to stream channels and subsequent pool filling. Existing non-point sediment sources would slowly recover over time and pool habitat would slowly improve. 

Would reduce chronic sediment sources attributed to roads, fords, and historic dredge mined areas. Pool quality and quantity would improve in the long-term with restoration actions that improve riparian habitats and large woody debris recruitment to stream channels. Less change than alternative C, but greater than alternative D. 

Would reduce chronic sediment sources attributed to roads, fords, and historic dredge mined areas. Pool quality and quantity would improve in the long-term with restoration actions that improve riparian habitats and large woody debris recruitment to stream channels. Greatest beneficial change of alternatives.

Wosedattrand arequain tresimpand recchatha

Issue 9: Proposed stream reconnect and ATV bridge construction activities may affect stream channels and proconstruction has the potential to cause increased sediment delivery to streams in the analysis area and a take oFords eliminated No Change, 2 fords 

remain on American River, 1 ford remains on Kirks Fork 

Middle American River Ford hardened, Lower American River and Kirks Fork fords eliminated. 

Middle American River, Lower American River and Kirks Fork fords eliminated. 

Sam
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

xi

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Fisheries – Issue 6: Proposed riparian planting and streambank re-contour activities affect fish and fish habitat streamside shading and the number of trees that may fall into the stream channels, and affect 303(d) listed streLarge woody debris & Stream Temperature 

Expect increased LWD with increased dead and dying lodgepole pine or other trees falling into streams. Lack of vegetation/fuels treatments may contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could affect water temperature. 

Restoration activities should decrease stream temperature in the longterm with growth of streamside trees and shrubs, and subsequent increased shading. No timber harvest occurs within any RHCAs. Negligible risk of causing adverse impacts from harvest/fuels activities. 

Same as Alternative B Sam

Fisheries – Issue 7: Proposed streambank re-contour, harvest, road construction, road reconstruction, and roaactivities have the potential to cause increased sediment delivery to streams in the analysis area, decreasing quspawning, rearing, and over-wintering fish habitat for Federally listed and BLM sensitive species. Cobble embeddedness Amount currently above 

BO standard all streams 

Measurable short-term degradation (i.e., greater than 10%) predicted in Lower Am. River and Queen Creek 

No measurable change predicted (i.e., less than 10%) to existing condition in all subwatersheds 

Sam

Summer Rearing Habitat Above or near objective 

for all streams 

No measurable change predicted (i.e., less than 10%) to existing condition in all subwatersheds 

Same as Alternative B Sam
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

x

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Watershed – Issue 5: Proposed activities may increase erosion and sediment yield, which could impair fish hab303(d) listed streams. Percent over base sediment yield by subwatershed 

No change to slight decrease in some subwatersheds 

East Fork Am. River, Little Elk Creek – No increase.Middle Am. River, Kirks Fork, Lower Elk Creek <5 % increase. Lower Am. River 7% increase.Whitaker Creek, Box Sing Creeks 26% increase.Queen Creek 22% increase.Whitaker and Queen approaching thresholds set in MFP All increases short term returning to pre-project levels within 5 years except Mid. Am. And Lower Am. River subwatersheds that decrease to below preproject levels due to reduction in chronic sources through restoration

East Fork Am. River, Little Elk Creek – No increase.Middle Am. River, Kirks Fork, Whitaker Creek, Queen Creek, Lower Elk Creek, Lower Am. River <5 % increase. Box Sing Creek 26% increase.All increases short term returning to pre-project levels within 5 years except Mid. Am. And Lower Am. River subwatersheds that decrease to below preproject levels due to reduction in chronic sources through restoration

EasLitincMiForLowAmWhSinincWhthreAll retulevexcLowsubdecproredsoures
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

ix

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Watershed – Issue 4: Proposed vegetation treatment activities may increase water yield and change timing anrunoff, thereby decreasing stream channel stability. Equivalent Clearcut Area % by subwatershed 

All nine subwatersheds below 15% ECA 

All below 15% except Whitaker at 17%, and Queen at 18%. Risks considered negligible in all subwatersheds because of existing good channel stability 

All below 15% except Whitaker at 16%, and Queen at 18%. Risks considered negligible in all subwatersheds because of existing good channel stability 

All WhQuconall beccha
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

viii

Table 0.2 Comparison of the Effects of the Eastside Project Alternatives on the Major Issues and Their Indicators 

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Hazardous Fuels – Issue 1: Proposed fuel/vegetation activities are not needed and are ineffective in protecting structures, and reducing the effect of wildfire across the landscape. The dead and dying lodgepole pine in the pnatural and periodic occurrence. Hazardous Fuels – Issue 2: Proposed fuel/vegetation activities are needed to protect the community of Elk CityRiver Subdivision, other subdivisions in the project area, and the natural resources in the area. The large amounlodgepole pine is creating an unacceptable hazard. Doing nothing is irresponsible. Area of future fuel model 8 and 8/10

355 acres 

17% 

1,036 acres 

48% 

1,036 acres 

48% 

Future area with low flame length potential, <4ƍ

112 acres 

5% 

472 acres 

21% 

472 acres 

21% 

Future area with surface fire potential

227 acres 

10% 

768 acres 

35% 

768 acres 

35% 

Future area with potential tree mortality <50% 

237 acres 

11% 

644 acres 

29% 

644 acres 

29% 

Area dominated by lodgepole pine 1,670 acres 

53% 

879 acres 

28% 

879 acres 

28% 

Watershed – Issue 3: Proposed road construction, road reconstruction, road decommissioning, and conversion trails affect water quality in the short and/or long term. Total post project road density American River 

2.3 2.3 2.3 

Decreased Road miles in RHCAs 0 2.55 3.70 New miles permanent construction 0 .57 1.13 Miles temporary road construction 0 15.1 10.5 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

vii

4

 This is the replacement of two ATV fords with bridges (one on American River, one on Kirks Fork) with rocking of 

approaches, +ATV trail crossing Alt D. 5

 Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish passage and 

peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites, or ford hardening to remove chronic sediment sources. 6

 This is an access change that closes the current ford on the American River in Section 2. 

7

 This is the miles of anadromous fish habitat that will be reconnected to the American River. 8

 This is an access change, which reduces the running surface width and restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or 

snowmobiles over snow or, all terrain vehicle use (ATV) from previous automobile use. Some roads would be 

replaced by new permanent road. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

vi

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 0.1 compares activities and outputs of the alternatives. Table 0.2 compares the alternatives in terms 

of environmental effects on the major issues. See Chapter 3 for a complete description of effects and for 

the scientific basis for the results in the comparison tables. 

Table 0.1 Comparison of Activities and Outputs by alternative 

Proposed Activity–Vegetation/Fuels Alt B 

(Proposed) Alt C Alt D 

Tractor Yard/Excavator Pile or Biomass 

Utilization 770 761 728 

Tractor Yard/Burn 31 31 27 

Cable Yard/Burn 298 194 135 

Helicopter Yard/Burn 244 238 

Helicopter Yard/Hand Pile 54 54 43 

Slash/Burn Fuels Treatment Only 140 

Total Acres Treated 1293 1284 1171 

Percent Regeneration 82 83 84 

Acres of Treatment 

Percent Partial Cut/Thin 18 17 16 

Temporary road construction (miles)1 15.1 10.5 10.7 

Road improvement (for timber harvest) (miles)2 2.4 2.4 2.4 

Estimated Green Volume Harvested (MMBF) 9.7 11.1 10.4 

Estimated Dead Volume Harvested (MMBF) 4.1 4.1 3.6 

Proposed Activity–Restoration Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Miles of decommissioned roads3 1.9 3 1.5 

Miles of American River Stream Bank Re-contour 1.2 1.2 1.2 

Miles of New Permanent Road 0.6 1.1 0.6 

New Automobile River Crossing (Bridge) 1 1 

Number of sites of Watershed Trail Improvements4 2 2 3 

Stream crossing improvements5 3 2 2 

Stream crossing closures6 1 1 

Miles of riparian vegetation planting 4.8 4.8 4.8 

Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements 0.2 0.2 

Miles Queen Creek re-connect to American River and increased fish 

habitat access7 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Access change for vehicle use–Automobile use to ATV restricted use 

(miles)8 1.6 1.6 2.4 

Acres of Mine Site Reclamation 0.5 0.5 0.5 

1

 Temporary roads will be decommissioned within one to three years of construction. 

2

 Road improvement covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway brushing 

with occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road widening could occur with major 

reconstruction. Road improvements stated in this table are not to be considered or confused with routine road 

maintenance that may include but not limited to road prism brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities. 3

 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from re-contouring to abandonment due to 

grown-in conditions. Some decommissioned roads would be replaced by new permanent road. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

v

would be irregular shelterwood; 252 acres would be shelterwood; 266 acres would be seed tree; 93 acres 

would be commercially thinned; and 100 acres would be salvaged. Compared to Alternative B this 

alternative utilizes the same vegetation/fuels treatments with the exception that 120 acres of slashing and 

burning would be logged with helicopter. These treatments would also involve fuels treatment, using a 

combination of biomass utilization, piling and burning or prescribed burning. 

Actions planned for improvement of riparian and/or aquatic condition include those noted for Alternative 

B with the following differences. New construction of 0.56 miles of permanent road, including a bridge of 

the American River (0.01 miles less than Alt. B, replacing 1.1 mile existing road), construction of 0.5 

miles of ATV trail (to circumvent and close an automobile ford of the American River), 1.5 miles of road 

decommissioning (0.4 miles less than Alt. B) and 2.6 miles of road converted to ATV trail (0.77 miles 

more than Alt. B). 

Design Features

The action alternatives include the required design features listed in Chapter 2, Table 2.3.1. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Appendix E contains the detailed monitoring and evaluation plans. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

iv

sensitive plants, soils, wildlife, visual resources, cultural resources, tribal trust and treaty rights, grazing, 

socio-economics, and recreation. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternative A (No Action): Both BLM and CEQ regulations require the development of the No Action 

alternative. This alternative serves as the baseline for comparison of the effects of all action alternatives. 

Under this alternative, there would be no change in current management direction or in the level of 

ongoing management activities within the project area. No fuel reduction/vegetation treatments associated 

with this project would be implemented. Also, because of watershed entry criteria and the timing of the 

FS American and Crooked River Project, the opportunity to treat much of the area, except on a limited 

basis, would be lost for another 10 years. Future implementation of watershed improvement activities 

associated with this project would require obtaining funding that is currently not part of the BLM budget 

and initiation of the NEPA process. Work previously planned within and/or adjacent to the project area 

would still occur under this alternative. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action-Preferred Alternative): This alternative reduces existing and potential 

fuel loads through a combination of vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments on approximately 1,293 

acres requiring approximately 15.1 miles of temporary road construction. Actions planned for 

improvement of vegetative/fuel condition include regeneration treatments that would reserve groups and 

single trees including: approximately 351 acres would be irregular shelterwood; 284 acres would be 

shelterwood; 286 acres would be seed tree; 123 acres would be commercially thinned; 140 acres would be 

slashed and broadcast burned; and 109 acres would be salvaged. These treatments would also involve 

fuels treatment, using a combination of biomass utilization, piling and burning, or prescribed burning.

Actions planned for improvement of riparian and/or aquatic condition include: 4.8 miles of riparian tree 

and shrub planting; 1.2 miles of streambank re-contour, planting, and sediment mitigation; reconnect 

Queen Creek (a 1.35 mile fish-bearing stream) with American River; closing two river/stream fords and 

replacing with ATV bridges; new construction of 0.57 miles of permanent roads (to replace existing 

roads); 1.6 miles of road to be converted to ATV trails; and 1.9 miles of road decommissioning. 

See Table 0.1 below for a comparison of action alternative activities and outputs. 

Alternative C: This alternative reduces existing and potential fuel loads through a combination of 

vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments on approximately 1,284 acres. Compared to Alternative B, 

there are more acres of helicopter logging (fewer acres of tractor and cable) and less temporary road 

construction (10.5 miles). Actions planned for improvement of vegetative/fuel conditions include 

regeneration treatments that would reserve groups and single trees including: approximately 491 acres 

would be irregular shelterwood; 284 acres would be shelterwood; 286 acres would be seed tree; 123 acres 

would be commercially thinned; and 100 acres would be salvaged. Compared to alternative B this 

alternative utilizes the same vegetation/fuels treatments with the exception that 140 acres of slashing and 

burning would be logged with helicopter. These treatments would also involve fuels treatment, using a 

combination of biomass utilization, piling and burning, or prescribed burning. 

Actions planned for improvement of riparian and/or aquatic condition include those noted for Alternative 

B with the following differences: new construction of 1.1 miles of permanent road, including a bridge of 

the American River (0.56 miles more than Alt. B, replacing a 1.1 mile existing road and an automobile 

ford of the American River); and 3.0 miles of road decommissioning (1.1 miles more than Alt. B). 

Alternative D: This alternative reduces existing and potential fuel loads through a combination of 

vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments on approximately 1,171 acres. Compared to Alternative B 

there are more acres of helicopter logging (fewer acres of tractor and cable) and less temporary road 

construction (10.7 miles). Actions planned for improvement of vegetative/fuel conditions include 

regeneration treatments that would reserve groups and single trees including: approximately 460 acres 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

iii

The Nez Perce Forest Supervisor will make the following decisions and document them in a Record of 

Decision accompanying or following the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

Should some roads be improved, constructed, or maintained across NPNF lands to provide access 

for treatment activities on BLM land? If so, which, and what road standards or restrictions should 

be applied? 

Scoping Summary 

In February of 2004, the BLM mailed letters to approximately 200 interested individuals, agencies, the 

Nez Perce Tribe, organizations, and adjacent landowners. Based on the comments received and further 

field review, it was determined that analysis using an EIS was appropriate. 

The BLM participated in meetings held in the community of Elk City in March and April of 2005 to 

discuss the project.

In July 2005, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register. Over 250 

letters were sent to interested individuals, agencies, the Nez Perce Tribe, and organizations requesting 

comments on the proposal. A public meeting and two field tours were held. 

Based on the public comments and resource specialist concerns, the following concerns or controversies 

were identified as the major issues to be carried forward for analysis in the EIS. 

Major Issues 

The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team identified Hazardous Fuels, Watershed, Fisheries, and Road/Trail 

Access-Transportation System as major issues. 

Hazardous Fuels: Two differing viewpoints were expressed during scoping about the extent of the 

project. Issue 1 reflects the view that the current fuels and vegetation conditions are part of a natural 

cycle, and the proposal would be ineffective. Issue 2 reflects the view that management is needed to 

protect the community of Elk City, the American River Subdivisions, and the natural resources in the 

area.

Watershed: Three issues are that proposed activities: may affect overall watershed condition in the short 

and/or long term; may increase water yield and change timing and duration of peak runoff, thereby 

decreasing stream channel stability; and may increase erosion and sediment yield, which could impair fish 

habitat, and affect 303(d) listed streams. 

Fisheries: There are four issues regarding the proposed activities. First is streamside shading and the 

number of trees that may fall into the stream channels and affect 303(d) listed streams. Second is the 

potential to cause increased sediment delivery to streams in the analysis area, decreasing quantity and 

quality of spawning, rearing, and over-wintering fish habitat for Federally listed and BLM sensitive 

species. Third is the current reduced fish habitat complexity. Fourth is that bridge construction activities 

may affect stream channels, processes, and has the potential to cause increased sediment delivery to 

streams in the analysis area and a take of some fish species. 

Road/Trail Access-Transportation System: Issues include that proposed activities may restrict 

administrative/public access to Bureau of Land Management lands and affect access routes to homes and 

private property; and there is a large amount of temporary road construction to access vegetation/fuels 

treatment areas. 

Other Issues

Besides the major issues identified above, the ID Team analyzed the effects of the alternatives on other 

issues and resources, including air quality, vegetation, noxious weeds, threatened, endangered and 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

ii

conversion, and re-contouring streambank along the American River. Table 0.1 is a summary of the 

proposed activities associated with the project by alternative. 

Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans 

Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan–North Idaho Timber Management FEIS 

The Chief Joseph MFP and the North Idaho Timber Management FEIS allocate resource management 

emphasis to areas based on the land’s capabilities. The forested areas are divided into three levels of 

forest management: intensive, extensive, and custodial. The proposed treatment units lie in the Intensive 

Timber Management land class. 

The Fisheries/Water Quality Refinement of the Chief Joseph MFP (USDI-BLM, 1989a) identifies 

fisheries/water quality objectives by prescription watershed. The project includes portions of eight 

prescription watersheds, six of which are below the percent habitat potential objective. For those streams, 

the guideline states that timber management can occur concurrently with habitat improvement efforts that 

show a positive upward trend.

Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

While there are no proposed treatments on Forest Service (FS) land, BLM may need authorization from 

the NPNF to use existing roads and to construct new temporary roads on the forest. The road use and 

construction, if determined necessary to implement the Eastside Project, would be in conformance with 

the NPNF land use plan, and the NPNF would apply their road standards to any authorization. 

Decisions to be Made 

The BLM Cottonwood Field Manager will make the following decisions and document them in a Record 

of Decision following the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

Should the BLM do fuels/vegetation treatments to create a fuel reduction area on BLM lands in the 

project area to protect adjacent subdivisions, private property, and natural resources from the risks 

associated with wildland fire? If so: 

x What vegetation treatment methods should be used? 

x How many acres should be treated? 

x Should management activities occur in RHCAs? If so, how? 

x If timber is harvested, how should harvest unit slash be treated? 

x Should some roads be improved, constructed, or maintained to provide access for treatment 

activities? If so, which? 

x Should some roads be obliterated/decommissioned/seasonally closed in order to meet the 

MFP requirements for a concurrent upward trend of aquatic/riparian areas? If so, which? 

x Should some roads be converted to ATV trails with restricted running surface widths in order 

to meet the MFP requirements for a concurrent upward trend of aquatic/riparian areas? If so, 

which? 

x Should some roads be improved, constructed, or maintained to provide access and escape 

routes for residential areas? If so, which? 

x What design features and mitigation measures should be required to meet MFP standards and 

guidelines for all resources? 

x What monitoring requirements are appropriate to evaluate implementation and effectiveness 

of this project? 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

xiii

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Additional anadromous fish habitat accessible 

No Change Queen Creek reconnected to American 

River, 1.35 miles of increased habitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Sam

Issue 10: Proposed activities (road to trail conversions, road relocation and obliteration, and new road constructadministrative/public access to Bureau of Land Management lands, and affect access routes to homes and privMiles new permanent Road None 0.57 in Lower American 

River

0.57 in Lower American River, 0.56 in Middle American River 

0.5Riv

Decreased Highway Vehicle Miles None 2.12 2.62 2.4Miles of road to ATV trail conversion

None 1.62 1.62 2.3

Number of public bridges (highway vehicle)

No change, 1 bridge on road 1809, 1 bridge on road 443 

No change, one bridge on road 1809, 1 bridge on road 443 

New bridge in Middle American River, bridge on road 1809, bridge on road 443 total 3 

Sam

Issue 11: Access to complete management activities requires a transportation network. Proposed activities incluof temporary road construction. Designing a transportation system that balances implementing projects cost effeenvironmental impacts from the transportation system is an important project consideration. Miles of temporary road on BLM None 12.97 8.43 Miles of temporary road on Private None 0.19 0.19 Miles of temporary road on Forest Service

None 2.15* 1.89* 

Areas with roadless characteristics (applies to Forest Service lands only) 

None One affected area, 

American-2, impact to unroaded character 

Same as Alternative B. 

* Includes 1.89 miles that was included in the FEIS for the American and Crooked River Project
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

xiv

Table of Contents ____________________________________ 

Summary.......................................................................................................................................i

Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................xiv

List of Appendices...................................................................................................................xvi

1. Purpose and Need for Action.............................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Changes in the Document Between Draft and Final EIS...........................................1

1.2 General Location ..............................................................................................................2

1.3 Purpose & Need for Action .............................................................................................3

1.4 Proposed Action ...............................................................................................................4

1.5 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans............................................................5

1.6 Relationship to non-BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs...........................................5

1.7 Relationships to Laws, Regulations and Statutes .......................................................7

1.8 Decisions to be Made ......................................................................................................7

1.9 Scoping and Issues..........................................................................................................8

1.9.1 Scoping Summary ............................................................................................................ 8

1.9.2 Major Issues......................................................................................................................9

1.9.3 Other Issues....................................................................................................................13

1.10 Permits and Licenses..................................................................................................... 16

1.11 Project Record ................................................................................................................16

2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ..................................................................18

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................18

2.2 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................18

2.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ................................18

2.2.3 Alternative A (No Action Alternative)...........................................................................20

2.2.4 Alternative B (Proposed Action–Preferred Alternative) ............................................20

2.2.5 Alternative C....................................................................................................................22

2.2.6 Alternative D....................................................................................................................23

2.3 Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring ................................................................26

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives on Major Issues..............................................................33

3. Affected Environment–Environmental Consequences .................................................40

3.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................40

3.0.1 Scope of the Analysis ....................................................................................................40

3.0.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis .........................................................................................40

3.0.3 American River Historic Activities ................................................................................43

3.0.4 Environmental Effects....................................................................................................44

3.1 Fire and Fuels .................................................................................................................45

3.1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................45

3.1.2 Indicator 1–Fuels ............................................................................................................47

3.1.3 Indicator 2–Predicted Fire Behavior ....................................................................49

3.1.4 Indicator 3–Tree Mortality....................................................................................51

3.1.5 Cumulative Effects–Fuels, Potential Fire Behavior, Potential Tree Mortality.......53

3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................55

3.2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................55

3.2.2 Indicator–Particulate Matter and Visibility............................................................56

3.3 Vegetation ...........................................................................................................59

3.3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................59
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

xv

3.3.2 Indicator 1–Forest Cover Types ..........................................................................64

3.3.3 Indicator 2–Structure (Size Classes, Density, and Crown Cover) .......................69

3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ..................................................75

3.3.5 Indicator 4–Weeds...............................................................................................82

3.4 Watershed ...........................................................................................................86

3.4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................86

3.4.2 American River ....................................................................................................90

3.4.3 Mainstem South Fork Clearwater River.............................................................105

3.5 Soils...................................................................................................................112

3.5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................112

3.5.2 Existing Condition..............................................................................................113

3.5.3 Soil Compaction and Displacement...................................................................116

3.5.4 Surface and Substratum Erosion.......................................................................118

3.5.5 Mass Erosion.....................................................................................................121

3.5.6 Soil Chemical and Biological Properties............................................................122

3.6 Fisheries ............................................................................................................124

3.6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................124

3.6.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................140

3.6.3 Environmental Effects........................................................................................156

3.7 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................190

3.7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................190

3.7.2 Existing Habitat Conditions................................................................................197

3.7.3 Indicator 1–Threatened or Endangered Species...............................................200

3.7.4 Indicator 2–BLM Sensitive Species ...................................................................209

3.7.5 Indicator 3–Other Species of interest ................................................................234

3.7.6 Wildlife Habitat Associations and Guilds ...........................................................247

3.7.7 Irreversible, Irretrievable Effects (All Terrestrial Species)..................................258

3.8 Roads ................................................................................................................259

3.8.1 Introduction........................................................................................................259

3.8.2 Indicators - Road Decommissioning, Road Conversion, Miles of Road 

(Permanent and Temporary), and Bridges ........................................................261

3.8.3 Indicator–Miles of Trails.....................................................................................264

3.8.4 Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Areas with Unroaded Characteristics ...........266

3.9 Visual Resource Management ...................................................................................271

3.9.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................271

3.9.2 Indicator–Class III Visual Resource Objective.........................................................272

3.10 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................276

3.10.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................276

3.10.2 Existing Condition.........................................................................................................277

3.10.3 Environmental Effects..................................................................................................278

3.10.4 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................278

3.10.5 Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects.............................................................................279

3.11 Tribal Trust and Treaty Rights ...........................................................................280

3.11.1 Introduction........................................................................................................280

3.11.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................280

3.11.3 Environmental Effects........................................................................................281

3.12 Grazing ..............................................................................................................282

3.12.1 Existing Environment.........................................................................................282

3.12.2 Environmental Effects........................................................................................282

3.12.3 Cumulative Effect...............................................................................................283

3.13 Socio Economic.................................................................................................284
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

xvi

3.13.1 Introduction........................................................................................................284

3.13.2 Indicator 1–Local Employment ..........................................................................285

3.13.3 Indicator 2–Revenues and Costs.......................................................................286

3.14 Recreation .........................................................................................................291

3.14.1 Introduction........................................................................................................291

3.14.2 Indicator 1–Resource Opportunity Spectrum Class...........................................291

3.14.3 Indicator 2–Recreational Activities.........................................................................292

4. Consultation and Coordination .....................................................................................295

4.1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................295

4.2 Distribution List for Final EIS .............................................................................296

4.3 Consultation.......................................................................................................297

4.4 Public Scoping Synopsis ...................................................................................297

4.5 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and BLM Responses ............................297

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Maps 

Appendix B – Glossary 

Appendix C – References 

Appendix D – Treatments by Alternative 

Appendix E – Monitoring Plan 

Appendix F – Descriptions of Fuel Models 

Appendix G – Modeling Assumptions 

Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis 

Appendix I – Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements 

Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Appendix K – Key Observation Point Photos and FVS-FVS Model Representation 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

1

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 

1.1 Introduction _____________________________________ 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Cottonwood Field Office of the Coeur d’Alene District, is the 

lead federal agency in preparing this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Nez Perce National 

Forest (NPNF) is a Cooperating Agency for this project because temporary road construction across 

NPNF lands will be needed to implement the BLM actions proposed in portions of the project area. 

This EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other 

relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the three action alternatives and the no action alternative. 

The document is organized into four chapters: 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes an introduction of the proposed 

project, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose 

and need. This section also details how the BLM scoped the project, including obtaining public input. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the agency’s Proposed Action, as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives were developed based on major issues raised by the public and other 

agencies. This discussion also includes design features. Finally, this section provides a summary table 

of the environmental effects associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment–Environmental Effects: This chapter combines two major parts of 

a NEPA analysis: the Affected Environment and the Environmental Effects associated with the 

proposed action and the alternatives. The physical, biological, and human resources of the 

environment that may be affected by the proposed action and the alternatives are examined. Affected 

Environment and Environmental Effects have been combined to give the reader a more thorough 

explanation of the resources and how they may be affected by the proposed action and the 

alternatives. Chapter 3 analyzes the issues used to generate the alternatives, as well as potential 

effects to other resources. 

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers, individuals and 

agencies consulted, and a synopsis of the public comments received during scoping which were used 

in the development of the Environmental Impact Statement. A list of recipients of this Final EIS is 

provided. 

Appendices: The appendices provide maps and more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the EIS. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in 

the project planning records located at the BLM Cottonwood Field Office (CotFO), Cottonwood, Idaho. 

1.1.1 Changes in the Document Between Draft and Final EIS 

As the result of internal review and comments received on the Draft EIS, changes have been made to both 

Volumes I and II of Final EIS. Substantial changes are detailed below. Most of the changes were minor 

and involve corrections of typographical errors, formatting, grammar, and sentence structure. The changes 

in the document are not physically highlighted or noted (such as strike-through and underlined text to 

show deletions and additions). 

The reader should take note of the following substantial changes: 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

2

Chapter 1 – Section 1.1.1, was added to highlight the changes between the Draft and the Final EIS. 

Chapter 2 – Some design Criteria were modified to provide more concise information. New design 

criteria were added (3, 27 and 32) that were inadvertently left out of the Draft. 

Chapter 3 – Additional information has been included in the discussion regarding the Clean Water Act 

and the Idaho State Water Quality Standards. 

Appendix A – Four Maps were updated, three had corrections to symbols, and one has additional 

information. 

x Map 5 – Corrected road shown as decommissioning to proposed ATV. 

x Map 6 – Corrected road shown as decommissioning to proposed ATV. 

x Map 7 – Corrected road shown as decommissioning to proposed ATV. 

x Map 15 – NPNF areas with unroaded characteristics were added as shown the American and 

Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

Appendix B – Term definitions were refined to provide more concise information. 

Appendix C – Literature used in analysis or responding to comments to the DEIS was added. 

Appendix H – Additional information has been added to the following sections. 

x Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives 

x Upward Trend 

x Aquatic Model Disclosures 

o Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) 

o NEZSED 

x Aquatic Trend Analysis 

o Updated information in Table H.3 

o Updated information in Table H.4 

o Inserted new section Effectiveness Monitoring and Trend. This provides additional 

information regarding current and ongoing monitoring and trend. 

Appendix I – Additional information has been added to the following sections. 

x Description of Restoration Projects 

o Updated information in Table I.3 

o Updated information in Table I.4 

o Added new information about Queen Creek channel reconnect in Improved Fish 

Passage section. 

1.2 General Location_________________________________ 

The project area is located in north central Idaho, near the southern part of the Idaho Panhandle. The 

project is located in Idaho County, near the small, isolated town of Elk City, Idaho. The Eastside 

Township Fuels and Vegetation Project (Eastside Project) occurs in the American River watershed, within 

the larger upper South Fork Clearwater River watershed (Appendix A, Map 1). The Elk City township is 

completely surrounded by NPNF lands. Ownership within the township includes 12,859 acres BLM 

(53%), 10,100 acres private (42%), and 80 acres Forest Service (3%). The Eastside Project is located in 

the American River watershed that is approximately 58,500 acres in size, and extends from the 

confluence with the South Fork Clearwater River near Elk City to an area near Beargrass Mountain. 

NPNF lands comprise 72% of the watershed, followed by 15% private lands, and 13% BLM lands. BLM 

lands are adjacent to NPNF lands and intermingled with private lands within the immediate project area. 

The Eastside Project area encompasses approximately 3,273 acres, of which 3,121 acres are managed by 

the BLM, and 152 acres are privately owned. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

3

1.3 Purpose & Need for Action ________________________ 

The purpose of this project is to: 

x Reduce the risk of high-intensity wildland fire to life, property, and natural resources in the 

Elk City and surrounding WUI area; 

x Manage forest stands to create conditions that will contribute to sustaining long-lived fire 

tolerant tree species; 

x Design a public transportation system that provides safe travel routes for the public, while 

meeting watershed and fisheries management goals, in a cost effective manner; 

x Create an upward trend in fish habitat condition; 

x Contribute to the economic and social well being of area users and local residents; and 

x Implement intensive forest management decisions from the MFP. 

The forest vegetation in the Elk City area is dominated by lodgepole pine that established following 

wildfires occurring in the late 1800s and early 1900s. These stands have reached maturity (80–130 years 

old) and are well into the cycle where mountain pine beetles attack and kill individuals and groups of 

trees. Aerial surveys supporting the 2003 Zone Entomologist report for the Nez Perce National Forest 

(NPNF) indicate that the mountain pine beetle activity is currently intense and expanding (USDA-FS, 

2005a). The bark beetle activity continues to kill trees that will accumulate as standing and down fuels 

over the next 10–20 years. The potential for high-intensity stand replacing fire to occur in the project area, 

and potentially impact the WUI (Appendix A, Map 17) is high and increasing. The associated risk to 

firefighter and public safety is also increasing. The fuels reduction activities proposed are needed to 

reduce this potential.

Fire suppression has limited the extent of wildfire in the area in the past 70 years. The resultant stands 

have an excessively dense, small tree component of shade tolerant trees (i.e., grand fir, subalpine fir) with 

multi-storied conditions creating a fuel ladder situation. The dead and dying lodgepole pine, combined 

with the dense small trees, creates conditions conducive for intense fires. In order to reduce the likelihood 

of high-intensity wildland fires, these stands need to be changed to increase the presence of long-lived, 

fire tolerant species. This would result in reduced fire behavior and create a forest stand that is more 

resilient to insects, disease, and other forest disturbances. 

The primary ingress and egress to subdivisions in the project area is a portion of the American River road 

that crosses private and BLM land. This is the primary route that would be used in the event of an 

evacuation of these residential areas. Another portion of this road across BLM land is considered by 

residents as a secondary escape route. Both road portions are adjacent to the American River. Both road 

portions are a chronic source for sediment delivery into the river, limit the amount of vegetation along the 

river, and restrict the river flow to a narrow channel. BLM needs to consider/manage a transportation 

system that provides, in a cost-effective manner, safe travel routes for public and firefighter safety, and 

allows for management of the public resources. 

Fish habitat in portions of the analysis area is currently below the desired future condition identified in the 

Chief Joseph MFP Addendum 1 (USDI-BLM, 1989a). Streams in the area support both resident and 

anadromous fisheries, including two species listed as threatened (steelhead and bull trout) and BLM 

sensitive fish species (spring/summer chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, and Pacific lamprey). 

Aquatic and riparian conditions in the area, particularly fish habitat, have been degraded through a variety 

of human uses, but primarily historic mining activities. Natural recovery in these systems is very slow, 

although several actions are ongoing or have been implemented by the BLM and FS to improve these 

conditions. Watershed restoration actions are needed to improve the fish habitat conditions from poor/fair 

and to continue an upward trend. 

Elk City is a community dependent on forest products and recreation, due to the remoteness of this area 

and the large federal land ownership surrounding the town. Elk City relies heavily on the revenues 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

4

generated from forest products and recreational activities including hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and 

camping. Revenues generated from the federal lands support the community, schools, and other 

businesses. BLM and NPNF play a major role in the future of Elk City. Wildland fires have the potential 

to destroy private property and the resources Elk City relies upon. The effects from a wildland fire would 

be felt for many years into the future. BLM needs to actively manage the public land resources (i.e., 

forest, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, weeds) in a manner that will benefit the resources and the local 

economy. 

1.4 Proposed Action _________________________________ 

The following is an overview of the Eastside Project. The project area is 3,273 acres in the east portion of 

the Elk City township (see Appendix A, Map 1). Additional project details are further described in 

Chapter 2 and Appendix D. 

The proposed project would include treatments and restoration activities on BLM administered land only. 

Existing roads and construction of temporary roads across NPNF and private lands would be necessary to 

reach the treatment areas. The NPNF would make a decision about the BLM constructing temporary 

roads based on this EIS. 

The proposed project would treat about 1,293 acres of public land to create current and future stand 

conditions that reduce the potential for, and the extent of, high-intensity wild fires within wildland urban 

interface (WUI) areas on BLM lands. The project would create an area where there would be less crown 

fire hazard, lower potential flame lengths, and lower ember potential (effects spotting) on BLM lands 

adjacent to Elk City and the American River Subdivisions. Methods for accomplishing the project 

include: combinations of commercial timber harvest; understory thinning; prescribed burning and hand or 

machine piling and burning; and biomass utilization. Treatments would: remove surface and ladder fuels; 

reduce crown and stand density; reduce the amount of area dominated by lodgepole pine; increase the 

proportion of Douglas-fir, western larch, and ponderosa pine of current stands and planting these species 

following fuel treatments. 

An important part of the project involves watershed restoration activities designed to support an upward 

trend toward fair to good condition in the long term for riparian/aquatic habitats within the American 

River watershed. The proposed action includes riparian tree and shrub planting on reaches of the 

American River where there is a current deficit of woody vegetation. Streambank re-contouring, along 

with riparian tree and shrub planting, would occur on reaches of the American River. Queen Creek (a 1.35 

mile fish-bearing stream) would be reconnected with American River. River and stream fords would be 

replaced with ATV bridges and/or hardened. Some existing roads along the American River would be 

replaced with new roads, converted to ATV trails, or decommissioned. 

Implementation of the Eastside Project is expected to begin in early 2007 and could take five to ten years 

to complete, depending on available funding. Restoration work would take place concurrently with 

vegetation and fuels treatments. 

Timing of some portions to the project would be closely coordinated with the NPNF and implementation 

of their American and Crooked River Project, which involves similar treatments. Seasonal road closures, 

road construction, restoration work, and restrictions on entry frequencies in some subwatersheds would 

require the most coordination. 

The project would be implemented through a combination of traditional service contracts, timber sale 

contracts, stewardship contracts (exchanging goods for services) and local partnership. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

5

1.5 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans ________ 

BLM Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan–North Idaho Timber Management FEIS 

The Chief Joseph MFP, as amended, and the North Idaho Timber Management FEIS allocate resource 

management emphasis to areas based on the land’s capabilities. The forested areas are divided into three 

levels of forest management: intensive, extensive, and custodial. The proposed treatment units lie in the 

Intensive Timber Management land class. The MFP (p. II-4 and 6) and North Idaho Timber Management 

FEIS (p. 2–11) state that lands classified for Intensive Timber Management would be managed to 

maximize timber production on a sustained yield basis. Timber would be the primary goal of management 

activities.

The MFP (p. II-36–41) outlines visual resource management (VRM) controls. The Eastside Project 

contains VRM Class III designated lands, where management activities may repeat the dominant 

qualities common in the landscape and may visually change the essential character of existing 

dominance factors. However, changes are generally subordinate to the visual strength of the natural 

landscape.

The Fisheries/Water Quality Refinement of the Chief Joseph MFP (USDI-BLM, 1989a) identifies 

fisheries/water quality objectives by prescription watershed and includes a set of guidelines to identify 

potential improvement opportunities or areas needing protection. The Eastside Project includes portions 

of eight prescription watersheds, seven of which are below the percent habitat potential objective stated in 

this supplement. For those streams that are below carrying capacity because of a lack of diversity and/or 

instream cover, the guideline states that timber management can occur concurrent with habitat 

improvement efforts that show a positive upward trend. 

Actions identified in the MFP that can result in an upward trend include reconstructing stream channels, 

removing migration barriers, rehabilitating stream banks, and imposing recreation use restrictions for 

intensive aquatic wildlife habitat management (p. II-35 and 36). 

Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

National forest management must be consistent with forest plans prepared under authority of the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA) [16 U.S.C. 1604 and CFR 219.10]. Forest Plan implementation 

includes the identification and scheduling of resource activities (site specific projects) that meet the 

direction provided by the Forest Plan. The road construction and use proposed by BLM across NPNF 

lands, if approved, would be in conformance with the Forest Plan and would include FS road standards. 

The Northern Idaho Grazing EIS (1981) Record of Decision, and North Idaho Range Management 

Program (1988) 

There are two grazing allotments within the project area that were established as a result of these planning 

documents. 

1.6 Relationship to non-BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

PACFISH 

The Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous 

Fish-producing Watershed in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of California

(PACFISH) (USDA-USDI, 1995) amended the NPNF Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Amendment 20). The MFP was not amended by PACFISH; however, BLM implements PACFISH in 

conformance with the Terms and Conditions of the 1998 Biological Opinions on the MFP for steelhead 

and bull trout. The Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are areas where management activities 

are subject to specific standards and guidelines in PACFISH and would be applied in the Eastside Project. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

6

North Idaho Fire Management Plan 

The North Idaho Fire Management Plan (FMP) (USDI, 2005) recommends objectives and fuels treatment 

strategies to achieve National Fire Plan and MFP guidance by Fire Management Unit (FMU). The 

Eastside Project is in the Elk City FMU. The FMP ranks the Elk City FMU as a HIGH priority for 

allocating prescribed fire and non-fire fuel reduction resources. Fuel treatment priorities include reduction 

of ground, ladder, and surface fuels within and adjacent to WUI intermix, as well as reduction of stand 

densities. Objectives for the FMU are 500–1500 acres of prescribed fire in any 5-year period, and 1,300–

3,000 acres of mechanical treatments in any 5-year period. 

National Fire Plan 

The Eastside Project implements key components of the National Fire Plan, as addressed in the 10-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy (USDA-USDI, 2002), including the reduction of hazardous fuels. The 

Comprehensive Strategy assigns the highest priority for hazardous fuels reduction to communities at risk, 

readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and other important 

local features where conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires. 

Following the extreme fire season of 2000, Congress directed Federal land management agencies to work 

with State governments to develop a national strategy for the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems. The 

National Fire Plan was intended to respond to severe wildland fires, reduce impacts on rural communities, 

and ensure effective firefighting capacity. The result is a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDA-USDI, 

2002) that represents the joint effort of federal, state, tribal, and local governments and non-governmental 

representatives. The Strategy is meant to facilitate collaboration between fire management organizations 

and communities to reach local and landscape-level goals, such as protection of property and restoration 

of fire-prone ecosystems, and to establish cost effective measures and reporting procedures to ensure 

accountability.

The goals of the 10-Year Strategy are to improve prevention and suppression, reduce hazardous fuels, 

restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and to promote community assistance. Specific actions designed to reach 

those goals include: prioritizing management activities so that communities that are most at risk in the 

wildland urban interface receive priority for hazardous fuels treatments; developing strategies to address 

fire-prone ecosystem problems that augment fire risk or threaten sustainability; and promoting public 

knowledge of wildland fire and its role in natural ecosystem processes. 

Idaho County Wildfire Mitigation Plan (2005) 

The Proposed Action implements recommendations from the Idaho County Wildland Fire and Mitigation 

Plan (CRCD, 2005), which recommends the project area as a high priority for fuels reduction within the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

In 2005, Idaho County completed the Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which identifies communities at risk and 

the WUI, evaluates the risks, establishes mitigation priorities, and develops mitigation strategies for all 

communities at risk within the county. This plan identifies Elk City as a community at risk and lists all 

current and proposed fuels treatment projects within the Elk City region, including the Eastside Project, as 

high priority. 

This plan defines WUI based on four conditions: interface, intermix, occluded, and rural. These WUI 

conditions were delineated for the county based on structure density and using mathematical formulas and 

population density indexes to create concentric circles showing high density areas of interface and 

intermix WUI, as well as rural conditions. Most of the Elk City township, including the entire Eastside 

Project area, falls within interface and intermix WUI (Appendix A, Map 17). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

7

1.7 Relationships to Laws, Regulations and Statutes______ 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as Amended 

The Eastside Project was developed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The project would be 

implemented in accordance with the regulations found in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 5003 

(BLM) and 36 CFR 219 (Forest Service). This EIS is prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations at 40 CFR 1500. 

Other laws and regulations pertaining to this project include, but are not limited to: 

x American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites; 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

x Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended 

x Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments) of 1972 as amended. 

The Clean Water Act is addressed through Project Design Features (Table 2.3.1), using Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) and monitoring (Appendix E). For more information, see 

Regulatory Framework in the Watershed, and Fisheries Sections in Chapter 3. 

x Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

x Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species 

x Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, providing for protection and management of floodplains and 

wetlands.

x Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice 

x Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds 

x Federal Noxious Weed Act (1974), as amended 

x Idaho Forest Practices Act of 1974 

x Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act 

x Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1966 

x Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 

x National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and amendments. Implementation of Section 

106 is codified under 36 CFR 800 

1.8 Decisions to be Made _____________________________ 

The BLM Cottonwood Field Manager will make the following decisions and document them in a Record 

of Decision following the final environmental impact statement (FEIS): 

Should the BLM do fuels/vegetation treatments to create a fuel reduction area on Bureau of Land 

Management lands to protect adjacent subdivisions, private property, and natural resources from the 

risks associated with wildland fire? If so: 

x What vegetation treatment methods should be used? 

x How many acres should be treated? 

x Should management activities occur in RHCAs? If so, how and where? 

x If timber is harvested, how should harvest unit slash be treated? 

x Should some roads be improved, constructed, or maintained to provide access for treatment 

activities? If so, which? 

x Should some roads be obliterated/decommissioned/seasonally closed in order to meet the 

MFP requirements for a concurrent upward trend of aquatic/riparian areas? If so, which? 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

8

x Should some roads be converted to ATV trails with restricted running surface widths in order 

to meet the MFP requirements for a concurrent upward trend of aquatic/riparian areas? If so, 

which? 

x Should some roads be improved, constructed, or maintained to provide access and escape 

routes for residential areas? If so, which? 

x What design features and mitigation measures should be required to meet MFP and 

PACFISH standards and guidelines for all resources? 

x What monitoring requirements are appropriate to evaluate the implementation and 

effectiveness of this project? 

The Nez Perce Forest Supervisor will make the following decisions and document them in a Record of 

Decision accompanying or following the environmental impact statement (FEIS): 

Should some roads be improved, constructed, or maintained across NPNF lands to provide access 

for treatment activities on BLM land? If so, which, and what road standards or restrictions should 

be applied? 

1.9 Scoping and Issues ______________________________ 

1.9.1 Scoping Summary 

In February of 2004, the BLM mailed letters to approximately 200 interested individuals, agencies, the 

Nez Perce Tribe, organizations, and adjacent landowners regarding the proposal to complete fuels 

treatments and forest management in the project area. Based on the comments received and further field 

review, it was determined that analysis using an EIS was appropriate. 

The BLM participated in meetings held in the community of Elk City in March and April of 2005 to 

discuss the project. The meetings were open to all, and the sponsors invited several regional 

environmental groups. These meetings were attended by 25–30 local residents, landowners, and business 

representatives. 

In July 2005, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register. Over 250 

letters were sent to interested individuals, agencies, the Nez Perce Tribe, and organizations requesting 

comments on the proposal. A public meeting and field tour were held in August 2005. An additional field 

trip was conducted with a representative from the NOAA, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Idaho 

Conservation League in August 2005. 

The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team analyzed comments from the public and BLM resource specialists and 

developed the list of issues and concerns raised about the proposed project. Many of the comments 

disagreed with, or debated the potential environmental impacts of, the Proposed Action. As such, they 

influenced the design and evaluation of alternatives to the Proposed Action. Chapter 4 of the EIS contains 

a synopsis of public comments received during scoping and the Eastside Fuels/Vegetation Project Record 

contains additional information on the scoping and issue development process. 

The Issues are assigned to one of three categories: major issues, other issues, and issues not analyzed in 

detail. Major issues are used to formulate alternatives, mitigation measures, or project design elements to 

address the effects of proposed activities. Other issues include resources affected that do not lead to a new 

alternative but are analyzed in terms of environmental consequences. Issues not analyzed in detail are 

issues that: are addressed through the project design; were considered to be outside the scope of the 

analysis; are already decided by law, regulation, the MFP; or are mitigated as standard operating 

procedures. Issues not analyzed in detail do not require tracking throughout the document. 

The major issues carried forward in this document are grouped below by resource and described using an 

issue statement, brief background information, and a list of indicators that were used to determine/ 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

9

measure the effects of the proposed activities. Chapter 2 includes a summary that compares the effects of 

the alternatives on major issues and their indicators. Chapter 3 describes the consequences of the 

alternatives in terms of the issues.

1.9.2 Major Issues 

The BLM defines major issues as those that require project-specific alternatives, mitigation measures, or 

design elements to address the effects of proposed activities. The Eastside Fuels/Vegetation Project ID 

Team identified hazardous fuels, water quality, riparian/aquatic habitat, and access management as the 

major issues. 

1.9.2.1 Hazardous Fuels 

Two differing viewpoints were expressed during scoping regarding the primary purpose and need for the 

project, and the extent of the project. Issues 1 and 2 reflect these. 

Issue 1: Proposed fuel/vegetation activities are not needed and are ineffective in protecting communities, 

structures, and reducing the effect of wildfire across the landscape. The dead and dying lodgepole pine in 

the project area are a natural and periodic occurrence. Removing fuels, tree, and understory vegetation 

within 200 feet has proven effective in protecting structures. Thinning and logging activities can allow for 

greater fire spread and severity. The stands in this area have evolved within a fire regime that historically 

sustained large scale moderate- to high-severity fires. 

Background: Models and observation of landscape scale fire behavior and the impacts of fuel 

treatments clearly suggest that a landscape approach is more likely to have significant overall impacts 

on fire spread, intensity, perimeters, and suppression capability. Models, field observations, and 

experiments indicate that for a given set of weather conditions, fire behavior is strongly influenced by 

fuel structure and composition. Fuels/vegetation treatments adjacent to structures are not a part of the 

project and are being accomplished through Firewise and defensible space programs funded in part by 

the BLM. Both existing fuels and those generated through vegetation management activities would be 

treated on site or utilized off site. Large intense fires within the wildland urban interface are not an 

acceptable management philosophy. The National Fire Plan was initiated in direct response to large 

intense fires occurring within WUI areas. 

Issue 2: Proposed fuel/vegetation activities are needed to protect the community of Elk City, the 

American River Subdivision, other subdivisions in the project area, and the natural resources in the area. 

The large amount of dead and dying lodgepole pine is creating an unacceptable hazard. Doing nothing is 

irresponsible.

Background: In recent years there have been several large scale fires on the adjacent Nez Perce 

National Forest. For example, the Slims Fire was near Elk City, and its projected movement pattern 

showed it coming into the township. It is what generated the evacuation plan and the construction of a 

contingency line on Anderson Butte. The recent 4,500 acre Blackerby fire occurred in the wildland 

urban interface near the community of Mount Idaho. At one point, this fire was the number-one 

priority for wildland fire suppression resources in the country. The fire was suppressed at a cost of 

approximately 2.5 million dollars. Maps of fire severity made following the fire illustrate that most of 

the impact occurred in harvested areas with residual slash on private lands, and in areas that have not 

had any type of fuels/vegetation treatments for several years or not at all. 

Indicators:

x Area and distribution of current and future fuel model conditions 

x Area and distribution of stands susceptible to fires with high flame lengths and susceptible to 

high intensity crown fires 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

10

x Area and distribution of stands with high potential for wildfire-caused tree mortality 

x Acres dominated by lodgepole pine stands susceptible to mountain pine beetle 

1.9.2.2 Watershed 

Issue 3: Proposed road construction, road reconstruction, road decommissioning, and conversion of roads 

to OHV trails affect watershed condition in the short and/or long term. 

Background: Road density (miles of road per square mile of area) affects hydrologic function by 

increasing surface flow due to soil compaction, channeling flow through ditches and cross drains, and 

by intercepting subsurface water, thereby increasing the potential for surface erosion. 

Project design features and Best Management Practices can greatly reduce impacts from roads, road 

construction, and reconstruction. Decommissioning roads can eliminate most of the watershed 

impacts from roads. Conversion of roads to trails can greatly reduce the impacts from roads. 

Indicators: Watershed Condition 

x Total road density (miles/square mile) 

x Road miles within RHCAs 

x Miles of new construction, reconstruction, decommissioning 

Issue 4: Proposed vegetation treatment activities may increase water yield and change timing and 

duration of peak runoff, thereby decreasing stream channel stability. 

Background: Management activities can affect water yield and the timing and duration of peak flow 

through alterations in forest canopy. Analysis of changes in forest canopy closure can be used to 

assess potential changes in mobilization of both large and small materials, causing increased erosion 

and deposition in downstream areas. 

Indicator: Water Yield 

x Equivalent Clearcut Area 

Issue 5: Proposed activities may increase erosion and sediment yield, which could impair fish habitat, 

and affect 303(d) listed streams. 

Background: Many watersheds have been affected by past activities such as mining, timber harvest, 

road building, and grazing. These historic activities have affected water quality through increased 

sediment delivery to streams. Harvest, fuels reduction, and roadwork have the potential to increase 

sediment production and delivery into streams. Some watershed improvement projects have the 

potential to produce sediment in the short-term but are designed to result in long-term reductions in 

sediment yield. 

Indicators: Sediment Yield 

x Sediment yield percent over base as modeled by NEZSED 

x Sediment yield not modeled by NEZSED–streambank recontour, stream crossing alterations, 

stream re-connect 

x Sediment reductions not modeled by NEZSED 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

11

1.9.2.3 Fisheries 

Issue 6: Proposed riparian planting and streambank re-contour activities affect fish and fish habitat by 

increasing streamside shading and the number of trees that may fall into the stream channels, and affect 

303(d) listed streams. 

Background: Many watershed riparian areas have been heavily affected by past mining activities that 

have reduced meanders, removed streamside vegetation and created dredge piles with limited 

potential to support vegetation. Water temperature controls the rate of biologic process, is of critical 

concern for fish populations, and is a primary indicator of habitat conditions. Past and foreseeable 

restoration activities in this watershed have and may contribute to an upward trend. 

Indicators:

x Stream temperature 

x Estimated large woody debris 

x Qualitative assessment of debris recruitment, cycling, and how the project could affect future 

riparian trends concerning this element 

Issue 7: Proposed streambank re-contour, harvest, road construction, road reconstruction, and road 

decommissioning activities have the potential to cause increased short-term sediment delivery to streams 

in the analysis area, decreasing quantity and quality of spawning, rearing, and over-wintering fish habitat 

for Federally listed and BLM sensitive species. 

Background: Historically, increased sediment yield to the American River watershed has resulted in 

high levels of deposited sediment in many streams, including mainstream American River. The 

American River watershed has been identified as a priority watershed for anadromous fish. High 

levels of deposited sediment reduce the biological carrying capacity for fish and other aquatic 

organisms and quality of spawning habitat. 

Short-term increases in sediment yield from proposed activities may contribute to degraded substrate 

conditions and further reduce carrying capacity and quality of spawning habitat. Past and foreseeable 

restoration activities in this watershed have and will contribute to an upward trend. Long-term 

reduction in sediment yield could result in long-term improvement of substrate conditions. 

Indicators:

x Cobble embeddedness (past and present) 

x Quality of summer and winter rearing habitat carrying capacity as modeled by FISHSED 

Issue 8: The American River has been heavily affected by historic instream mining activities that have 

reduced fish habitat complexity, e.g., meanders, pools, large woody debris, and pool riffle ratios. Also 

roads are encroaching on the river channel and are impacting riparian/aquatic habitat. 

Background: With reduction in large woody debris, accelerated sediment yield, and impacts to 

stream channels from instream mining activities, road encroachment, and timber harvest, there are 

fewer high quality pools in the American River watershed. 

Some proposed activities may result in a short-term reduction in pool quality from increased sediment 

yield. Other proposed activities may result in direct improvement in the number of and quality of 

pools. Sediment reduction actions should result in long-term improvement in pool quality. 

Indicators:

x Poolriffle ratios (past and present) 

x Number of pools 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

12

Issue 9: Proposed stream reconnect and bridge construction activities may affect stream channels and 

processes. Bridge construction has the potential to cause increased sediment delivery to streams in the 

analysis area and a take of some fish species. 

Background: The mainstream American River has been heavily affected by past instream mining 

activities, effectively blocking several tributary streams to fish passage/connectivity and isolating fish 

populations. Road encroachment has created several sediment producing fords of the American River. 

Some proposed activities may in the short-term increase sediment yield, but in the long-term, overall 

sediment yield should decrease. Other proposed activities would result in direct increase in the 

number of miles of accessible stream. 

Indicators:

x Fords eliminated and erosive banks stabilized 

x Additional miles of stream accessible 

1.9.2.4 Road/Trail Access Transportation System 

Issue 10: Proposed activities (road to trail conversions, road relocation and obliteration, and new road 

construction) may restrict administrative/public access to Bureau of Land Management lands and affect 

access routes to homes and private property. 

Background: The road segment along the American River in the north end of the project area is 

considered by local residents to be an escape route from residences along the American River. The 

road segment from Forest Service road 1809 north along the American River is the primary access 

route to homes and property along the American River. Some routes, the road segment along the 

American River on the south end of the project, and few smaller routes are used heavily by off 

highway vehicles, both winter and summer. 

Indicators:

x Miles of new permanent road 

x Miles of road decommissioning 

x Miles of road converted to ATV trail 

x Number of bridges on American River 

Issue 11: Proposed activities include temporary road construction to access vegetation/fuels treatment 

areas. Access to complete management activities requires a transportation network. Designing a 

transportation system that balances implementing projects cost effectively versus the environmental 

impacts from the transportation system is an important project consideration. 

Background: The BLM lands in the east portion of the Elk City township have had very little active 

management applied to them in the last 50 years. None of the primary access routes are owned and 

maintained by the BLM. Except for the area near the Alamance Mine, there are no secondary roads 

on BLM into any of the fuels/vegetation proposed treatment units. The NPNF has dropped two 

temporary roads from the American and Crooked River Project that would access BLM lands on the 

north end of the project. These two temporary roads are now part of this project. 

Indicators:

x Miles of temporary road on BLM 

x Miles of temporary road on private land 

x Miles of temporary road on Forest Service land 

x Areas with roadless characteristics (applies to Forest Service lands only) 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

13

1.9.3 Other Issues 

Other issues do not drive the development of an alternative, but warrant an effects analysis. These issues 

are tracked in this document and analyzed in the Environmental Effects section in Chapter 3. 

1.9.3.1 Air Quality 

Issue 12: All the alternatives have potential to affect air quality in Airshed 13 for Class I and Class II 

areas.

Background: The no action alternative carries the risk of large-scale wildfire, while the action 

alternatives would reduce the risk. Although wildfires are not subject to air quality regulations, they 

will have major impacts on air quality. Prescribed burning as proposed in the action alternatives is 

subject to air quality regulations. 

Indicator:

x Particulate matter and visibility 

1.9.3.2 Vegetation 

Issue 13: Proposed activities can affect vegetative conditions for forest cover types, stand structure (size 

classes, density, and crown cover). 

Background: The proposed activities occur on land identified as within the intensive timber 

management land class. Timber is the primary goal on these lands, to be managed on a sustained yield 

basis. Proposed vegetation/fuels treatments can have an effect on timber and non-timber species. The 

area is sustaining a mountain pine beetle epidemic that is altering the forest conditions throughout the 

project and adjacent areas. 

Indicators:

x Forest cover types 

x Stand structure (size classes, density, crown cover) 

Issue 14: Proposed activities can affect the habitat and populations of Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plant Species. 

Background: Historically vegetation/fuels activities along with road construction altered vegetation 

habitat conditions and affected individual plants or plant populations. 

Indicators:

x Identity and location of Threatened or Endangered Species 

x Identity and location of BLM Sensitive Species 

Issue 15: Proposed activities can affect the potential for current populations of weeds to expand and for 

the introduction of new weed species into the project area. 

Background: Invasive plants can expand following human caused or natural disturbances and invade 

degraded as well as intact habitats. There are two known noxious weeds in the projects area. There is 

the potential for other invasive species considered noxious to become established in the area. 

Indicators:

x Identity and location of noxious weeds. 

x Amount and location of vegetation and soil disturbance activities 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

14

1.9.3.3 Soils 

Issue 16: The proposed vegetation/fuels activities may decrease long-term soil productivity and affect 

soil physical properties. 

Background: Random movement of heavy equipment, skyline yarding, site preparation, and slash 

disposal activities may alter soil properties by compacting, displacing, or puddling. Slope failure can 

occur in response to management activities, particularly roads. 

Indicators:

x Soil compaction and displacement 

x Surface and substratum erosion 

x Mass erosion 

1.9.3.4 Wildlife 

Issue 17: Proposed activities can affect the habitat and populations of threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive wildlife species. 

Background: There are three federally listed species, and eight BLM sensitive species, whose home 

range may include the Eastside Project area. Proposed activities will alter habitat conditions that 

could increase or decrease wildlife use and populations. 

Indicators:

x Threatened or Endangered Species 

x BLM sensitive species 

x Other species of interest 

1.9.3.5 Visual Resource Management 

Issue 18: Proposed vegetation activities may affect the ability to meet Visual Resource Management 

goals for main travel routes through and adjacent to the project area. 

Background: Vegetation activities will generate more open forest than currently exists and would 

alter the visual appearance considerably. Although the visual appearance of the forest would be 

altered with proposed activities, it could be much less than if an intense wildfire were to occur in the 

area.

Indicator:

x Class III Visual Resource Objective 

1.9.3.6 Cultural Resources 

Issue 19: Proposed activities may affect Nez Perce Tribe cultural resources or Traditional Cultural 

Properties in the analysis area. They may also affect historic properties in the area that may be eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Background: Vegetation/fuels activities, road construction, and restoration activities would disturb 

the surface and could impact prehistoric and historic sites in the project area. Project design would be 

implemented to avoid or do as little disturbance as possible. 

Indicator:

x Number, location, and type of sites 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

15

1.9.3.7 Tribal Trust and Treaty Rights 

Issue 20: The Project is within the original Nez Perce territory. 

Background: Consultation was initiated specifically with the Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Department 

regarding identification of any cultural resources or Traditional Cultural Properties in the analysis 

area. The Nez Perce Tribe Natural Resource Subcommittee has also been consulted. 

Indicator:

x Cultural resources and treaty rights 

1.9.3.8 Grazing 

Issue 21: Vegetation and fuels activities may affect the ability of permittees to utilize BLM land for a 

period of time. 

Background: Livestock grazing is currently being done on portions of the project area. Proposed 

vegetation and fuels activities will interfere with grazing during the implementation of the project. 

Also, restrictions could be placed on grazing portions of the project area for several years until tree 

seedlings have an opportunity to become established. 

Indicator:

x Number of permittees and restricted use time period 

1.9.3.9 Socio Economic 

Issue 22: The proposal has potential to influence income and jobs. 

Background: The cost of implementing a fuels/vegetation and restoration project compared to the 

economic benefits of the project is a concern. The economies of communities near the project are 

influenced by resources from the forest—primarily timber and recreation. Fuels/vegetation projects, 

and the associated sale of timber, provide economic and socio-economic values and opportunities to 

local communities. This includes jobs and income. 

Indicators:

x Local employment 

x Revenues and costs 

1.9.3.10 Recreation 

Issue 23: Proposed fuels/vegetation treatments and restoration activities may affect existing and future 

recreation uses and opportunities within the project area. 

Background: The proposal may change the existing use patterns by changing road access and 

reducing tree density. Proposed road management may reduce areas for highway vehicles. Reducing 

the tree density may allow snowmobiles to enter new areas. 

Indicators:

x Resource Opportunity Spectrum Class 

x Recreational activities 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

16

1.10 Permits and Licenses _____________________________ 

All proposed treatment activities are on BLM lands. Any work altering a stream channel, such as the 

installation of a culvert, would require appropriate permits and authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Idaho Department of Water Resources, and Idaho Department of Water Quality. 

Most of the temporary road construction is on BLM and National Forest System lands. A road license 

agreement with the NPNF would be necessary to implement all action alternatives. 

Access across private land will require the survey, design, and acquisition of temporary easements to 

implement all action alternatives. 

1.11 Project Record___________________________________ 

This Final EIS hereby incorporates by reference the complete Project Record, located at the BLM 

Cottonwood Field Office, to reduce paperwork without repeating detailed analysis and background 

information available elsewhere. The Project Record contains draft Specialist Reports and other technical 

documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this Final EIS. The record also documents 

the comments received during scoping, that includes meetings, field trips as well as written 

correspondences.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

18

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed 

Action

2.1 Introduction _____________________________________ 

Several alternatives were developed in response to the major issues and concerns and are analyzed in 

detail. Alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study, are summarized in this chapter. The 

chapter concludes with a tabular comparison of the alternatives’ effects on the major issues. The 

comparison is based on indicators selected by the project Interdisciplinary (ID) Team to evaluate how 

each alternative responds to the issues and to the purpose and need for action. 

2.2 Description of Alternatives ________________________ 

Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that all Federal agencies shall 

“...study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” These 

unresolved conflicts, identified by the Bureau of Land Management and the public, are the major NEPA 

issues related to the Proposed Action. 

In addition to responding to unresolved conflicts, an environmental impact statement (EIS) must 

“...rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” [40 CFR 1502.14(a)] 

The courts have established that this direction does not mean every conceivable alternative must be 

considered, but that selection and discussion of alternatives must permit a reasoned choice and foster 

informed decision making and informed public participation. Together, these requirements determine the 

NEPA range of alternatives. 

The alternatives considered in detail were developed in response to the major issues described in 

Chapter 1. Those that were considered but eliminated from detailed study are also discussed below. 

2.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study 

The ID Team considered the past, current, and potential future conditions within the project area, and the 

purpose and need for management actions, and analyzed a variety of possible vegetation treatments and 

alternatives. The following alternatives were eliminated for the reasons stated. 

Treat More Hazardous Fuels than the Alternatives Carried Forward in this EIS 

The ID Team and some respondents identified areas where the fuels and vegetation conditions were 

similar to those that were being treated. The question arose: Why are these areas being left in their current 

condition?

Treatment areas were chosen that would best meet the purpose and need of the project. This is also 

balanced against the effects of the actions on other resource needs, as well as management planning and 

direction. Treating more acres would not be in conformance with the MFP, as amended. 

“Restoration Only” and/or “No Timber Harvest” 

Several respondents requested this alternative. This alternative would have considered implementing 

watershed improvements, such as riparian planting, streambank re-contouring, road decommissioning, 

improving stream crossings (ATV bridges), etc., with no fuel/vegetation activities considered. 

The ID Team determined that this would not meet the MFP goals for intensive forest management, nor 

would this alternative consider the project’s purpose and need regarding the social and economic well 

being of the Elk City area. This alternative would not respond to the purpose and need of treating existing 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

19

and potential fuel loads in the WUI to reduce the effects of potential large-scale wildfire and improving 

the safety and effectiveness of firefighters in fire suppression activities. 

Defensible Space 

Several respondents stated reducing trees and brush within 200 feet of structures is a more effective 

method of protecting structures from wildland fire. 

A defensible space alternative (within 200 feet of structures) would focus fuel treatments largely on 

private lands, where BLM has no jurisdictional authority. This alternative would not treat areas further 

away from structures and would not meet the purpose and need to treat existing and potential fuel loads to 

reduce the effects of potential large-scale wildfire and improve the safety and effectiveness of firefighters 

in fire suppression activities and the general public. It would also fail to address the need for maintaining 

vigorous forest stands and providing for the economic well being of the community. 

Defensible space activities near structures are being supported by the BLM through the NFP Partnership 

Funds and participation in the development and implementation of the Idaho County Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan (CWPP). Idaho County is actively pursuing these defensible space measures through 

their CWPP.

No Road Access across Forest Service Land 

Some respondents requested we consider alternatives that required no temporary road construction or 

access across FS lands, and consider roads originating along the American River. 

This alternative would not meet the watershed objectives required by the MFP, as amended. This 

alternative would have required the construction of roads within RHCAs. The project was designed with 

the intent that temporary roads needed for implementing fuels/vegetation treatments would have minimal 

impact on aquatic resources by locating roads outside the RHCAs. 

2.2.2 Alternatives Considered In Detail 

Four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alt. A), were considered in detail. Table 2.2.1 

displays the activities for all the action alternatives (Alts. B, C, and D). Alternative B, the proposed 

action, and alternatives C and D respond to the major issues outlined in Chapter 1. Alternative B is the 

preferred alternative. 

The amount of fuels/vegetation treatment, other than that listed above in 2.2.1, was not an issue that drew 

a lot of public responses. Therefore, the area of fuel/vegetation treatment proposed in the alternatives is 

very similar. 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives: 

x Avoid activities in high hazard landslide prone areas. 

x Address State of Idaho TMDL limiting factors. 

x Implement watershed restoration activities designed to meet the MFP requirements to have a 

concurrent upward trend in aquatic habitat conditions for prescription watersheds that are below 

objectives.

x Address the effectiveness of fuel reduction activities. 

x Maintain shade and large woody debris within the standards and guidelines prescribed in the 

PACFISH Strategy, including their application to RHCAs. 

The treatment activities would entail changing forest conditions to maintain or increase forest stand 

resilience to low intensity fire, and insects and disease outbreaks by applying a prescription comprising 

regeneration, salvage harvests; pre-commercial and commercial thinning; and prescribed burns. 

Timber harvest would be done through silvicultural systems that are grouped by regeneration or 

intermediate stand treatments. Examples of regeneration harvests include irregular shelterwood treatments 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

20

where trees would be reserve groups and single trees in all sizes. Seedtree and shelterwood are treatments 

where trees would be reserved in a somewhat even distribution across an area, primarily made up of 

larger trees. Commercial and pre-commercial thinning are intermediate stand treatments removing only a 

portion of the trees; leaving trees well distributed throughout. Salvage concentrates on removing dead and 

dying trees. 

Logging systems would be dictated by topography, economics and the need to protect residual stands. 

Logging systems would range from ground-based with hand and/or mechanized felling, cable systems 

with hand felling, to helicopter systems with hand felling or limited mechanized felling. 

Logging and fuels treatment access would use existing roads or on new temporary roads. Roads 

constructed for the project would be decommissioned within the project time period. Temporary roads 

would be decommissioned within three years of construction. Temporary roads are needed across NPNF 

land and on private property (an existing permanent easement), and are part of this project. 

Fuels treatments would be designed to move the distribution of fuel conditions away from fuel model 10 

(potentially very intense burning conditions) towards a fuel model 8 thereby decreasing high-intensity fire 

conditions. Treatments include whole tree yarding, mechanized piling of slash concentrations, hand piling 

in selected areas, underburning (protecting reserve tree groups or single trees), and broadcast burning 

where residual tree survival is of limited concern. 

Slash would be treated with prescribed fire and/or grapple piling or be available for biomass utilization. 

Appendix D contains a detailed table of all the fuels/vegetation treatment types by unit by alternative. The 

vegetation section in Chapter 3 contains an explanation of the existing conditions and environmental 

effects of these alternatives. More information on the developed alternatives is below. 

2.2.3 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Both BLM and the CEQ regulations require the development of the No Action alternative. This 

alternative serves as the baseline for comparison of the effects of all action alternatives. 

Under this alternative, there would be no change in current management direction or in the level of 

ongoing management activities within the project area. No fuel reduction/vegetation treatments associated 

with this project would be implemented. BLM would not be able to enter certain subwatersheds due to the 

entry frequency criteria, identified in BLM and NPNF land use plans. These frequency guidelines as 

described in Table H. 1 and Appendix H, would limit entries to once or three times per decade for certain 

subwatersheds. Since the Forest Service is beginning to implement their American and Crooked River 

Project, the opportunity to treat much of the area except on a limited basis would be lost for another 10 

years. Other projects previously planned that are within and/or adjacent to the project area would still 

occur as separate projects (Chapter 3; Table 3.0.1, Projects considered for cumulative effects). 

2.2.4 Alternative B (Proposed Action–Preferred Alternative) 

The proposed action was developed in response to the purpose and need and public comments. This is the 

preferred alternative. 

This alternative would treat approximately 1,293 acres of public land. It would reduce existing and 

potential fuel loads through a combination of vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments. Vegetation 

manipulation includes removing mainly dead and dying trees and live ladder fuels in both lodgepole pine 

and mixed conifer stands. Fuels treatments include biomass utilization, piling and burning and prescribed 

burning. 

This action would create and maintain stand conditions by: reducing the amount of area dominated by 

lodgepole pine, increasing the Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine component of current and 

future stands, and reducing the stand density of current treated stands. This would be accomplished by 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

21

implementing silvicultural prescriptions that target lodgepole pine dominated stands, targeting mainly 

lodgepole pine for removal from mixed conifer stands, and reducing residual stand densities. Planting of 

Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine (in limited areas) would occur following fuels treatment. 

Additional information about harvest methods can be found Table 2.2.1, Appendix D, and Maps 2–4 in 

Appendix A. 

Actions planned for improvement of vegetative /fuel condition include regeneration treatments that would 

reserve groups and single trees including: approximately 351 acres would be irregular shelterwood, 284 

acres would be shelterwood, 286 acres would be seed tree, 123 acres would be commercially thinned, 140 

acres would be slashed and broadcast burned, and 109 acres would be salvaged with precommercial 

thinning. 

Roads would be needed to access the treatment units. Miles of existing road on private land totals 2.94 

including 2.65 in an existing permanent easement, and 0.29 requiring a temporary easement. Miles of 

existing road across NPNF totals 7.67. An additional 15.1 miles of new temporary road would be required 

and includes 12.97 miles across BLM, 0.19 miles across private, and 2.15 miles across NPNF. Appendix 

J should be referred to for additional details. 

This alternative would implement watershed restoration actions. Riparian tree and shrub planting would 

occur on reaches of the American River where there is a current deficit of woody vegetation. It would be 

done using adapted native species and would include the seeding or planting of grasses, sedges, forbs, 

shrubs, or trees on approximately 4.8 miles. 

Streambank re-contouring along with riparian tree and shrub planting, would occur on reaches of the 

American River. Streambank re-contouring would include the creation of a small terrace or floodplain 

(approximately 8–10 feet in width), immediately adjacent to or above mean high line. This would occur 

on 1.2 miles. 

Queen Creek (a 1.35 mile fish-bearing stream) would be reconnected with American River. This action 

would include the excavation of a stream channel and installation of a culvert on the existing American 

River road. Instream structures will be installed in the channel consisting of woody debris and small rock 

check dams to provide instream cover and create pool habitat. At the road crossing a 7 to 8 foot wide 

culvert would be installed with substrate placed inside the culvert to simulate a natural stream bottom. 

Two fords (one on Lower American River, and one on Kirks Fork) would be closed and replaced with 

ATV bridges.

One ford on Middle American River would be hardened. The road crossing would be hardened with the 

placement of concrete planks or suitable substrate that would be secured to bottom and streambanks so 

that vehicle use or high flows would prevent movement or scouring of the instream ford crossing. 

New permanent road would be constructed (0.6 miles) replacing existing road along American River. The 

existing road would be decommissioned (two segments) and new road constructed in the toe slope area. 

Existing buried utility lines would be moved and located adjacent to the new road. The new road would 

be all weather surfaced. 

This alternative would convert and restore 1.6 miles of existing roads occurring adjacent to American 

River to an ATV trail. Some segments of road occurring adjacent to American River may be obliterated 

when an existing toeslope road may be used for the ATV trail. Minor trail reconstruction or construction 

would occur in localized areas, generally to avoid riparian habitats or stream channel encroachment. 

Approximately 1.9 miles of road would be decommissioned in various locations (primarily in RHCAs). 

Road decommissioning applies to existing roads and can include treatments ranging from abandonment to 

re-contouring. 

Additional information about restoration can be found in Table 2.2.1, Maps 3 and Appendix I. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

22

In the next section, Table 2.3.1 Project Design Features provides details about design measures that will 

be used when implementing those listed actions. 

2.2.5 Alternative C 

This alternative was developed in response to the concerns that the proposed action has too many 

temporary roads, should include more road decommissioning, and access issues raised by the public. To 

address these items: 

x Aerial logging methods were considered instead of cable logging methods in much of the project, thus 

temporary road miles are less than the proposed action (10.5 miles instead of 15.1 in Alt. B). 

x A 1.1 mile road segment along the American River with a ford (a chronic sediment source) is included 

for decommissioning. Alternative B called for hardening of the ford only. 

x This alternative also considers 0.56 miles of new permanent road (80% outside the RHCA) and an 

automobile bridge of the American River, to replace 1.1 miles of road described above. 

This alternative would treat approximately 1,284 acres of public land. It would reduce existing and 

potential fuel loads through a combination of vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments. Vegetation 

manipulation includes removing mainly dead and dying trees and live ladder fuels in both lodgepole pine 

and mixed conifer stands. Fuels treatments include biomass utilization, piling and burning and prescribed 

burning. 

This action would create and maintain stand conditions by: reducing the amount of area dominated by 

lodgepole pine, increasing the Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine component of current and 

future stands, and reducing the stand density of current treated stands. This would be accomplished by 

implementing silvicultural prescriptions that target lodgepole pine dominated stands, targeting mainly 

lodgepole pine for removal from mixed conifer stands, and reducing residual stand densities. Planting 

Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine (in limited areas) would occur following fuels treatment. 

Additional information about harvest methods can be found Table 2.2.1, Appendix D, and Maps 5 and 7 

in Appendix A. 

Actions planned for improvement of vegetative /fuel conditions include regeneration treatments that 

would reserve groups and single trees including: approximately 491 acres would be irregular shelterwood, 

284 acres would be shelterwood, 286 acres would be seed tree, 123 acres would be commercially thinned, 

and 100 acres would be salvaged with precommercial thinning. Compared to alternative B this alternative 

utilizes the same vegetation/fuels treatments with the exception that 140 acres of slashing and burning 

would be logged with helicopter. 

Roads would be needed to access the treatment units. Miles of existing road on private land totals 2.94 

including 2.65 in an existing permanent easement, and 0.29 requiring a temporary easement. Miles of 

existing road across NPNF totals 7.67. An additional 10.5 miles of new temporary road would be required 

and includes 8.43 miles across BLM, 0.19 miles across private, and 1.89 miles across NPNF. Appendix J 

should be referred to for additional details. 

This alternative would implement watershed restoration actions. Riparian tree and shrub planting would 

occur on reaches of the American River where there is a current deficit of woody vegetation. It would be 

done using adapted native species and would include the seeding or planting of grasses, sedges, forbs, 

shrubs, or trees on approximately 4.8 miles. 

Streambank re-contouring would occur along with riparian tree and shrub planting, on reaches of the 

American River. Streambank re-contouring would include the creation of a small terrace or floodplain 

(approximately 8–10 feet in width), immediately adjacent to or above mean high line. This would occur 

on 1.2 miles. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

23

Queen Creek (a 1.35 mile fish-bearing stream) would be reconnected with American River. This action 

would include the excavation of a stream channel and installation of a culvert on the existing American 

River road. Instream structures will be installed in the channel consisting of woody debris and small rock 

check dams to provide instream cover and create pool habitat. At the road crossing a 7 to 8 foot wide 

culvert would be installed with substrate placed inside the culvert to simulate a natural stream bottom. 

Two fords (one on Lower American River, and one on Kirks Fork) would be closed and replaced with 

ATV bridges.

One ford on Middle American River would be closed. 

New permanent road would be constructed (0.57 miles) replacing existing road along American River 

south of the subdivision. The existing road would be decommissioned (two segments) and new road 

constructed in the toeslope area. Existing buried utility lines would be moved and located adjacent to the 

new road. The new road would be all weather surfaced. 

New permanent road (0.56 miles) and a bridge would be constructed replacing existing road along the 

American River north of the subdivision. The existing road would be decommissioned. The new road 

would connect to the Erickson Ridge road and be 80 percent outside the RHCA. The new road would be 

all weather surfaced, and closed during the winter to highway vehicles. 

This alternative would convert and restore 1.6 miles of existing roads occurring adjacent to American 

River to an ATV trail. Some segments of road occurring adjacent to American River may be obliterated 

when an existing toe slope road may be used for the ATV trail. Minor trail reconstruction or construction 

would occur in localized areas, generally to avoid riparian habitats or stream channel encroachment. 

Approximately 2.98 miles of road would be decommissioned in various locations (primarily in RHCAs). 

Road decommissioning applies to existing roads and can include treatments ranging from abandonment to 

re-contouring. 

Additional information about restoration can be found in Table 2.2.1, Map 6 and Appendix I. 

Table 2.3.1 Project Design Features provides details about design measures that will be used when 

implementing those listed actions. 

2.2.6 Alternative D 

This alternative was developed in response to the concerns that the proposed action has too many 

temporary roads; additional roads should not be considered for decommissioning but should be converted 

to ATV trails; the main subdivision access road along the American River should be left as is; road 

construction in NPNF “unroaded” areas should not be considered; and other access issues raised by the 

public and NPNF. To address these items: 

x Aerial logging methods were considered instead of cable logging methods in much of the project, 

thus temporary road miles are less than the proposed action (10.7 miles instead of 15.1 in Alt. B). 

x Some treatment areas were dropped that were included in both Alternatives B and C. 

x A 1.1 mile road segment along the American River with a ford (a chronic sediment source) is 

included for conversion to an ATV trail for most of its length, circumventing a short segment 

(that would be decommissioned) and the ford by improving an existing 0.5 mile ATV trail (a trail 

not currently designated by the BLM). Alternative B called for hardening the ford only, it was 

decommissioned in alternative C. 

x This alternative also considers a shorter new permanent road (80% outside the RHCA) and 

bridge of the American River, to replace the road described above. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

24

x Two new permanent road segments that would be constructed to replace portions of the main 

subdivision access road are excluded. 

x Two temporary roads in NPNF “unroaded” areas would not be constructed. 

This alternative would treat approximately 1,171 acres of public land. It would reduce existing and 

potential fuel loads through a combination of vegetation manipulation and fuels treatments. Vegetation 

manipulation includes removing mainly dead and dying trees and live ladder fuels in both lodgepole pine 

and mixed conifer stands. Fuels treatments include biomass utilization, piling and burning and prescribed 

burning. 

This action would create and maintain stand conditions by: reducing the amount of area dominated by 

lodgepole pine, increasing the Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine component of current and 

future stands, and reducing the stand density of current treated stands. This would be accomplished by 

implementing silvicultural prescriptions that target lodgepole pine dominated stands, targeting mainly 

lodgepole pine for removal from mixed conifer stands, and reducing residual stand densities. Planting 

Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine (in limited areas) would occur following fuels treatment. 

Additional information about harvest methods can be found Table 2.2.1, Appendix D, and Maps 8 and 10 

in Appendix A. 

Actions planned for improvement of vegetative /fuel conditions include regeneration treatments that 

would reserve groups and single trees including: approximately 460 acres would be irregular shelterwood, 

252 acres would be shelterwood, 266 acres would be seed tree, 93 acres would be commercially thinned, 

and 100 acres would be salvaged with precommercial thinning. Compared to alternative B this alternative 

utilizes the same vegetation/fuels treatments with the exception that 120 acres of slashing and burning 

would be logged with helicopter. 

Roads would be needed to access the treatment units. Miles of existing road on private land totals 2.94 

including 2.65 in an existing permanent easement, and 0.29 requiring a temporary easement. Miles of 

existing road across NPNF totals 7.67. An additional 10.7 miles of new temporary road would be required 

and includes 10.28 miles across BLM, 0.19 miles across private, and 0.25 miles across NPNF. Appendix 

J should be referred to for additional details. 

This alternative would implement watershed restoration actions. Riparian tree and shrub planting would 

occur on reaches of the American River where there is a current deficit of woody vegetation. It would be 

done using adapted native species and would include the seeding or planting of grasses, sedges, forbs, 

shrubs, or trees on approximately 4.8 miles. 

Streambank re-contouring would occur along with riparian tree and shrub planting, on reaches of the 

American River. Streambank re-contouring would include the creation of a small terrace or floodplain 

(approximately 8–10 feet in width), immediately adjacent to or above mean high water line. This would 

occur on 1.2 miles. 

Queen Creek (a 1.35 mile fish-bearing stream) would be reconnected with American River. This action 

would include the excavation of a stream channel. Instream structures will be installed in the channel 

consisting of woody debris and small rock check dams to provide instream cover and create pool habitat. 

At the road crossing a 7 to 8 foot wide culvert would be installed with substrate placed inside the culvert 

to simulate a natural stream bottom. 

Two fords (one on Lower American River, and one on Kirks Fork) would be closed and replaced with 

ATV bridges.

One ford on Middle American River would be closed. 

New permanent road (0.56 miles) and a bridge would be constructed replacing existing road along the 

American River north of the subdivision. The existing road would be decommissioned. The new road 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

25

would connect to the Erickson Ridge road and be 80 percent outside the RHCA. The new road would be 

all weather surfaced, and closed during the winter to highway vehicles. 

This alternative would convert and restore 2.4 miles of existing roads occurring adjacent to American 

River to an ATV trails. Some segments of road occurring adjacent to American River may be obliterated 

when an existing toe slope road may be used for the ATV trail. Minor trail reconstruction or construction 

would occur in localized areas, generally to avoid riparian habitats or stream channel encroachment. 

Approximately and 1.5 miles of road would be decommissioned in various locations (primarily in 

RHCAs). Road decommissioning applies to existing roads and can include treatments ranging from 

abandonment to re-contouring. 

Additional information about restoration can be found in Table 2.2.1, Map 9 and Appendix I. 

Table 2.3.1 Project Design Features provides details about design measures that will be used when 

implementing those listed actions. 

Table 2.2.1 Comparison of Activities and Outputs by Alternative 

Proposed Activity–Vegetation/Fuels Alt B 

(Proposed) Alt C Alt D 

Tractor Yard/Excavator Pile or Biomass 

Utilization 770 761 728 

Tractor Yard/Burn 31 31 27 

Cable Yard/Burn 298 194 135 

Helicopter Yard/Burn 244 238 

Helicopter Yard/Hand Pile 54 54 43 

Slash/Burn Fuels Treatment Only 140 

Total Acres Treated 1293 1284 1171 

Percent Regeneration 82 83 84 

Acres of Treatment 

Percent Partial Cut/Thin 18 17 16 

Temporary road construction (miles)1 15.1 10.5 10.7 

Road improvement (for timber harvest) (miles)2 2.4 2.4 2.4 

Estimated Green Volume Harvested (MMBF) 9.7 11.1 10.4 

Estimated Dead Volume Harvested (MMBF) 4.1 4.1 3.6 

Proposed Activity–Restoration Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Miles of decommissioned roads3 1.9 3 1.5 

Miles of American River Stream Bank Re-contour 1.2 1.2 1.2 

Miles of New Permanent Road 0.6 1.1 0.6 

New Automobile River Crossing (Bridge) 1 1 

Number of sites of Watershed Trail Improvements4 2 2 3 

Stream crossing improvements5 3 2 2 

Stream crossing closures6 1 1 

Miles of riparian vegetation planting 4.8 4.8 4.8 

Miles of Recreation and Trail improvements 0.2 0.2 

Miles Queen Creek re-connect to American River and increased fish 

habitat access7 1.35 1.35 1.35 

Access change for vehicle use–Automobile use to ATV restricted use 

(miles)8 1.6 1.6 2.4 

Acres of Mine Site Reclamation 0.5 0.5 0.5 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

26

1

 Temporary roads will be decommissioned within one to three years of construction. 

2

 Road improvement covers a range of activities, such as surface blading, drainage repair, and roadway brushing 

with occasional culvert installations, slump repairs, and stabilization work. Road widening could occur with major 

reconstruction. Road improvements stated in this table are not to be considered or confused with routine road 

maintenance that may include but not limited to road prism brushing, clearing, or hazard reduction activities. 3

 Road decommissioning for this project covers a range of activities, from re-contouring to abandonment due to 

grown-in conditions. Some decommissioned roads would be replaced by new permanent road. 4

 This is the replacement of two ATV fords with bridges (one on American River, one on Kirks Fork) with rocking of 

approaches, +ATV trail crossing Alt D. 5

 Stream crossing improvements include upgrading or improving culverts and bridges to improve fish passage and 

peak water flows and are listed as the number of sites, or ford hardening to remove chronic sediment sources. 6

 This is an access change that closes the current ford on the American River in Section 2. 

7

 This is the miles of anadromous fish habitat that will be reconnected to the American River. 8

 This is an access change, which reduces the running surface width and restricts use to two wheeled vehicles or 

snowmobiles over snow or, all terrain vehicle use (ATV) from previous automobile use. Some roads would be 

replaced by new permanent road. 

2.3 Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring ___________ 

The rest of this chapter discusses the design features for the three action alternatives (see Table 2.3.1: 

Project Design Measures). The monitoring plan that would apply to all action alternatives can be found in 

Appendix E. 

Design criteria associated with the fuels/vegetation treatments, and road construction and reconstruction 

were developed to avoid or reduce potential resource impacts. Public comments were considered when 

developing these measures. The following measures and management requirements were designed to 

apply to all action alternatives and will be applied to all contracts, agreements and partnerships. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) were used to design this project and are in addition to the design 

criteria in Table 2.3.1 and discussed above. BMPs are the primary mechanism to enable the achievement 

of water quality standards to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (1977 and 

1987) and Idaho State Water Quality Standards. BMPs are applied as a system of practices that are 

basically a preventative rather than an enforcement system. BMPs include both broad policy and sitespecific prescriptions and are designed to accommodate site-specific conditions. They are tailor-made to 

account for the complexity and physical and biological variability of the natural environment. As defined 

in the Idaho State Water Quality Standards (IDAPA 58.01.02), BMPs include the Idaho Forest Practices 

Act Rules (IDAPA 20.02.01) and Idaho Stream Alteration Rules (IDAPA 37.03.07). 

BMPs specifically tailored to this project are defined in the table below and will be included in contracts 

or other measures used to implement the project. 

In addition, watershed and/or fish habitat restoration activities to improve water quality and fisheries 

habitat in the long-term are required to support an upward trend where timber management activities 

occur at levels considered to be an entry (USDI-BLM 1985). The restoration actions are designed to 

support an upward trend to change effects from existing conditions and past activities that have negatively 

impacted aquatic resources in the affected watersheds. Actions are designed to mitigate effects of harvest 

activities such as increased sediment yield and road densities. Restoration actions may be implemented 

prior to, during or post timber harvest depending on the nature of the action. The watershed restoration 

activities also have specific design criteria and BMPs to reduce the short-term impacts on fish habitat and 

water quality as addressed below and in Appendix I. 
27

Table 2.3.1 Project Design Features 

# Project Design Measure Implementation Method 

Areas Excluded from Timber Harvest or Fuel Reduction Activities 

1 No timber harvest or mechanical fuel reduction activities would occur in RHCAs, or areas of high landslide risk. Project Design, silviculture prescription and field prep. High

data

Vegetation

2

Silvicultural prescriptions would be written for each unit, including slash treatment and burn guidelines to meet desired stand conditions of species composition and structure and watershed sediment guidelines 

Silvicultural prescription, and burn plan High

and b

3 Livestock grazing will be restricted for two growing seasons or until reforestation and restoration objectives are achieved. Grazing Lease coordination with lessees. Mode

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

4

No cutting of trees would be allowed in PACFISH RHCAs, except restoration/habitat improvements, and to facilitate anchoring of cable yarding systems 

Project Design, field prep., contract and contract administration/ inspection 

Highdata

5

Post harvest burning will be designed and implemented with the intent of restricting burning to stay within the unit boundary. Fire that moves outside the external unit boundary will be suppressed if it poses a threat to riparian resources. On occasion fire will move into RHCA adjacent to the harvest unit. Fire will not be ignited within these areas, but may be allowed to back into these areas under conditions where fire intensity will be low and burning will not result in extensive reduction in canopy cover or exposure of bare soil in these RHCA inclusions. 

Silvicultural prescription, burn plan , and BLM Fuels management 

Highburn Lab, 

6

Landslide prone areas are also considered Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). No timber harvest would occur in areas of high landslide risk, as described in (1) above. If additional, unmapped landslide prone 

areas are found during project implementation, areas would be dropped or activities would be modified with watershed specialist oversight to protect slope stability. 

Project Design, silviculture prescription and field prep. 

High

Soils, Water, and Fish Habitat 

7 The State of Idaho Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be applied. These are incorporated by reference. Contract and contract administration/inspection High
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

28

# Project Design Measure Implementation Method 

8

Biomass utilization would be applied where feasible in lieu of excavator piling to reduce physical soil damage and to encourage natural regeneration.

NEPA project design, silviculture prescription, and contract

Highimple

9

Temporary roads would be built, used, and decommissioned within a 1 to 3-year period, in order to reduce the amount of sediment production. Coordination of temporary road use and decommissioning with the NPNF American and Crooked River project would be required. 

NEPA project design and contract administration 

ModemoniBurro

10

Construct slash filter windrows at the toe of fill slopes on newly constructed landings and roads concurrent with construction. Limit height of windrows to 3 feet. Provide breaks & limit length of windrow to allow easy passage of wildlife. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

ModeCook 

11

Snow plowing will maintain a minimum of two inches of snow on the road, leave ditches and culverts functional, sidecast material will not include dirt and gravel, and berms will not be left on shoulder unless drainage holes are opened and maintained. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection. 

12

Timber harvest, fuel reduction, and stream restoration activities would be limited or suspended when soils are wet, such that resource damage may occur, to reduce rutting, displacement and erosion. However, harvest could occur during frozen conditions. Frozen conditions are defined as greater than 4 inches of frozen ground, a barrier of snow greater than two feet in depth (unpacked snow), or one foot in depth (packed snow). 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

Mode(USD2003

13

Excavated skid trails and landings with cut slopes of more than 1 foot would be scarified and recontoured, replacing topsoil as feasible on all landings and trails. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

High al., 19

14

Restore soil permeability on temporary roads and landings by scarifying compacted soils to a minimum of 16 inches, or depth of compaction. Excavator, winged subsoiler or similar equipment is preferred, to avoid mixing surface ash layer and subsoil. Partially recontour where needed, seeding with native species (including annual grasses), mulching where needed, and pull slash over the surface to achieve 50% ground cover prior to seasonal runoff events.

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

High 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

29

# Project Design Measure Implementation Method 

15

Sediment and erosion control measures such as dewatering culverts, sediment barriers, rocking road surfaces and/or ditches, etc., would be used to protect fish habitat and water quality. 

Contract and contract administration High

Road

16

Activities including stream crossing road improvements would be conducted in fish bearing streams between July 1 and August 15 to avoid sediment deposition on emerging steelhead or chinook redds, or disturbance to bull trout moving to natal streams. These dates may be site-specifically adjusted through coordination with the Central Idaho Level I team and other agencies. 

NEPA project design, contract and contract administration/inspection 

Modeexper

17 When designing new structures, consider and give preference to open- bottom arches, bridges and oversized culverts. NEPA project design, contract and contract administration/inspection High

Road

18

During restoration habitat improvement activities, tree felling in RHCAs would occur only where that activity would benefit Riparian Management Objectives

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

High

19 Prior to instream habitat improvement activities, heavy equipment would be inspected to assure no leakage of oil, fuel, or hydraulic fluid. Contract and contract administration/inspection Mode

exper

20

A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (40 CFR 112) would be prepared and implemented that incorporates the rules and requirements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act Section 60, Use of Chemicals and Petroleum Products; and US Department of Transportation rules for fuels haul and temporary storage; and additional direction as applicable. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

High

21

For instream activities in fish-bearing streams that contain listed species, fish are expected to disperse from the activity area. If needed, additional measures would be used to ensure fish are not harmed or killed by instream activity. If electrofishing were necessary, it would be conducted in accordance with NOAA Fisheries electrofishing guidelines found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

Mode

Air Quality 

22

Procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement would be followed, including restrictions imposed by the smoke management-monitoring unit. 

BLM fuels management High

daily unit
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

30

# Project Design Measure Implementation Method 

23

Prescribed burning. Priority in scheduling would be given to units accessed by temporary roads scheduled for decommissioning. 

BLM fuels management High

availaperso

24

Additional restrictions, beyond those imposed by the smoke management monitoring unit, would be considered for prescribed burning for local air quality reasons, including visual. 

BLM fuels management High

Wildlife

25

Should an active goshawk nest be discovered within 450 feet of timber harvest or fuel reduction activities, the nest tree will be protected, as well as a 10–15 acre no-treatment buffer area around the nest tree 

Field prep, contract and contract administration/inspection 

ModeState 

26

The integrity of existing access management restrictions on NPNF roads would be maintained within the planning area for wildlife security purposes. No contractor or their representatives may use motorized vehicles to hunt or trap animals on a restricted road. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

High standpast r

27 Gates/closures will be installed on temporary roads as needed to restrict public vehicle use. Project design, contract, contract administration. Mode

Cultural Resources 

28 Avoid or protect known historic properties when possible. Project design, contract administration High

Adve

29

When necessary to cross historic mine ditches the following will be implemented. Ditches will be approached perpendicular to the ditch to minimize the affect. The ditch crossing will be documented with photographs and GPSed. Logs, culverts, or other solid material will be laid horizontally up to the berm of the ditch. The harvest equipment or cable corridors will only use these designated areas to transport the logs across the platform. When the treatment operation is complete the material will be removed from the ditch. These crossings will be about 20 feet in width. When sections of ditch may be obliterated by road construction then the same documentation actions will be incorporated as well preparing crosssection profiles. 

Project design, contract administration High

Adve
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

31

# Project Design Measure Implementation Method 

30

When historic mine dredge tailings will be impacted the site will be documented with photographs, measured, and GPSed in areas of potential impact. 

Project design, contract administration High

Adve

31

If additional cultural resources are discovered during project implementation then all activities will cease in that area and the BLM archeologist notified and sites evaluated according to 36 CFR 800. 

Contract Administration Mode

recog

32 Treatment activities in units 34 and 35 would be conducted using the frozen conditions noted in #10. Contract and contract administration/inspections Mode

Noxious Weeds 

33

Desirable vegetation would be promptly established on disturbed areas, such as log landings, road cuts and fills, skid trails etc., using native and non-native plant species as appropriate to reach restoration goals. The species used for restoration / revegetation will be determined by the appropriate Cottonwood FO personnel. 

Contract and contract administration/inspection 

Mode

34

All seed utilized in revegetation will be certified weed free and documentation of the seed inspection test will be provided to the contract administrator. All straw and mulch, prior to being used for restoration or revegetation projects, would be certified as free of noxious weed seed. 

Contract and contract administration and inspection

High

35

All mud, soil and plant parts would be removed from all equipment associated with the project before moving into the project area to limit the spread of noxious and other weeds. 

Contract and contract administration and inspection

High

36

All private rock used for road surfacing would be county-certified as free of noxious weed seed. Borrow pits and stockpiles will not be used if it is determined, by the appropriate Cottonwood FO specialist, that it is infested with an invasive plant that is not found in the area where the material will be placed. 

Contract and contract administration/ inspection 

Mode

37

Small outbreaks of invasive weeds within one mile of the project area, and along all haul routes leading to the project areas will be pretreated prior to ground disturbing activities under the existing weed management program. 

Field prep, contract High
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

32

# Project Design Measure Implementation Method 

38

Areas disturbed during project activities will be inventoried a minimum of two years post project to detect establishment of noxious weeds. The inventory data will then be forwarded to the weeds program manager for inclusion in the treatment program. 

Post project monitoring High

39 New weed sites found during inventory efforts will be given a high priority for weed treatment to help prevent further spread. Post project monitoring, BLM weed program protocols. Mode

Sensitive Plants & Plants of Concern 

40

Candystick, a species of concern, occurs in some management units north of Whitaker Creek. Where live mature lodgepole are associated with candystick, groups of live mature lodgepole pine would be left to protect candystick from management activities. 

Project design, field prep, contract and contract administration/ inspection 

High exper

41

Idaho barren strawberry, a BLM sensitive plant species, occurs in some management units Core areas where it occurs would be protected in tractor skidding units. Areas will be avoided or logged when snow conditions are greater than two feet in depth (unpacked snow), or one foot in depth (packed snow). 

Project design, field prep, contract and contract administration/ inspection 

High exper

Grazing

42

Any authorized range improvement (i.e., fences, spring developments) would be restored by the BLM if during the logging operation they were removed or damaged. 

Contract and contract administration/ inspection 

High
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

33

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives on Major Issues___________________Table 2.4.1 compares the alternatives in terms of the environmental effects on the major issues. See Chapter 3 for a compleeffects, and for the scientific basis for the results in this table. Table 2.4.1 Comparison of the Effects of the Eastside Project Alternatives on the Major Issues and Their Indicators 

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Hazardous Fuels – Issue 1: Proposed fuel/vegetation activities are not needed and are ineffective in protecting structures and reducing the effect of wildfire across the landscape. The dead and dying lodgepole pine in the prnatural and periodic occurrence. Hazardous Fuels – Issue 2: Proposed fuel/vegetation activities are needed to protect the community of Elk CityRiver Subdivision, other subdivisions in the project area, and the natural resources in the area. The large amounlodgepole pine is creating an unacceptable hazard. Doing nothing is irresponsible. Area of future fuel model 8 and 8/10

355 acres 

17% 

1,036 acres 

48% 

1,036 acres 

48% 

Future area with low flame length potential, <4ƍ

112 acres 

5% 

472 acres 

21% 

472 acres 

21% 

Future area with surface fire potential

227 acres 

10% 

768 acres 

35% 

768 acres 

35% 

Future area with potential tree mortality <50% 

237 acres 

11% 

644 acres 

29% 

644 acres 

29% 

Area dominated by lodgepole pine 1,670 acres 

53% 

879 acres 

28% 

879 acres 

28% 

Watershed – Issue 3: Proposed road construction, road reconstruction, road decommissioning, and conversion trails affect water quality in the short and/or long term. Total post project road density American River 

2.3 2.3 2.3 

Decreased Road miles in RHCAs 0 2.55 3.70 New miles permanent construction 0 0.57 1.13 Miles temporary road construction 0 15.1 10.5 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

34

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Watershed – Issue 4: Proposed vegetation treatment activities may increase water yield and change timing anrunoff, thereby decreasing stream channel stability. Equivalent Clearcut Area % by subwatershed 

All nine subwatersheds below 15% ECA 

All below 15% except Whitaker at 17%, and Queen at 18%. Risks considered negligible in all subwatersheds because of existing good channel stability 

All below 15% except Whitaker at 16%, and Queen at 18%. Risks considered negligible in all subwatersheds because of existing good channel stability 

All WhQuconall beccha
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

35

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Watershed – Issue 5: Proposed activities may increase erosion and sediment yield, which could impair fish hab303(d) listed streams. Percent over base sediment yield by subwatershed 

No change to slight decrease in some subwatersheds 

East Fork Am. River, Little Elk Creek – No increase.Middle Am. River, Kirks Fork, Lower Elk Creek <5 % increase. Lower Am. River 7% increase.Whitaker Creek, Box Sing Creeks 26% increase.Queen Creek 22% increase.Whitaker and Queen approaching thresholds set in MFP. All increases short term returning to pre-project levels within 5 years except Mid. Am. And Lower Am. River subwatersheds that decrease to below preproject levels due to reduction in chronic sources through restoration.

East Fork Am. River, Little Elk Creek – No increase.Middle Am. River, Kirks Fork, Whitaker Creek, Queen Creek, Lower Elk Creek, Lower Am. River <5 % increase. Box Sing Creek 26% increase.All increases short term returning to pre-project levels within 5 years except Mid. Am. And Lower Am. River subwatersheds that decrease to below preproject levels due to reduction in chronic sources through restoration.

EasLitincMiForLowAmWhSinincWhthreAll retulevexcLowsubdecproredsoures
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

36

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Fisheries – Issue 6: Proposed riparian planting and streambank re-contour activities affect fish and fish habitat streamside shading and the number of trees that may fall into the stream channels, and affect 303(d) listed streLarge woody debris & Stream Temperature 

Expect increased LWD with increased dead and dying lodgepole pine or other trees falling into streams. Lack of vegetation/fuels treatments may contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could affect water temperature. 

Restoration activities should decrease stream temperature in the longterm with growth of streamside trees and shrubs, and subsequent increased shading. No timber harvest occurs within any RHCAs. Negligible risk of causing adverse impacts from harvest/fuels activities. 

Same as Alternative B. Sam

Fisheries – Issue 7: Proposed streambank re-contour, harvest, road construction, road reconstruction, and roaactivities have the potential to cause increased sediment delivery to streams in the analysis area, decreasing quspawning, rearing, and over-wintering fish habitat for Federally listed and BLM sensitive species. Cobble embeddedness Amount currently above 

BO standard all streams 

Measurable short-term degradation (i.e., greater than 10%) predicted in Lower Am. River and Queen Creek 

No measurable change predicted (i.e., less than 10%) to existing condition in all subwatersheds 

Sam

Summer Rearing Habitat Above or near objective 

for all streams 

No measurable change predicted (i.e., less than 10%) to existing condition in all subwatersheds 

Same as Alternative B Sam
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

37

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Winter Rearing Habitat Well below objective for 

all streams 

Measurable short-term degradation (i.e., greater than 10%) predicted in Whitaker and Queen Creek

No measurable change predicted to existing condition in all subwatersheds 

MedegthaWh

Issue 8: The American River has been heavily affected by historic instream mining activities that have reduced complexity, e.g., meanders, pools, large woody debris, and pool riffle ratios. Also roads are encroaching on the are impacting riparian/aquatic habitat. Pool riffle ratios & number of pools Chronic sources of 

erosion/sediment such as stream fords, roads, and historic dredge mined areas would continue to contribute sediment to stream channels and subsequent pool filling. Existing non-point sediment sources would slowly recover over time and pool habitat would slowly improve. 

Would reduce chronic sediment sources attributed to roads, fords, and historic dredge mined areas. Pool quality and quantity would improve in the long-term with restoration actions that improve riparian habitats and large woody debris recruitment to stream channels. Less change than alternative C, but greater than alternative D. 

Would reduce chronic sediment sources attributed to roads, fords, and historic dredge mined areas. Pool quality and quantity would improve in the long-term with restoration actions that improve riparian habitats and large woody debris recruitment to stream channels. Greatest change of alternatives.

Wosedattrand arequain tresimpand recchatha

Issue 9: Proposed stream reconnect and ATV bridge construction activities may affect stream channels and proconstruction has the potential to cause increased sediment delivery to streams in the analysis area and a take oFords eliminated No Change, 2 fords 

remain on American River, 1 ford remains on Kirks Fork 

Middle American River Ford hardened, Lower American River and Kirks Fork fords eliminated. 

Middle American River, Lower American River and Kirks Fork fords eliminated. 

Sam
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

38

Indicator Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed) Alternative C 

Additional anadromous fish habitat accessible 

No Change Queen Creek reconnected to American 

River, 1.35 miles of increased habitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Sam

Issue 10: Proposed activities (road to trail conversions, road relocation and obliteration, and new road constructadministrative/public access to Bureau of Land Management lands, and affect access routes to homes and privMiles new permanent Road None 0.57 in Lower American 

River

0.57 in Lower American River, 0.56 in Middle American River 

0.5Riv

Decreased highway vehicle miles None 2.12 2.62 2.4Miles of road to ATV trail conversion

None 1.62 1.62 2.3

Number of public bridges (highway vehicle)

No change, 1 bridge on road 1809, 1 bridge on road 443 

No change, one bridge on road 1809, 1 bridge on road 443 

New bridge in Middle American River, bridge on road 1809, bridge on road 443 total 3 

Sam

Issue 11: Access to complete management activities requires a transportation network. Proposed activities incluof temporary road construction. Designing a transportation system that balances implementing projects cost effeenvironmental impacts from the transportation system is an important project consideration. Miles of temporary road on BLM None 12.97 8.43 Miles of temporary road on Private None 0.19 0.19 Miles of temporary road on Forest Service

None 2.15* 1.89* 

Areas with roadless characteristics (applies to Forest Service lands only) 

None One affected area, 

American-2, impact to 

unroaded character**

One affected area, 

American-2, impact to 

unroaded character**

* Includes 1.89 miles that was included in the FEIS for the American and Crooked River Project ** Area was included in the FEIS for the American and Crooked River Project 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

40

Chapter 3. Affected Environment–Environmental 

Consequences

3.0 Introduction _____________________________________ 

This chapter describes the environmental components that may be affected by implementation of the 

proposed action or an alternative to the proposed action in the Eastside Project area. Affected

Environment and Environmental Effects have been combined into one chapter to give the reader a more 

concise and connected depiction of what resources exist in the project area and what the effects to those 

resources would be. This chapter describes the direct, indirect, cumulative, irreversible, and irretrievable 

effects by indicator. 

3.0.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The existing condition describes the baseline condition against which environmental effects can be 

evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Data and analysis are 

commensurate with the importance of the possible impacts. 

Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives, 

including the proposed action, through compliance with MFP and NFMP standards and a summary of 

monitoring required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The discussion centers on direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects. Irreversible and irretrievable effects are also discussed for each resource 

indicator. Effects of the action can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. These terms are defined as follows: 

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Irreversible effects are permanent or essentially permanent resource use or losses; they cannot 

be reversed, except in the extreme long-term. Examples of irreversible effects include minerals 

that have been extracted or soil productivity that has been lost. 

Irretrievable effects are losses of productivity or use for a period of time; one example is road 

construction on suitable timberlands. Timber growth on the land is irretrievably lost while the 

land is used as a road, but the timber resource is not irreversibly lost because the land could grow 

trees again in the near future. 

3.0.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Cumulative effects are discussed for each indicator under each resource. The cumulative effects analysis 

area will vary for each resource. Past activities (including grazing, timber harvest, road building, 

prescribed fire, stream and meadow restoration in the American River watershed, etc.) are considered part 

of the existing condition and are covered under the applicable section. Table 3.0.1 displays the past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the American River watershed. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

41

Table 3.0.1 Projects considered for cumulative effects within and adjacent to the Eastside Project Area1

Project Location Activity Time

Period

Buffalo Gulch Timber 

Sale

BLM

Buffalo Gulch Cr 

Timber sale Past 

Maurice Creek Timber 

Sale

BLM

Maurice and Buffalo 

Gulch Creeks 

Timber sale Past 

Crooked River 

Demonstration 

NPNF

Crooked River 

Fuel reduction demonstration Past 

Whiskey South NPNF and BLM 

Campbell Creek, South 

Fork Face, Crooked 

River

Treating fuels, creating fuel breaks, 

timber harvest, watershed 

restoration, roading 

Past

Buffalo Gulch Heap 

Leach Mine 

Pvt on BLM 

Buffalo Gulch Creek 

Vegetation clearing, site 

development 

Past

Little Campbell Creek 

Timber Sale 

BLM

South Fork Face, 

Crooked River Face 

Timber sale, road development Past 

Forgotten 400 BLM 

Lower American River

Timber harvest, roading, instream 

fish habitat improvement 

Past

Bennett Logging Private land 

Section 36 

Timber removal on approximately 

640 acres and roading 

Past

Logging on Private Land Private land 

Various in township 

Timber removal on approximately 

100 acres 

Past

Private land development Private land 

Various in township 

Structure and road development Past 

Red River Instream 

Improvements BPA 

NPNF

Red River 

Instream Structures and Riparian 

Planting

Past

Crooked River Instream 

Improvements BPA 

NPNF

Crooked River 

Instream Structures, Riparian 

Planting, Side Channels, Connecting 

Ponds

Past

American River Instream 

Improvements 

BLM

American River 

Instream Structures and Riparian 

Planting

Past

Relief Creek Instream 

Improvements 

NPNF

Relief Creek 

Instream Structures and Riparian 

Planting

Past

Red River DSP NPNF 

Red River 

Defensible space burning project Past 

East Fork Crooked River 

Bridge

NPNF

Crooked River 

New bridge construction Past 

Box Sing Creek BLM 

Box Sing Creek 

Channel re-connect, removal of 

passage barrier 

Past

 

1

 The table does not include projects that were, or will be, completed using categorical exclusions. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

42

Project Location Activity Time

Period

Blanco Burn Blanco and Lower 

Main Stem of Red 

River

1,000 acres of rehabilitation Present 

Lower Red River 

Meadows Restoration 

NPNF

Red River 

 Present 

Red River Roadside 

Hazard Tree 

NPNF Removal of trees likely to fall on or 

across roads. Placement of large 

woody debris 

Present

Noxious Weed Program NPNF and BLM lands Spot treatments of herbicide 

applications

Present

Crooked River Mining 

Activity (Golden Eagle 

Operation)

NPNF

Crooked River 

Placer Mining Present 

Recreational Suction 

Dredging

BLM and NPNF 

Upper Main stem of 

South Fork 

Small suction dredging Present 

Nez Perce Tribe NPNF 

Tribal restoration 

projects

Watershed and fish habitat 

improvement 

Present

Watershed improvement 

projects

NPNF

Forest wide 

Improving road surface–graveling 

and grading work 

Present

Crooked River Channel 

Maintenance

NPNF

Crooked River 

200 yards of channel restoration Present 

Red River Road Surfacing NPNF 

Red River 

 Present 

Range Allotments NPNF and BLM 

American, Red and 

Crooked Rivers 

Livestock use Present 

Developed Recreation Site 

maintenance and Trail 

Maintenance

NPNF

various

Maintenance Present 

American and Crooked 

River Project 

NPNF

American River and 

Crooked River 

Timber harvest, salvage, road 

decommissioning, watershed 

improvement 

Present

Buffalo Gulch Culvert 

Replacements 

BLM

Buffalo Gulch 

Replace culverts which block fish 

passage

Present

Buffalo Gulch Brook 

Trout Removal Project 

BLM

Buffalo Gulch 

Brook trout removal project Present 

Whiskey South II NPNF and BLM 

Campbell Creek, South 

Fork Face, Crooked 

River

Treating fuels, creating fuel breaks, 

timber sale and roading, road 

decommissioning 

Foreseeable

Future
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

43

Project Location Activity Time

Period

Upper Red River Tribal restoration 

projects on the Nez 

Perce

Culvert replacement & road 

decommissioning 

Foreseeable

Future

Buffalo Gulch Road 

Obliteration

BLM and Framing Our 

Community 

Buffalo Gulch 

Road obliteration Foreseeable 

Future

Orogrande DSP NPNF Defensible space burning project Foreseeable 

Future

Red Pines EIS NPNF 

Red River 

Fuel reduction, watershed and fish 

habitat improvement 

Foreseeable

Future

Templeton NPNF Suction Dredging Foreseeable 

Future

Genesis NPNF Suction Dredging Foreseeable 

Future

This-is-it Placer NPNF 

Crooked River 

Mining Foreseeable 

Future

American River 

Restoration Projects 

BLM

Middle American 

River

Fish passage barrier replacement, 

instream habitat improvement, road 

stabilization and surfacing, channel 

reconnect, road to trail conversion 

Foreseeable

Future

South Fork Clearwater 

River Restoration Project 

BLM

East of Junction Flats 

Rearing channel maintenance, 

riparian planting, road 

decommissioning 

Foreseeable

Future

3.0.3 American River Historic Activities 

The post-settlement development history of American River dates to the mid-19th century. Gold 

discoveries provided the initial impetus for mining, road and trail development, grazing, homesteading, 

and early timber harvest. In recent decades, watershed and instream improvement projects have been 

implemented. These activities have affected the aquatic and terrestrial conditions in American River. 

Further description of these activities and analysis of their effects on various resources are provided in the 

individual resource sections. 

What follows in this section are summaries of specific BLM and NPNF timber harvest projects and 

historic road construction in the American River watershed. These data contributed to the cumulative 

effects analysis in specific resource sections. The information displayed in this document is a compilation 

of available known historic data. No other known historic data is available (40 CFR 1502.22). 

Records were queried to determine historic timber harvest in American River. Most of the larger timber 

sales also included road construction. From the NPNF Watershed Database, total recorded timber harvest 

in the 1950s was 142 acres; 1960s was 2,687 acres; 1970s was 2,591 acres; 1980s was 1,977 acres; 1990s 

was 999 acres; and 2000s to date has been 809 acres. The watershed database includes activities on 

private lands within American River. Timber harvest occurred prior to the 1950s, associated with mining 

and homesteading activities. This data is unavailable (40 CFR 1502.22). 

The NPNF Timber Stand Database (TSMRS) and BLM timber harvest records were queried to determine 

harvest area associated with named timber sales. Table 3.0.2 shows the results of that query for timber 

sales by name greater than 100 acres in size. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

44

Table 3.0.2 NPNF and BLM Timber Harvest History in American River

Timber Sale Time Period Acres

Erickson Ridge 1957–1966 297 

Little Elk 1962–1967 739 

Big Elk 1962–1969 481 

Haysfork Creek 1965–1970 238 

Wart Creek 1969 190 

East Fork/Flint Creek 1972–1975 263 

Buffalo Gulch 1978 35 

Box Sing 1976–1981 125 

Maurice Creek 1977 300 

Limber Luke 1978–1981 661 

Flint Creek 1982–1984 398 

Little Campbell Creek 1984 148 

Kirks Fork 1983–1985 241 

Wigwam 1985–1986 100 

Buffalo Gulch Mine Site 1991 250 

Sparky 1992–1994 293 

East Fork American 1994–1996 412 

Forgotten 400 1996 159 

Limber Meadows 1998 194 

Misc unnamed and small projects Various 1367 

Total 6891 

Road construction history in American River was summarized from the NPNF Watershed Database. 

The earliest road construction recorded in the database was dated 1890. 

Table 3.0.3 Historic Road Construction–American River

Year Miles of Road 

Prior to 1950 49.40 

1950–1959 5.70 

1960–1969 75.00 

1970–1979 48.40 

1980–1989 40.40 

1990–1999 47.10 

2000–2004 3.30 

Total to date 269.30 

3.0.4 Environmental Effects 

The discussion of affected environment and environmental consequences is organized by resource. Under 

each resource, the existing conditions are described for each indicator, followed by the environmental 

effects discussion, by indicator, for each alternative. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

45

3.1 Fire and Fuels ___________________________________ 

3.1.1 Introduction

This project proposes to reduce hazardous fuels at a minimum of two scales. First, at an individual site 

scale, the treatment of fuels at this scale is important and is critically needed to address reducing 

wildland fire intensities within and adjacent to the wildland urban interface (WUI). Treatments would 

reduce the amount and distribution of surface fuels, both living and dead in all size classes. It would 

also reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels that can promote and support large wildland 

fire growth and increase the resistance to control. On the acres treated, the conditions would change 

from those that support torching and crowning to a condition that would moderate fire behavior and 

be more likely to restrict a wildland fire to the surface of the forest floor. 

Secondly, this project looks at the larger drainage or watershed level. Considering both the Eastside 

Project and the NPNF American and Crooked River Project, can help create a pattern that would 

restrict the potential for wildland fires to become large to very large events that might threaten 

communities, road infrastructures and critical resource areas. The treatment areas will have the effect 

of modifying (interrupting) severe fire behavior when fires burn through them under conditions that 

have historically produced large intense fires. 

These areas of modified fire behavior provide fire suppression resources opportunities to safely 

initiate fire control efforts. Firefighters will have anchor points and areas with less intense burning 

characteristics to work from. This allows a better chance to safely reduce the risk of large fires to “atrisk communities” or “communities of interest” such as Elk City, Ericson Ridge, and Upper American 

River along with road infrastructures, and natural resources. An example of how these factors are 

considered in the context of large wildfire events can be found in the Structure Protection 

Contingency Plan for the Elk City township and Red River Area, prepared by the Incident Command 

Team for the Slims Fire in 2003 (USDA-FS, 2003d). 

The focus of these specific treatments is to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels on BLM lands, 

adjoining private and National Forest lands. The reduction of hazardous fuels serves several purposes. 

Treating wildland fuels changes the probability that wildland fires move across the landscape, and 

whether they ultimately impinge on urban areas containing structures, or result in fires of different 

sizes and ecological effects (Finney and Cohen, 2003). Therefore, treatments would create a buffer 

area that would help protect lands, improvements and structures in and around this portion of the Elk 

City township from the threat of wildland fire. It is recognized that wildland fuel treatments are not 

sufficient alone to abate threats to home ignition. Treatments would break up the continuity of 

existing heavy fuel loads both horizontally and vertically that can support high intensity wildland fires 

that move through surface vegetation and into tree crowns during periods of high fire danger. These 

periods of high, very high and extreme fire danger typically occur during late July, August, and early 

September. Conditions have become more volatile by repeated occurrence of drought and increasing 

levels of insect mortality. 

In accordance with MFP (USDI BLM 1981a), slash would be reduced on all treatment areas, for hazard 

reduction, through a combination of machine piling and burning, broadcast burning or underburning. 

3.1.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The Eastside Project analysis area for fire and fuels includes the entire project area. Fuel models, 

using Anderson (1982) represent the surface fuel profile within the project area. Fuel models in the 

project area include fuel models 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10. Descriptions of the fuel models can be found in 

Appendix F. Stand structure and species composition are also components of wildland fuels. These 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

46

parameters when combined with the surface fuels models are used to determine the aerial component 

of the entire fuel profile. 

3.1.1.2 Desired Condition 

The desired condition can best be described by analyzing conditions based on the following 

indicators: (1) forest fuels, amount and distribution of fuels models; (2) fire behavior, flame lengths 

and fire type as it affects risk to life, property, natural resources, and fire fighter effectiveness, and; (3) 

tree mortality. 

One purpose of the Eastside Project is to reduce hazardous fuels and treat natural and activity fuels to 

a level that reduces the risk of undesirable wildland fires, providing fire protection to adjacent 

subdivisions and additional private property. 

When planning an activity, the intent is to either maintain a desired condition, or to trend toward the 

desired condition. If an area is already within the range of desired conditions, a management action 

should either keep the area within the desired ranges, or when the action results in moving outside the 

range, a mechanism to move conditions back into the range should be provided. 

3.1.1.3 Fuel Models 

Fuel models are sets of parameters that describe physical fuel properties, including fuel loading, fuel 

bed depth, and moisture of extinction (Anderson, 1982). Descriptions of the fuel models can be found 

in Appendix F. Each fuel model is typically used to represent a range of conditions in which fire 

behavior may be expected to respond similarly to changes in fuel moisture, wind, and slope. Fuel 

models are used as input in fire behavior prediction models. 

The desired condition is for predicted fire behavior and associated flame lengths to decrease after 

timber harvest, thinning activities, prescribed burning, and slash treatment occur due to the changes in 

the fuel profile. The fuel profile, including small diameter woody material and small diameter 

understory trees, would resemble a Fuel Model 2 or 8 rather than a Fuel Model 10 or 12 (Anderson, 

1982). In a Fuel Model 2, fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels and fires are 

generally surface fires, and less than 3-inch fuel loading is estimated at 4 tons per acre (Anderson, 

1982). In a Fuel Model 8, slow burning surface fires with low flame lengths are generally the case, 

although fire may occasionally encounter a heavy fuel concentration. Less than 3-inch fuel loading in 

this fuel model is estimated at 5 tons per acre (Anderson, 1982). Ladder fuels and the grass-forb-shrub 

component are kept in check by recurring mechanical or prescribed fire entries. Ladder fuels are 

continuous vertical vegetation that connects surface fuels to the crown fuels of overstory trees, 

forming a ladder by which a fire can spread into tree or shrub crowns (DeBano et al., 1998). 

3.1.1.4 Fire Behavior (Flame Length/Fire Type) 

Firefighter effectiveness, or the ease with which firefighters are able to suppress a fire, is based on the 

flame lengths, rates of spread, fire type (surface or crown), and torching. These fire behavior 

characteristics are dependent on the fuel loading and horizontal and vertical continuity of the fuels. 

The North Idaho Fire Planning Unit Fire Management Plan (FMP) (USDI-BLM, 2005) objectives and 

strategies for the Elk City FMU state that all fires will be suppressed at <10 acres 90% of the time to 

protect the WUI and resource values. 

Vegetation treatments that reduce stand densities and stratum layers as well as reducing fuel loading 

would decrease the potential flame lengths, alter the type of fire (surface versus crown), and intensity, 

thereby decreasing the risk to life (including fire suppression crews), property, and natural resources 

should a wildfire occur. The desired condition is to create conditions that allow fire suppression crews 

to effectively suppress most wildfires with hand tools. With the use of hand tools only, fire 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

47

suppression crews can successfully suppress fires burning with flame lengths less than four feet which 

is typical of fuel model 8 (Andrews, 1986). 

3.1.1.5 Tree Mortality 

Fire severity is the ecological effects of fire (DeBano et al., 1998). For trees, severity is often 

measured as percentage of basal area removed (Agee, 1993) The degree of mortality caused by fires is 

a function of stand structure and species composition, fuels loads, vertical continuity of fuels (live and 

dead) and the environmental conditions at the time of the fire. Fires with more intense burning 

conditions (i.e., high flame lengths, crowning) generally kill more trees. 

Analyzing potential fire-caused mortality provides a mechanism for assessing risk to many other 

important forest values (i.e., late-successional habitat, water quality, soil productivity, and scenic 

beauty) that need to be protected at a scale larger than within 200 feet of structures. However, even 

surface fires that burn fine fuels can damage soils, and weaken or kill overstory trees, and provide an 

ignition source for homes and other property (Hungerford et al., 1991; Graham et al., 2000; Cohen 

and Stratton, 2003). Higher potential mortality means the risk is higher. 

3.1.1.6 Analysis Methods 

Stands (excluding major RHCAs and private inholdings) within the project area were sampled in 2004. 

Data collected included the existing fuel model along with stand characteristics that could be used to 

predict future fuel model conditions using the Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator (FFE-FVS) modeling. FFE-FVS simulates fuel dynamics and potential fire behavior over time, 

in the context of stand development and management (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003). Strengths and 

weaknesses of modeling are discussed in Appendix G. Existing stand structure and species composition, 

existing fuel conditions and the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic were modeled. Also fuel 

modeling for the American and Crooked River FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a) are incorporated by reference. 

The existing condition fuel models were then compared with the predicted fuel models ten years hence to 

determine the potential fuel condition for each Alternative.

3.1.2 Indicator 1–Fuels 

3.1.2.1 Existing Condition 

The American River area was impacted heavily by large fires in the latter part of the 19th and early 

part of the 20th century. This created a large area dominated by even-aged stands of early seral 

species, such as lodgepole pine, that are interspersed with areas of mixed conifer species. The 

increased effectiveness of fire suppression in western forests since the 1930s has been followed by a 

subsequent decrease in large fire occurrences. With diminished large fire occurrences and ongoing 

stand successional patterns, litter has built up, tree density has increased, and fuel continuity has 

increased both vertically and horizontally in many areas. This can result in large fires and increased 

fire intensity when a fire does occur. 

The American and Crooked River FEIS describes the fuels in the American River (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

There are of a variety of fuel conditions, described by fire behavior fuel models (Anderson, 1982). 

The fuel models within the area were derived based on potential vegetation, VMP dominance type, 

size class, and canopy cover for stands located within the watershed area. Table 3.1.1 displays the 

acreage of each fuel model currently within the American River watershed. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

48

Table 3.1.1 Current Fuel Models Present in the American River.1

1 2 4 5 8 10 99

Acres 831 203 3504 6617 23038 24397 5 

Percentage 1 <1 6 11 39 42 <1 1

Table adapted from American Crooked FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a)

Fuels on BLM managed lands within the Eastside Project are dominated by models 8 and 10, or a 

combination of 8 and 10, with fuel model 12 occurring incidentally where there is a large amount of 

dead and down trees. Table 3.1.2 depicts the fuels outside of the major RHCAs and private 

inholdings. Walk-through surveys verify that the RHCAs along East Fork of the American River, 

Queen, Box Sing, and Whitaker creeks mostly resemble fuel conditions similar to the adjacent upland. 

Fuels on much of the private inholdings are characterized by models 1, 2, 5, and 8 and are reflected 

above in Table 3.1.1. Fuel models outside the major RHCAs are illustrated on Map 11 in Appendix A. 

Table 3.1.2 Current Fuel Models Eastside Project

81 8/101 101

Acres 913 773 490 

Percentage 42 36 22 1

Fuel plot data was determined using photo guides for 

appraising downed woody fuels sampled 2004. 

Does not include RHCAs or private inholdings. 

3.1.2.2 Environmental Effects 

Fuel quantity is an important element to consider in reducing undesirable fire behavior. Direct effects 

of fire result from the characteristics of the heat regime of the fire, which is controlled by the manner 

in which fuels burn. Managing fuel quantity and arrangement across the landscape can help moderate 

the heat regime of a fire. Additionally, treated areas provide locations where fire suppression 

resources can safely and more effectively initiate fire control measures. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, the fuel loadings, both live and dead, would continue to increase. 

There would be an increase in fuel model 10 and a subsequent decrease in fuel model 8 as these 

stands age and change over time. Additionally, with the mountain pine beetle infestation, most of 

these stands will continue to experience high mortality which would lead to an increase in the dead 

fuel load making these stands best represented by fuel model 12. Wildland fires that occur within Fuel 

Models 10 and 12 offer tremendous resistance to control due to greater flame lengths characteristic of 

these models (Andrews, 1986). In a fuel model 10, fires burn with greater intensity than the other 

timber litter models and crowning, spotting, and torching are more frequent. Fuel model 12 is 

characterized as a continuous layer of slash. Fires burning in fuel model 12 spread quickly through the 

fine fuels and build in intensity as the larger fuels start burning. Active flaming is sustained for long 

periods and can generate a wide variety of firebrands that cause spotting and control problems. See 

Table 3.1.3 below, as well as Map 12 (Appendix A), for predicted fuel model acreage and percentages 

by alternative for the Eastside Project. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

With these alternatives the fuel conditions in the project area would continue to change from fuel 

model 8 to fuel models 10 and 12 as the untreated stands age and fuels accumulate, but at a lesser rate 

than Alternative A. Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce the fuel loadings and continuity over the 

project area. These treatments will modify the fuel models from fuel models 10 and 12, which result 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

49

in fires with high intensities and severity, to fuel models 1 and 8, with lower intensities and severities. 

The areas where the fuels have been modified will help slow fire spread and reduce intensities, which 

would improve the likelihood of successful fire suppression. These fuel treatments would remain 

effective for up to 20 years then, as the vegetation grows, they will become less effective. However, if 

left untreated, the current and increasing fuel buildup would remain for a much longer time frame and 

potential fires would be high intensity and severe in nature. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would treat fuels located within the wildland urban interface (WUI) areas 

within the project area. Therefore, Table 3.1.3 below also identifies the acres treated within the WUI 

by each alternative. As shown the action alternatives are similar in impact. Fuel model 8 increases 24–

26 percent, while fuel models 10, 10/12, and 12 have combined decreases of 28–31 percent compared 

to No Action. Appendix A, Map 13 shows the effects of vegetation and fuels treatments for 

alternative B that is very similar to alternative C. Alternative D would not alter the fuel models in the 

northwest corner of the project. 

Table 3.1.3 Predicted Fuel Models in Year 2015, Eastside Project 

Alternative

Fuel Model A B C D 1

Acres % Area Acres % Area Acres % Area Acres % Area

8 60 3 628 29 628 29 577 27 

8/10 295 14 406 19 406 19 380 18 

10 1450 66 874 40 865 40 942 43 

10/12 299 14 245 11 254 11 254 11 

12 72 3 23 1 23 1 23 1 1

Calculated in FFF-FVS (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003) from reconnaissance data gathered in the proposed area 

and based on proposed treatments. Does not include RHCAs or private inholdings. 

3.1.3 Indicator 2–Predicted Fire Behavior 

3.1.3.1 Existing Condition 

The risk of undesirable fire, including crown fire, can best be described by examining predicted fire 

behavior resulting from existing stand conditions. To analyze the alternatives with respect to predicted 

fire behavior, one can examine fire behavior attributes such as flame length, and potential fire type. 

Table 3.1.4 depicts the potential fire behavior and fire type for the Eastside Project area, if a fire were 

to occur in the existing forested stands under moist low wind (MLW) and very dry high wind 

(VDHW) fuel moisture burning conditions. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

50

Table 3.1.4 Current Fire Behavior Attributes for the Eastside Project

Potential Flame Length Fire–Acres1 Burning

Conditions 1–4 Feet 4–8 Feet 8–20 Feet >20 Feet 

Moist Low Wind 2,176 

Very Dry High Wind 685 56 630 742 

Potential Fire Type–Acres1

Surface Conditional

Crown Passive Crown Active Crown 

Moist Low Wind 2,062 114 

Very Dry High Wind 227 399 1,362 188 

1

Calculated in FFF-FVS (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003) from reconnaissance data gathered in the proposed area 

and based on moist and very dry summer weather and fuel moisture conditions. 

The fuel plot data was analyzed in FFE-FVS to determine the fire behavior attributes. FFE-FVS 

displays measures of fire hazard as they change during the course of stand development and in 

response to management actions and other disturbances. How management actions affect potential 

flame lengths, fuel loading and fire intensity are key questions. As is depicted in Table 3.1.4, under 

very dry burning conditions, much of the area has predicted flame lengths greater than four feet, and 

the predicted fire type is predominately a crown fire. 

3.1.3.2 Environmental Effects 

Predicted fire behavior (flame length and fire type) is an important element to consider when 

determining the effectiveness of proposed management actions. Suppression resources with hand 

tools are generally successful, and hand line should hold the fire, with flame lengths of zero to four 

feet (Andrews, 1986). Four to eight foot flame lengths require mechanized equipment for successful 

suppression operations, and hand line cannot be relied on to hold fire (Andrews, 1986). Fire may 

present serious control problems, such as torching out, crowning, and spotting, and control efforts at 

the fire head will be ineffective with eight foot or greater flame lengths (Andrews, 1986). 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” the amount of area susceptible to increased flame length and crown fire would 

continue to increase. With the lack of management actions most stands would continue to evolve in 

the near future with increased fuel loads, and the continued increase in ladder fuels. In some cases, 

due to the effects of the mountain pine beetle, there will be a loss of most of the overstory trees 

creating a condition of regeneration interspersed with large amounts of dead and down fuels. Table 

3.1.5 below provides acreage of differing potential characteristics by alternative for the Eastside 

Project. There would be a decrease in firefighter and public safety due to fire behavior conditions that 

exhibit a high resistance to control. There would be an increased risk of damage to homes and 

improvements on private property, and impacts to other natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

With these alternatives, the untreated stands would continue to evolve and produce increased flame 

lengths and crown fire potential as they age and fuels accumulate, but at a lesser rate than Alternative 

A. Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce the flame lengths and crown fire potential over the project 

area. Reduced fire intensity potential would improve the likelihood of successful fire suppression. The 

treated area would reduce the potential for wildfire originating on NPNF land impinging on urban 

areas. The Eastside Project, when combined with the adjacent NPNF American and Crooked River 

Project, reduces the potential for a large scale wildland fire originating within the WUI. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

51

Alternatives B, C, and D would treat fuels all located within the WUI areas within the project area. 

Therefore, Table 3.1.5, also identifies the acres within the WUI by each alternative. The treatments 

proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D are meant to decrease the probability that structures or 

natural resources on the eastside of the Elk City township would be threatened by undesirable fire or 

spotting. This treatment includes reducing fuels on BLM lands that could produce firebrands, which 

may threaten natural resources or private homes downwind of the treatment areas. 

The risk of fire starts, natural or human-caused, would not change as a result of implementing any of 

the alternatives considered in detail; only the risk of undesirable fire behavior is being analyzed in this 

section of the analysis. FFE-FVS is not intended to predict the probability of fire or the spread of fire 

between stands (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003). 

Table 3.1.5 Potential Fire Behavior Attributes for the Eastside Project in Year 2015

Potential Flame Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Length1

Acres % Area Acres % Area Acres % Area Acres % Area

1–4 Feet 112 5 472 21 472 21 472 21 

4–8 Feet 108 5 248 11 248 11 212 10 

8–20 Feet 263 12 258 12 258 12 191 9 

>20 Feet 1,730 78 1,235 56 1,235 56 1,335 60 

Potential Fire 

Type–Acres1 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Surface 227 768 768 725 

Conditional Crown 399 113 113 113 

Passive Crown 1,362 938 927 981 

Active Crown 188 357 357 357 

1

Calculated in FFF-FVS (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003) from reconnaissance data gathered in the proposed area 

and very dry high wind conditions. 

3.1.4 Indicator 3–Tree Mortality 

3.1.4.1 Existing Condition 

The potential for direct fire related tree mortality is based upon stand characteristics, vegetation and 

fuels that control the amount of heat affecting living plant tissues. Current conditions on the Eastside 

Project show the potential for high levels of tree mortality from crown scorch alone, including stand 

densities, multiple tree canopy layers (ladder fuels), and heavy fuel loads as represented by fuel model 

10. Table 3.1.6 depicts the potential fire-caused tree mortality by percent of basal area (a measure of 

the cross sectional area of trees on an area), for the Eastside Project area, if a fire were to occur in the 

existing forested stands under moist low wind (MLW) and very dry high wind (VDHW) fuel moisture 

burning conditions. 

Table 3.1.6 Acres of Current Potential Fire Caused Tree Mortality for the Eastside Project 

Potential Mortality % Basal Area Acres1

Burning Conditions <25 25–50 50–75 75–100

Moist Low Wind 780 1352 44 

Very Dry High Wind 131 535 133 1377 

1

Calculated in FFF-FVS (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003) from reconnaissance data gathered in the proposed area 

and based on moist low wind and very dry high conditions. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

52

The fuel plot data was analyzed in FFE-FVS to determine the fire behavior attributes. FFE-FVS 

displays measures of tree mortality as they change during the course of stand development and in 

response to management actions and other disturbances. How management actions effect potential 

tree mortality is a key question on potential impacts to other resources values such as soils, wildlife 

habitat, sensitive or protected fish and visuals. As is depicted in Table 3.1.6, the potential mortality is 

greater than 50 percent on 69 percent of the area under very dry burning conditions. 

3.1.4.2 Environmental Effects 

The small diameter classes of each species are less fire resistant, with grand fir, alpine fir and 

Engelmann spruce the least resistant species. However, the large percentage of the area with greater 

than 50 percent mortality is an indication that large trees will be killed on 69 percent of the area under 

very dry burning conditions. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” the amount of area susceptible to increased tree mortality would continue to 

increase. With the lack of management actions most stands would continue to evolve in the near 

future with increased fuel loads, and the continued increase in ladder fuels, thereby creating 

conditions favorable to increased mortality of large trees. In some cases due to the effects of the 

mountain pine beetle there will be a loss of most of the overstory trees creating a condition of 

regeneration interspersed with large amounts of dead and down fuels. In these areas virtually all of the 

trees would be killed by a potential wildfire. See Table 3.1.5 above for acreage of differing potential 

characteristics by alternative for the Eastside Project. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

With these alternatives the stand conditions would continue to evolve that create conditions for 

increased tree mortality from a potential wildfire, but at a lesser rate than Alternative A. Under 

Alternatives B, C, and D, residual tree mortality would be lowered due to two contributing factors: (1) 

removal of ladder fuels and reduction of surface fuel loads; and (2) retention of larger diameter and 

more fire resistant tree species, such as western larch, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. Additionally, 

tree mortality from future fires would be lower following proposed treatments due to more open stand 

conditions and the retention of fire resistant species. 

Alternatives B, C, and D leave stand conditions where the potential for fire caused mortality is 

lessoned. The alternatives are very similar with a reduction of 20–23 percent in area with a potential 

mortality of 75–100 percent. Table 3.1.7 gives a complete breakdown by alternative. 

Table 3.1.7 Potential Mortality Attributes for the Eastside Project–2015

Potential Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Mortality % 

Basal Area1 Acres % Area Acres % Area Acres % Area Acres % Area

<25 107 5 164 7 164 7 128 6 

25–50 130 6 480 22 480 22 445 20 

50–75 56 2 165 7 165 7 165 7 

75–100 1920 87 1404 64 1404 64 1475 67 1

Calculated in FFF-FVS (Reinhardt and Crookston, 2003) from reconnaissance data gathered in the proposed area 

and based on moist and very dry summer weather and fuel moisture conditions. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

53

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–Fuels, Potential Fire Behavior, Potential Tree Mortality (Common 

to All Alternatives) 

No irreversible commitments are proposed under any of the alternatives. Tree mortality and loss of other 

plant life due to wildfire would be irretrievable but not irreversible as trees and other plant life could be 

regenerated over time. However all untreated areas, including RHCA buffers, could contribute to 

increased risk of high intensity, lethal fires. Under the No Action Alternative, undesirable wildfires could 

occur within the project area in the future. Natural resources and private property could be threatened or 

destroyed. 

3.1.5 Cumulative Effects–Fuels, Potential Fire Behavior, Potential Tree Mortality 

The cumulative effects analysis area for fuels is the American River watershed. The cumulative effects of 

the alternatives considers the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. The effects of the past 

actions are included in the existing condition by indicator. Past BLM categorical exclusions are described 

in greater detail below. Present and foreseeable actions other than categorical exclusions are listed in 

Table 3.0.1. 

Common to All Alternatives 

The fuels management projects adjacent to the project area are the Transportation Corridor Project on 

BLM land and Idaho County has received a Partnership Grant to complete treatments on the road 

corridors on private land that adjoin BLM treatment areas. The purpose of these treatments is to reduce 

available vegetation/fuels within 200 feet of private and public ingress and egress routes, and provide 

suppression opportunities. The size and scope of these treatments are small, but assist in creating a 

dispersed pattern of fuels reduction on BLM lands within the WUI. 

The Sultan 60 and Tailings 40 projects are small timber sales that include fuels reduction. The Sultan 60 

abuts the Eastside Project and Tailings 40 project lies west of the Ericson Ridge road on the north end of 

the Elk City township. The Borowicz 40 completed in 2003 comes up to the Ericson Ridge road on the 

north end of the Elk City township, and also modified the vegetation and fuels conditions. All are small 

projects within the WUI and assist in creating a dispersed pattern of fuels reduction on BLM lands. 

The NPNF is implementing the American and Crooked River Project adjacent to the Eastside Project 

area. “The purpose of this project is to reduce existing and potential forest fuels, create conditions that 

will contribute to sustaining long lived fire tolerant tree species (ponderosa pine, western larch) and 

contribute to the economic and social well being of people who use, and reside with the local area” 

(USDA-FS, 2005a). By implementing the silvicultural prescriptions, that portion of the American and 

Crooked River Project that is in the American River will provide beneficial effects to these communities 

at the landscape scale. The project employs a dispersed treatment strategy, that when combined with the 

Eastside Project, would reduce the effects of a large scale wildland fire. This combination of dispersed 

treatment units over both projects would modify the fuel models from fuel models 10 and 12, which result 

in fires with high intensities and severity, to fuel models 1 and 8, with lower intensities and severities. 

While it is recognized that the area within 200 feet of structures has the most influence on if they would 

survive a wildfire, it is also recognized that fuels management extending away from urban locations 

reduces the likelihood that wildland fires will spread to urbanized areas and pose ignition threats (Finney 

and Cohen, 2003). Also the BLM lands lie between Elk City, the subdivisions along the American River 

and the NPNF lands. Therefore, the Eastside Project would also help protect NPNF lands from wildfire 

originating on private lands. The Eastside Project helps with the landscape level goals by complementing 

the American and Crooked River Project. 

Private Lands–Much of the non-corporate private land adjacent to and within the fuel treatment project 

area has been impacted by recent efforts by the land owners to deal with dead and dying lodgepole pine 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

54

on their properties. Bennett Forest Industries has logged their holdings in the southern portion of the Elk 

City township along the south boundary of the Eastside Project. Elk City Alliance and Framing Our 

Community (a nonprofit organization) have been working through the FIREWISE program with Idaho 

Department of Lands and local landowners in the area doing fuel treatment adjacent to some structures. 

All of these actions provide positive benefits to the private land and the BLM lands in the Elk City 

township, and decrease the risk of property and resource damage, and firefighter and public injury. 

Any future development within the project area subdivisions and additional private property would 

benefit from reduced fire risk under Alternatives B, C and D because of the added fire protection these 

alternatives offer. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This alternative would have no immediate effect on fuel conditions in the project area. However, in the 

short to long term, fuel loadings, both live and dead, would continue to increase, stand structure and 

species composition would change with more late seral species (grand fir, alpine fire, Engelmann spruce) 

becoming established. The result is that more of the project area could sustain fires with greater flame 

lengths, more crown fire potential, and more potential for tree mortality. Over time fire suppression 

options would become more limited, increasing the risk of property and resource damage, and firefighter 

and public injury. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

These alternatives all provide mechanical and prescribed fire fuel reduction treatments, differing in the 

amount and location of those treatments. The fuel reduction can reduce the intensity and severity of a fire 

burning through those areas. 

A recent compilation of available research (Graham et al., 2004) points out that realistic objective of fuel 

treatments is to reduce the likelihood of crown fire and other fire behavior that would lead to a loss in 

value or lead to undesirable future conditions, not to guarantee elimination of crown fire. It goes on to say 

that “the most effective strategy for reducing crown fire occurrence and severity is to (1) reduce surface 

fuels, (2) increase height to live crown, (3) reduce canopy bulk density, and (4) reduce continuity of the 

forest canopy.” It also points out that “fuel treatments can increase the probability of modifying fire 

behavior during most weather conditions. Extreme weather conditions (low fuel moisture contents, low 

humidity, high winds) can create fire behavior that can burn through or breach most fuel treatments 

(Finney et al., 2003). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

55

3.2 Air Quality ______________________________________ 

3.2.1 Introduction

3.2.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The area potentially affected by smoke emissions includes the project area and the airsheds that 

immediately surround it. The project area is located in Idaho Airshed No. 13. The analysis of air quality 

includes identifying the adjacent and down wind airsheds of concern (Class I and non-attainment areas) 

and comparing the amounts of smoke and particulate matter to be produced as a result of the fuels 

treatment activities associated with each alternative. The analysis includes discussion of the consequences 

of wildfire in regards to air quality. 

3.2.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 by the US Congress as amended, is the primary legal instrument for air 

resource management. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 established the designation of Class I and 

II areas for air quality management. Class I areas receive the highest levels of protection under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This program regulates air quality in these areas 

through application of numerical criteria for specific pollutants and use of the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). 

The Bureau of Land Management is a party to the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA), which initiated the joint smoke management program with the state of Montana 

through the Smoke Management Monitoring Unit located in Missoula, Montana. This MOA can be found 

in the project file. The Operating Guide for the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Group is based upon 

the Environmental Protection Agency Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. The 

Smoke Monitoring Unit coordinates prescribed burn activities through meteorological scheduling in order 

to ensure that cumulative air quality impacts are minimized. 

Air quality impacts due to prescribed fire smoke result from a combination of emission production and 

atmospheric dispersion (Sandberg et al., 2002). Dispersion is dependent on meteorological conditions 

including seasonality, large-scale prevailing wind patterns, atmospheric stability, and local terraininfluenced weather patterns. The Smoke Monitoring Unit utilizes dispersion forecasts as a tool for making 

daily burn recommendations to members of the MT/ID Smoke Management Group. 

The Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identify pollutants that have 

adverse effects on public health and welfare and to establish air quality standards for each pollutant. Each 

state is also required to develop an implementation plan to maintain air quality. The EPA has issued 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen 

dioxide, lead and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM 10) and 2.5 microns and 

smaller (PM 2.5). Idaho maintains similar standards for these pollutants. 

Table 3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 10 and PM 2.5

NAAQS 

24-hour average 50ȝg/m3

PM 10 

Annual arithmetic Mean 150ȝg/m3

24-hour average 15ȝg/m3

PM 2.5 

Annual arithmetic Mean 65ȝg/m3
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

55

3.2 Air Quality ______________________________________ 

3.2.1 Introduction

3.2.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The area potentially affected by smoke emissions includes the project area and the airsheds that 

immediately surround it. The project area is located in Idaho Airshed No. 13. The analysis of air quality 

includes identifying the adjacent and down wind airsheds of concern (Class I and non-attainment areas) 

and comparing the amounts of smoke and particulate matter to be produced as a result of the fuels 

treatment activities associated with each alternative. The analysis includes discussion of the consequences 

of wildfire in regards to air quality. 

3.2.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 by the US Congress as amended, is the primary legal instrument for air 

resource management. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 established the designation of Class I and 

II areas for air quality management. Class I areas receive the highest levels of protection under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This program regulates air quality in these areas 

through application of numerical criteria for specific pollutants and use of the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT). 

The Bureau of Land Management is a party to the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA), which initiated the joint smoke management program with the state of Montana 

through the Smoke Management Monitoring Unit located in Missoula, Montana. This MOA can be found 

in the project file. The Operating Guide for the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Group is based upon 

the Environmental Protection Agency Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. The 

Smoke Monitoring Unit coordinates prescribed burn activities through meteorological scheduling in order 

to ensure that cumulative air quality impacts are minimized. 

Air quality impacts due to prescribed fire smoke result from a combination of emission production and 

atmospheric dispersion (Sandberg et al., 2002). Dispersion is dependent on meteorological conditions 

including seasonality, large-scale prevailing wind patterns, atmospheric stability, and local terraininfluenced weather patterns. The Smoke Monitoring Unit utilizes dispersion forecasts as a tool for making 

daily burn recommendations to members of the MT/ID Smoke Management Group. 

The Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identify pollutants that have 

adverse effects on public health and welfare and to establish air quality standards for each pollutant. Each 

state is also required to develop an implementation plan to maintain air quality. The EPA has issued 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen 

dioxide, lead and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM 10) and 2.5 microns and 

smaller (PM 2.5). Idaho maintains similar standards for these pollutants. 

Table 3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 10 and PM 2.5

NAAQS 

24-hour average 50ȝg/m3

PM 10 

Annual arithmetic Mean 150ȝg/m3

24-hour average 15ȝg/m3

PM 2.5 

Annual arithmetic Mean 65ȝg/m3
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

56

3.2.1.3 Analysis Methods 

Particulate emissions production was calculated using the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM). 

FOFEM predicts the quantity of natural or activity fuel consumed by prescribed fire and the resultant 

emissions. Fuel loadings are derived from forest cover type classifications as represented in the analysis 

area.

FOFEM operates under the assumption that the entire area of concern experiences fire. For discontinuous 

burns, the results should be weighted by the percent of the area burned. For the purposes of this analysis, 

it is assumed that 60 percent of the acres to be treated by fire would actually produce particulate 

emissions. 

The assumptions and methods used in FOFEM for modeling emissions were taken from (Reinhardt et al., 

1997). Emissions production depends both on fuel consumption and on the combustion efficiency of the 

fire. Therefore, it is important to note that emissions quantities are derived from tons of fuel consumed 

and not tons of fuel treated. FOFEM models emissions production, not visibility or dispersion. Categories 

of emissions estimated are PM 2.5 and PM 10. About 90 percent of PM 10 is actually in the PM 2.5 

category (Peterson, 2001). Idaho and Montana monitor for both categories, therefore the amount of both 

are modeled in this analysis. 

A “Decision Analysis for Smoke Modeling” (Acheson et al., 2000) was used to select the level of 

modeling for this analysis. A threshold in this decision analysis for PM emissions is established at 100 

tons/year. This threshold is based on the minimum increase required to establish the existence of a major 

source for non-compliance in PSD for downwind Class I areas or to exceed the NAAQS standards. Since 

none of the alternatives in the analysis area approaches or exceeds 100 tons/year based on 10 year 

implementation, no further analysis is required. 

The model input parameters and the output values as well as the emissions worksheets can be found in the 

project file. 

3.2.2 Indicator–Particulate Matter and Visibility 

3.2.2.1 Existing Condition 

Air quality associated with the Eastside Project analysis area is generally considered good to excellent 

most of the year. Local adverse effects result from dust from native-surfaced roads and smoke from 

prescribed burning, agricultural burning, and wildfires. Due to active fire suppression, current smoke 

emissions are significantly reduced from historical averages, especially during the wildfire season 

(Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997). 

The Eastside Project analysis area is unclassified, but is considered to be in compliance with the NAAQS. 

The closest non-attainment areas include portions of Missoula County, Montana (approximately 100 air 

miles to the northeast), and Boise and Sandpoint, Idaho (approximately 200 air miles to the southwest and 

northwest, respectively). The average large-scale airflow is generally from a westerly direction 

throughout the year. However, local and regional climatic conditions, as well as topography, influence 

smoke concentrations and dispersal. 

The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, 9 air miles to the northeast, and the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area, 40 air miles to the southwest, are the closest Class I areas to the Eastside Project analysis area. All 

other areas, including the Eastside Project analysis area, are designated Class II areas. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

57

3.2.2.2 Environmental Effects 

All action alternatives would require prescribed burning to reduce fuel loadings to an acceptable level. 

The resulting smoke would affect air quality. Fugitive dust generated from road related activities and 

increased vehicle traffic from logging operations would also temporarily affect air quality. 

Four methods of prescribed burning would be used to accomplish fuel load reduction (see Table 3.2.2. 

below):

x Broadcast burning would be used in slash and burn treatments. Because combustion is efficient, a 

convection column forms which lifts most of the smoke above the mixing air layer. 

x Underburning would be used to reduce activity created fuels. The objective is to reduce fuel 

loading while protecting the residual overstory trees from damage due to heat and flames. Since 

the burning is deliberately cool and slow, combustion is likely to be inefficient. More particulate 

matter per acre of fire is often produced with this method of burning than with other methods. 

x Machine pile burning would be used for activity created fuels. This type of burning concentrates 

slash in specific locations to eliminate the need to broadcast or underburn. Slash is gathered and 

piled mechanically throughout the unit or at the landing. Piles are burned after a season of curing 

when the fuel moistures are low resulting in efficient combustion, thus lessened particulate 

matter. This type of burning has less effect on air quality compared to underburning. 

x Hand pile burning would be used for activity created fuels on steep ground where machines 

cannot operate and other types of burning are not acceptable options. These piles are typically 

smaller and cleaner than machine piles. 

Table 3.2.2 Burn Type Acreage by Alternative 

Burn Type Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Broadcast burn 287 287 256 

Underburn 182 182 144 

Burn excavator piles 770 761 728 

Burn hand piles 54 54 43 

Total 1293 1284 1171 

The following discussion compares the direct and indirect effects of all the alternatives. Table 3.2.3 

displays the PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions expressed in tons/year by alternative is included at the end of 

the discussion. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There would be no direct effects on the existing condition of air quality from this alternative because no 

prescribed burning would occur. No particulate matter would be produced and visibility would not be 

impaired due to prescribed burning. 

Indirect effects would be that fuel loadings continue to increase and wildfires would continue to occur. 

Wildfires tend to burn much larger acreages than under a controlled prescribed fire scenario, and are not 

planned around other wildfire events or meteorological conditions that would allow for dispersion and 

transport away from impact zones. Wildfire occurrence without previous fuel reduction is likely to 

produce two to four times greater particulate matter emissions than would be generated by prescribed fire 

(Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

58

Common to All Action Alternatives 

The alternatives differ only in the amount of particulate matter produced (see Table 3.2.3). Fugitive dust 

generated from road activities and increased vehicle traffic would also temporarily affect air quality by 

implementing any of the action alternatives. 

Indirect effects would be a long-term decrease in fuel loading following implementation of prescribed 

burning. Therefore, there would be a decrease in particulate matter emissions and the impairment of 

visibility from wildfires when they occur. 

Table 3.2.3 Approximate Annual Emissions by Alternative, 

Based on 10-year Implementation (tons per year)

Alt B Alt C Alt D 

PM 10 51.4 51.2 47.0 

PM 2.5 43.6 43.3 39.8 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects 

Impacts from smoke to the air resource are temporary; therefore there are no irreversible or irretrievable 

effects on the air quality resource under any of the alternatives. 

3.2.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for air quality is Airshed 13. Consideration of cumulative effects for air 

quality takes a different approach than for other resources. Past activities in the analysis area don’t 

necessarily enter consideration, except in the sense that use of existing roads and facilities may contribute 

to fugitive dust levels as described above. Present use of and activities in the analysis area are continuing 

with a current assessment of good to excellent air quality. 

All the action alternatives would affect air quality. Alternatives B and C would have similar effects on air 

quality, with Alternative C producing slightly lower emissions. Alternative D would have the least effect 

on air quality because it has the least total acres to be treated and produces the least total quantity of 

particulate emissions. Locally adverse and cumulative impacts to air quality could be expected if 

extensive prescribed burning occurred under any of the action alternatives, particularly if that burning 

occurred in conjunction with on-going wildfires or other prescribed burning activities in and adjacent to 

the airshed. Other potential prescribed burning projects that could have an impact are listed in the Table 

3.0.1 at the beginning of this chapter (description of the past, present and foreseeable future actions). 

However, design measures and procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management 

Memorandum of Agreement are intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of communications 

about, and coordination of, prescribed burning to avoid adverse cumulative effects. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

59

3.3 Vegetation ______________________________________ 

3.3.1 Introduction 

This project proposes vegetation treatments along with the associated reduction of hazardous fuels. 

This section will address the vegetative responses to the alternatives for the major tree species. In 

addition the direct and indirect effects to threatened and endangered plant species and weed species 

will be analyzed.

3.3.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The vegetation section considers habitat capability, disturbance mechanisms, and successional processes. 

It is closely linked to the fuels section. 

The geographic scope of the vegetation analysis considers the American River watershed as a whole. 

Very specific analysis for existing condition and direct and indirect effects of the alternatives is the 

Eastside Project area. The American River watershed defines the area of cumulative effects. 

3.3.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

The Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan (MFP), as amended, and the North Idaho Timber 

Management FEIS (NITMEIS) govern management of the forested areas of the Cottonwood Field Office. 

The proposed treatment units lie in the Intensive Timber Management land class calling for maximum 

sustained yield timber production (USDI-BLM, 1981a p II-4 & II-6) (USDI-BLM, 1981b p 2-11). 

The MFP and NITMEIS also state that all final harvest and reforestation projects will be designed to 

achieve full stocking on 90% of the treated area within 5 years. 

The MFP (p. II-36–II-41) outlines visual resource management (VRM) controls. The Eastside Project 

contains VRM Class III designated lands that are subject to the following VRM controls: 

x A management activity may repeat the dominant qualities common in the landscape and may 

visually change the essential character of existing dominance factors and are generally 

subordinate to the visual strength of the natural landscape. 

x Clearcuts may be seen but must simulate typical natural openings. No geometric shapes are 

allowed. Size shall not be greater than 50 acres. 

x Shelterwood or selective logging with a maximum cut of 60 percent is a modification of textural 

contrast. Therefore, resulting openings appear natural. They shall not exceed a 60 percent cut. 

Some feathering may be necessary to meet class objectives. 

Although the MFP was not amended by PACFISH: BLM implements PACFISH in conformance with the 

Terms and Conditions of the 1998 Biological Opinions on the MFP for steelhead and bull trout. The 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are areas where management activities are subject to 

specific standards and guidelines. These PACFISH standards and guidelines for timber harvest would be 

applied for all action alternatives. 

The above factors were used in the design of vegetation treatments, for both location and extent. 

3.3.1.3 Analysis Methods 

The data for analysis of the existing vegetation condition came from BLM and NPNF data sources. The 

data specific to BLM managed lands came from Forest Vegetation Information System (FORVIS) stand 

exam information collected in 2004, and rare plant/botanical surveys done in 2004. Stand delineation was 

based upon species composition, stand structure, and physiography of the area. The information in 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

60

FORVIS was analyzed using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), the Stand Visualization System 

(SVS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) layers. 

NPNF information derived for the American and Crooked River FEIS (USDA-FS 2005) was used for 

other areas and the data and methodology is incorporated by reference. The data includes stand exam 

information from the Field Sampled Vegetation Database (FSVEG), activities from the Forest database 

(TSMRS), Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Region 1 Vegetation Map (R1VMAP), aerial photo 

interpretation, and field surveys. 

Potential treatment areas were based on insect and disease severity mapping, aerial photograph 

interpretation, field review, and proximity to the wildland urban interface (WUI). The pattern of potential 

treatment areas was further influenced by potential fire behavior attributes of the current landscape and 

wildlife use patterns. The characteristics of vegetation in the analysis area was analyzed utilizing the 

FORVIS data base and GIS, including acres, slope, trees per acre, species composition, size class 

distribution, volume per acre, habitat type, and forest type. RHCA widths were identified based on stream 

characteristics and fish presence/absence, and include landslide prone area identification. Areas within 

RHCAs, landslide prone acres were identified and eliminated from further consideration. Harvest systems 

were assigned to the potential harvest areas based on topography, slope and access. Percent harvest 

removal was based on a desired residual target stand and utilized FORVIS data, projections from FVS, 

aerial photograph interpretation, and field review. The residual base target for stands was set to meet 

VRM restrictions. Prescribed harvests would reduce the overstory canopy by approximately 70 percent in 

irregular shelterwood, 80 percent in seed tree units, 70 percent in shelterwood, and 50–60 percent on 

thinned acres (for all action alternatives). 

Forest succession, insect and disease activity, timber harvest, fire and fire suppression have resulted in 

changed cover types and forest structure since pre-settlement (USDA-FS, 2003a). Changes in forest cover 

types and structure (size class, stand density and canopy layers) are used as indicators to quantify effects 

on forest vegetation. Other vegetation indicators analyzed include threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

plants, and weeds. 

3.3.1.4 Setting

The historic and existing condition of vegetation in the American River is discussed in general terms in 

the South Fork Clearwater Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) in Chapter 3 (pp. 20, 82–98) and 

Chapter 4 (pp. 138–141). The Landscape Assessment is not a decision document, but does provide 

important synthesis of existing condition and resource potential in the watershed. 

Plant communities in the analysis area can be seen as a mosaic of patches that change in composition, 

size, and position in relation to one another over time. Wildlife and humans respond in varying ways to a 

particular pattern of vegetation. Processes like fire, plant community succession, insect and disease 

activity, drought, and grazing all change the pattern that exists at any given time. Features such as 

climate, soil, slope, aspect, and elevation control the bounds within which patterns can change. The terms 

Vegetation Response Unit (VRUs) are used to describe these bounds. The VRU is intended to be a 

compilation of lands having similar capabilities and potentials for management. As mapped areas these 

units have similar patterns in potential natural communities (habitat types), soils, hydrologic function, 

landform and topography, rock formations, climate, air quality, and natural disturbance processes (fire 

regimes, succession, productivity, nutrient cycling). Within individual areas of any VRU over time, the 

proportion of age and size classes, successional stage, impacts of fire and/or disease will be dynamic as 

natural and managed disturbances occur. The VRUs for the Eastside Project are shown in Figure 3.3.1. 

Within these delineations, presettlement processes (e.g., climate, fire, insect, and disease activity) likely 

operated within somewhat predictable ranges. These ranges are at the landscape scale, e.g., the South 

Clearwater subbasin. Understanding these past disturbance regimes and the pattern of vegetation change 

is a tool that can be used for current management of ecosystems. This tool can be used to help design 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

61

management structures that sustain patterns of vegetation at the scale, frequency, and degree of change 

that native species are adapted to. 

VRU 6, 3,085, 99%

VRU 8, 18, 1%

Figure 3.3.1 VRUs for the Eastside Project

(VRU 6: Cold basins, grand fir and subalpine fir, VRU 8: Breaklands, cedar and grand fir habitat types.) 

The following assessment of insect and disease disturbance mechanisms was done for the American and 

Crooked River FEIS and is applicable to the Eastside Project. 

Recent scientific studies and reports, including those from the Science Integration Team of Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP), point to a loss of landscape integrity as 

indicated by potential tree mortality from insects and disease at nearly twice the historical levels. The 

shift to more insect and disease vulnerable forests can be attributed to fire exclusion and past harvest 

practices (Hessburg et al., 1999). The Interior Columbia Basin Scientific Assessment (Quigley and 

Arbelbide, 1997) found forest integrity to be low in the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin, based on 

the reduction of seral tree species, changes in tree size classes, and disruption to fire regimes, among 

other factors. The Interior Columbia Basin Scientific Assessment categorized the American River area as 

Forest Cluster 3. It states that Forest Cluster 3 has low forest integrity with high mean departures in fire 

frequency and severity (Quigley et al., 1996:96–117). 

BLM records indicate that 10 acres of previous roadside thinning/salvage has occurred on BLM land west 

of the American River. Much of the private property within and abutting the project area has been 

harvested. Much of this harvest has been in recent years in response to the current mountain pine beetle 

epidemic. 

The NPNF estimates that in the American River portion of the American and Crooked River Project, 

immediately adjacent to the Eastside Project, approximately 3,082 acres of harvest have occurred dating 

from the 1950s to the present (USDA-FS, 2005a). Harvest methods included 1,126 acres of 

thinning/salvage, 742 acres of shelterwood/seed tree, and 1,214 acres of clearcut. 

Mountain Pine Beetle 

Mountain pine beetle is a native bark beetle with a one- to two-year life cycle that is the prime insect 

agent affecting lodgepole pine ecosystems. Adults select green trees of sufficient size and phloem 

thickness to nourish their larvae. The pitch tubes on the bole and boring dust at the base of the tree are 

evidence of beetle entry. Beetles are subject to mortality from parasites, predators such as woodpeckers, 

cold winters, drying of the pine following infection, and resin from the host tree. Infestations tend to 

occur at 20 to 40 year intervals, depending on the age, size, and density of lodgepole stands (Cole and 

Amman, 1980). A prior beetle outbreak occurred in the 1980s in American and Crooked River, followed 

by salvage and logging. This approach to beetle treatment favors rapid reestablishment of lodgepole pine 

and renewal of the cycle. Salvage, thinning and prescribed fire, augmented by planting beetle and fire 

resistant species could help interrupt some continuity of dense lodgepole pine and slightly reduce 

susceptibility to this cycle. Thinning can help reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle through both 

physiological response of the remaining trees and changed microclimate within the stand (Mitchell, 

1994).
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

62

Lodgepole pine is characteristic of interior montane basins like American River where cold air 

impoundment favors establishment of the species. Much of the lodgepole in American River regenerated 

after fires between 1870 and 1898. These trees have become highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle 

because the majority of these trees have reached an age and size suitable for beetle reproduction. If not 

for fire suppression, landscape patterns may have developed differently and large contiguous areas of 

mountain pine beetle susceptible lodgepole pine may have been supplanted by now. 

Mountain pine beetle infestations can kill 30 to over 90 percent of trees 5 inches or larger in a stand, but 

trees 8 inches or larger are preferred. After each infestation, residual lodgepole pine and shade tolerant 

species like grand fir increase their growth and the trend is toward uneven age stands with multiple 

canopy layers and shade tolerant species. This has been observed in response to the 1980s epidemic in 

American River. In mixed lodgepole and ponderosa pine stands, beetles may attack both lodgepole and 

ponderosa pine. 

For the past decade, a mountain pine beetle epidemic has been causing mortality in mature lodgepole pine 

in the upper reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River. The epicenters have been concentrated in the 

Red River drainages and are spiraling out to adjacent drainages, including the American River on the 

north. This is the most extensive and damaging outbreak in the Northern Region. The highest 

concentrations of beetle-caused mortality were noted around Red River and Elk City. Analysis of 2004 

FORVIS stand exam data for the project area determined that lodgepole pine overstory mortality was at 

50 to 60 percent. However, walk through ocular field surveys in 2005 illustrated the lodgepole mortality 

was advancing. 

Western Balsam Bark Beetle 

This beetle is a native wood-boring insect that attacks subalpine fir, and rarely Engelmann spruce 

(Garbutt, 1992). In American River they have been identified in the upper elevation spruce-fir stands, but 

numbers of affected trees are currently relatively low. Their successional function is to kill old subalpine 

fir, favoring establishment of new subalpine fir. This may not change Cover Types, but can contribute to 

development of more uneven-age structure, and fuel accumulations. It is estimated that this beetle is at 

endemic levels and would remain so unless environmental factors change significantly. 

Balsam Woolly Adelgid 

This is a sucking insect introduced from Europe that is now found in the American River watershed in a 

few areas, but the extent to which it may increase in population and activity is not known. Stem attacks 

can lead to eventual tree mortality. Crown attack can ultimately affect bud formation and upward growth 

and can also lead to tree mortality. This insect more often attacks young trees so its successional effect is 

to reduce stand density and reduce vertical canopy layering by affecting understory fir. Cold winters 

control populations, while warm summers favor their survival. 

Douglas Fir Beetle 

This is a native bark beetle that is not typically very aggressive and usually attacks wind thrown, firedamaged trees or trees weakened by other pathogens or drought (Hagle et al., 1987; Schmitz and Gibson, 

1996). Where Douglas-fir occurs with early seral larch or pine, beetle activity would help maintain the 

early seral species. On grand fir and subalpine fir habitat types, like those that dominate American River, 

Douglas-fir beetle activity creates openings where more shade-tolerant species like grand fir will grow 

and push the stand more quickly toward late seral conditions and uneven aged stand structure (Hagle et 

al., 2000). 

Observed pockets of Douglas-fir beetle in the watershed have been small and occur in areas where past 

fires were not stand replacing so that large old Douglas-fir remain. Many of these pockets are associated 

with old growth and will provide large Douglas-fir snags. 

Because of extensive fire in the late 1800s and subsequent harvest, large Douglas-firs in dense stands are 

not abundant in the watershed so the potential for extensive beetle outbreaks is relatively low. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

63

Root Diseases 

Root diseases are fungi that can affect all sizes, ages and species of tree (Hagle et al., 1987; Hagle et al., 

2000). In the watershed, grand fir and Douglas-fir are most highly susceptible and the prevailing root 

pathogens affecting them are armillaria and annosus root rots. With the loss of lodgepole pine to 

mountain pine beetle, grand fir and subalpine fir will increase, and root disease will likely also increase. 

However this change is not toward conditions that are outside historic ranges. Where Douglas-fir has 

encroached on ponderosa pine stands, these will be more susceptible to root disease. 

Fire and root disease appear to have contributed historically to the maintenance of larch in mixed conifer 

stands. Without fire, root disease is unlikely to sufficiently limit grand fir to keep larch from being 

eventually eliminated. 

Root disease has probably increased a small amount in average severity. The older stands become and the 

more they shift toward grand fir, the more severe root disease will be. Root disease may recover a more 

important role if lodgepole dominance is reduced and Douglas-fir and grand fir increase. It will affect 

canopy cover, Cover Types, size, and age distribution of trees, and timber productivity. The effects will 

be to create forest openings, favoring shrubs and regeneration of more susceptible grand fir or increased 

dominance by less susceptible species. 

Over the long term, without fire or harvest to sustain less susceptible species, more tree species will 

become susceptible. 

Blister Rust 

Virtually no western white pine or whitebark pine has been inventoried in the drainage so the potential for 

blister rust is low. The historic potential for these tree species appears to have been very low also. 

Dwarf Mistletoe 

Dwarf mistletoes are parasitic plants that extract water and nutrients from living conifer trees (Hagle et 

al., 2000). Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe is the species most active in the American River watershed, 

because of the prevalence of this cover type. Initial effects are to reduce stand density and size dominance 

within the affected species and size class. 

Successional effects where mistletoe is severe are to accelerate succession toward grand fir or subalpine 

fir. Fires that kill host species also reduce mistletoe. 

Overall, dwarf mistletoes affect a relatively small proportion of the American River project area. 

Compared to mountain pine beetle, the effects of dwarf mistletoe in lodgepole pine are likely to be minor. 

The thinning effect of mountain pine beetle will reduce dwarf mistletoe on lodgepole pine in the 

American River area. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

64

3.3.2 Indicator 1–Forest Cover Types 

3.3.2.1 Existing Condition 

A combination of wildfire, intentional fire, timber harvest, fire suppression, and forest succession has 

shaped the existing pattern and composition of vegetation in the American River watershed. The greatest 

changes from historic vegetation conditions include (USDA-FS, 2005a): 

x Declines in lodgepole pine-dominated communities due to harvest, fire suppression and forest 

succession. 

x Increases in more shade tolerant tree species, such as subalpine fir and grand fir, due to fire 

suppression and forest succession. 

x Declines in shrubland, riparian shrub, and riparian meadow due to forest encroachment, 

agricultural conversion, mining, and forest succession. 

x Whitebark pine has seriously declined from blister rust, fire exclusion and mountain pine beetle. 

This species does not occur within the Eastside Project, and will not be discussed further. 

x Early seral structural stages, including forest openings, seedling and sapling, and pole stands, 

with snags and down wood, have decreased because of fire suppression. Medium and large tree 

classes have increased in most areas except larch and ponderosa pine forests. 

Figures 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 display current cover types in the American River Watershed and Eastside Project 

area. Lodgepole pine is the dominant cover type in the Eastside Project Area—53 percent of the forested 

area.

lodgepole pine, 

8,676, 15%

Douglas-fir, 3,920, 

7%

Grassland/Shrub, 

3723, 6%

subalpine Fir, 353, 

1%

Douglasfir/larch/ponderosa 

pine, 25,126, 42%

alpine 

fir/spruce/hemlock, 

spruce, 484, 1% 4,089, 7%

grand 

fir/cedar/hemlock, 

12,217, 21%

Figure 3.3.2 American River Species Dominance
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

65

lodgepole pine, 

1,670, 53%

Douglas-fir, 206, 

6%

western larch, 38, 

1% western red ceder, 

17, 1%

grand fir, 1,249, 

39%

Figure 3.3.3 Eastside Species Dominance

3.3.2.2 Direct Effects–Cover Types 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There are no direct effects to cover types associated with this alternative. Cover types in the project area 

would continue to change without direct intervention. Changes through time will vary depending on the 

intensity of disturbances such as fire, weather events, disease, and insect epidemics. 

Alternative B 

Timber harvest and fuel reduction treatments would occur on approximately 1,293 acres. Direct effects on 

species dominance and cover type would vary by the type of harvest method, residual stand, and tree 

planting that would produce the desired future stand. The outcome should be viewed in both the short 

term (less than 10 years) and the long term. Approximately 351 acres would be irregular shelterwood, 284 

acres would be shelterwood, 286 acres would be seed tree, 123 acres would be commercially thinned, 140 

acres would be broadcast burned, and 109 acres would be salvaged. 

Acres of herbaceous conditions would increase by approximately 1,061 acres that include areas of 

irregular shelterwood, seed tree, shelterwood, and potential slash and burn areas. This short term change 

would decrease as trees become reestablished on these acres and canopy closure excludes herbaceous 

ground cover. In the long term these acres would move towards a mixture of lodgepole pine and planted 

Douglas-fir and larch. Immediate change in lodgepole pine cover type would be a reduction of 

approximately 791 acres (47 percent). Immediate change in grand fir cover types would be a reduction of 

approximately 226 acres (18 percent). Immediate change in Douglas-fir cover types would be a reduction 

of approximately 44 acres (21 percent). There would be no reduction in western red cedar, or western 

larch cover types. 

Alternative C 

Timber harvest and fuel reduction treatments would occur on approximately 1,284 acres. Direct effects on 

species dominance and cover type would vary by the type of harvest method, residual stand, and tree 

planting that would produce the desired future stand. The outcome should be viewed in both the short 

term (less than 10 years) and the long term. Approximately 491 acres would be irregular shelterwood, 284 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

66

acres would be shelterwood, 286 acres would be seed tree, 123 acres would be commercially thinned, and 

100 acres would be salvaged. 

Acres of herbaceous conditions would increase by approximately 1,061 acres that include areas of 

irregular shelterwood, seed tree, and shelterwood. This short term change would decrease as trees become 

reestablished on these acres and canopy closure excludes herbaceous ground cover. In the long term these 

acres would move towards a mixture of lodgepole pine and planted Douglas-fir and larch. Immediate 

change in lodgepole pine cover type would be a reduction of approximately 791 acres (47 percent). 

Immediate change in grand fir cover types would be a reduction of approximately 226 acres (18 percent). 

Immediate change in Douglas-fir cover types would be a reduction of approximately 44 acres (21 

percent). There would be no reduction in western red cedar, or western larch cover types. 

Alternative D 

Timber harvest and fuel reduction treatments would occur on approximately 1,171 acres. Direct effects on 

species dominance and cover type would vary by the type of harvest method, residual stand, and tree 

planting that would produce the desired future stand. The outcome should be viewed in both the short 

term (less than 10 years) and the long term. Approximately 460 acres would be irregular shelterwood, 252 

acres would be shelterwood, 286 acres would be seed tree, 93 acres would be commercially thinned, and 

100 acres would be salvaged. 

Acres of herbaceous conditions would increase by approximately 978 acres that include areas of irregular 

shelterwood, seed tree, shelterwood, and potential slash and burn areas. This short term change would 

decrease as trees become reestablished on these acres and canopy closure excludes herbaceous ground 

cover. In the long term these acres would move towards a mixture of lodgepole pine and planted Douglasfir and larch. Immediate change in lodgepole pine cover type would be a reduction of approximately 728 

acres (44 percent). Immediate change in grand fir cover types would be a reduction of approximately 223 

acres (18 percent). Immediate change in Douglas-fir cover types would be a reduction of approximately 

27 acres (13 percent). There would be no reduction in western red cedar, or western larch cover types. 

3.3.2.3 Indirect Effects–Cover Types 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Passive management is a conscious decision with short and long-term ecosystem consequences. Forest 

succession would continue and current desirable characteristics of these dynamic ecosystems may not 

remain intact. Processes would take place whether at the hand of man or randomly (as under the “no 

action” alternative). Anticipated effects of processes that would occur with no human intervention can 

provide a benchmark against which to measure effects of active management. 

Forest cover types in the project area would shift toward mixed conifer (primarily grand fir) cover types. 

Susceptibility to insect attacks and root diseases affecting conifer species would be expected to increase. 

Mountain pine beetle would continue to cause extensive mortality to lodgepole in the project area until 

host depletion results in a decline in the beetle population to endemic levels. As grand fir and Douglas-fir 

establish and dominate in stands previously dominated by lodgepole pine, they would in time play host to 

their own disease and insect regimes. The dieing lodgepole pine component of the stands would 

contribute to increased fuel loadings in these stands for the next 20 years. 

Fire suppression would continue throughout the project area, allowing fuels to build up and disrupting the 

natural fire disturbance pattern. Low severity ground fire would not occur in the project area. At some 

point, an intense fire would likely reestablish lodgepole pine dominance in areas where seed sources exist 

and mineral soil is exposed, creating favorable seedbeds for conifer reestablishment. 

With current conifer stocking and growth rates, and elevated levels of insects and disease, the “no action” 

alternative would not help attain MFP goals nor meet the purpose and need of this project. This 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

67

alternative would not help achieve the MFP goal for intensive management that could be achieved by 

maintaining forest stands dominated by relatively pest-resistant species to maintain a sustainable 

condition. Under this alternative, no reduction would be made in total tree numbers or stocking levels of 

pest-prone tree species. Improvements such as reduction in susceptible species as well as enhanced 

growth and vigor of residual trees through timber harvest and prescribed burning would not be made to 

enhance forest health and ecosystem sustainability. 

Stocking levels of live trees would continue to increase while individual tree vigor would decrease, 

increasing susceptibility to damaging insects and disease. Early seral, shade intolerant trees such as 

lodgepole and western larch would decrease in numbers while the shade tolerant species grand fir would 

increase. The shrub, forb, and grass component of forest stands would continue to decline. 

Forest stands where the principle species is Douglas-fir, grand fir, or Engelmann spruce are highly 

susceptible to outbreaks of defoliators such as western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth. In 

recent years portions of the American River have experienced damaging levels of hemlock lopper. The 

following factors make forest stands within the analysis area particularly susceptible to defoliator attack. 

Many forest stands are multi-storied. In a tussock moth, budworm or other defoliator infestation, the 

larvae feed on new growth of larger trees. As the caterpillars mature, they drop off the tree for a variety of 

reasons (wind, exhaustion of food supply, etc.). Landing on foliage suitable for foraging (such as 

Douglas-fir or grand fir) results in additional damage. 

Older trees in many forest stands are not vigorous. Damage from defoliators, bark beetles, and other 

insect pests could trigger eventual mortality. The conifers in many of the forest stands in the American 

River Analysis Area are stagnant. Many of these trees are particularly vulnerable to defoliator and bark 

beetle attack. 

Root disease is apparent in portions of the project area. During a defoliator or bark beetle attack mortality 

is often first noticed in root centers because of the weakened state of the trees. 

Precipitation in the 1990s was below average. Over several years, coupled with higher than historical 

stocking levels, this can have a negative effect on stand growth. Trees become more likely to sustain 

significant damage from insects during or following drought cycles. Forest stands that have southeasterly 

to westerly aspects are particularly susceptible to problems associated with drought because of the drying 

effects of direct sunlight and the prevailing winds on these aspects. 

Increases in other insects such as fir engraver and Douglas-fir beetle often accompany a defoliator 

outbreak. Insects are often at endemic levels in the forest, but become more apparent and increase in 

numbers as a defoliator infestation progresses. Often these insects will "finish off" trees previously 

weakened by other pests or pathogens. 

Any combination of the above listed factors could elevate the level of damage from defoliation to 

mortality. Additional mortality would add to fuel loads and increase the risk of stand replacement 

wildfire.

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Indirect effects would include enhancement of Douglas-fir and fire resistant western larch, and 

regeneration of lodgepole pine cover types in the project area. Increased vigor and resistance to damage 

from fire, insects and disease can be expected in other forest cover types in the project area. Openings 

created through removal and prescribed burning would create favorable conditions for establishment of 

fire resistant species such as ponderosa pine (which occurs only as scattered trees) and western larch, as 

well as lodgepole pine. Retention of Douglas-fir and western larch for seed and shelter trees should 

increase the percentage of these species in future stands. In areas usually dominated by lodgepole pine, 

this species would be expected to reestablish rapidly from local seed sources. In areas where Douglas-fir 

and western larch are desired these species would be planted to assure reestablishment. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

68

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–Cover Types 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable effects to cover types associated with any of the alternatives. All 

action Alternatives would temporarily affect herbaceous cover types, short-lived fire susceptible, and 

mixed conifer cover types. However, vegetation normally present in those types would reestablish 

naturally.

3.3.2.4 Cumulative Effects–Cover Types 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Wildfires start almost every year somewhere in the American River watershed. Fire spread depends on 

weather (temperature, wind, and relative humidity), topography, and fuel (fuel model, and fuel moisture). 

The longer fire or fuel management is absent from an area the greater the total biomass quantity and 

continuous fuel. When a wildfire starts these factors result in more intense fire behavior and increased 

resistance to control allowing larger fires. Fires with the higher intensities and increased area cause more 

vegetation to be damaged or destroyed. This includes large, old trees, which may have withstood fires for 

centuries.

The implementation of Alternative A, with current forest conditions (live and dead biomass) provides a 

greater risk of epidemic stand loss to diseases and insects. In these finite systems of moisture and sunlight 

only a certain amount of live biomass can be supported per acre. Consequently, the more individual trees 

on an acre, the smaller the allocation of water and the necessary elements per tree resulting in subsequent 

lower vigor and growth per individual tree. Plants produce different hormones and other chemicals when 

growing at various rates that affect the potential size of these plants. Plants that receive more moisture 

and sunlight grow faster and have t he potential to achieve a larger size. 

Insect infestation would increase with no management action. Forest stands under stress have a higher 

potential to attract bark beetles. When trees are stressed they produce chemicals which are natural 

attraction signals to bark beetles. Bark beetles are a natural thinning agent and a necessary part of the 

ecosystem in creating habitat for certain wildlife species, and reducing stress for the remaining live trees. 

With the increase in vulnerable food supplies (stressed trees) insect populations can build to epidemic 

proportions. Epidemics of beetles can destroy even the healthiest trees due to mass attacks. Bark beetles 

can also carry spores that inoculate trees with saprophytic microorganisms that can weaken the bole and 

increases the rate of bole snap and decomposition. This effect would cause many trees (snags) killed by 

beetles to fall to the ground in a relatively short time decreasing their value for cavity nesters, and 

increasing the amount of fuel for high intensity wildfire. 

The majority of forest stands proposed for treatment in the Eastside Project are in a state of relatively 

poor vigor. Trees are generally more susceptible to root rots and disease when at low vigor. With the 

selection of Alternative A, tree vigor would continue to decline and would likely result in more tree 

deaths attributable to root rot, especially the more susceptible grand fir. 

Reduced acres of lodgepole pine cover types can be expected in time due to mountain pine beetle induced 

mortality and forest succession favoring establishment of climax species. The small amount of western 

larch cover type can also be expected to decrease over the long term. 

The dominance of the grand fir cover type could be expected to increase. 

Alternatives B, C and D 

The NPNF is implementing the American and Crooked River Project. Private landowners within the 

American River watershed would probably continue to change cover types on their ownerships with the 

progression of the current mountain pine beetle epidemic; however, by what amount is unknown. Other 

activities and ongoing hazard tree removal and firewood cutting also have potential to affect forest cover 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

69

types on additional acres in the drainage, but are unquantifiable. Table 3.3.1 shows the effect on cover 

types for the Eastside and American and Crooked River Projects. 

Table 3.3.1 Acres of Change in Cover Type by Alternative

Species Acres of Change by Alternative NPNF

Dominance

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D FEIS1

Grassland/Shrub 0 +1,061 +1,061 +978 +383 

lodgepole pine 0 -791 -791 -728 -227 

Douglas-fir 0 -44 -44 -27 

grand fir 0 -226 -226 -223 -2092

western larch 0 0 0 0 

western red cedar 0 0 0 0 1

 American & Crooked Project Chosen Alternative (USDA-FS, 2005a) 

2 Mixed Conifer

3.3.3 Indicator 2–Structure (Size Classes, Density, and Crown Cover) 

3.3.3.1 Existing Condition–Size Class 

Stand tree size varies depending on year of origin, tree species, growing conditions and successional 

stage. Stands that originate from a single event, such as a fire, tend to be made up of trees that are fairly 

even in size until a certain age at which the overstory begins to die out and smaller trees become 

established in the understory. In the absence of a stand replacing event such as fire or insect attacks, 

stands would continue to have small openings occur in the overstory canopy allowing for the initiation of 

smaller understory trees. Approximately 7 percent of the American River watershed consists of areas with 

little overstory and with less than five inches diameter at breast height (dbh) trees that originated 

following logging or some other stand initiation event such as fire or insects. Stands dominated by 

overstory trees of five inches dbh or greater occur on 93 percent of the area. Figures 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 show 

dominant stand tree size classes in the American River and Eastside Project area. 

Small Trees (5-9.9 

inch DBH), 6,885, 

12%

Medium Trees (10-

14.9 inch DBH), 

15,460, 26%

Large Trees (15+ 

inch DBH), 32,160, 

55%

Grassland/Shrub or 

Saplings (<5 inch 

DBH), 4,083, 7%

Figure 3.3.4 American River Size Class Distribution
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

70

Grassland/Shrub or 

Saplings (<5 inch 

DBH), 236, 7%Small Trees (5-9.9 

inch DBH), 552, 

17%

Medium Trees (10-

14.9 inch DBH), 

1,831, 56%

Large Trees (15+ 

inch DBH), 655, 

20%

Figure 3.3.5 Eastside Size Class Distribution

3.3.3.2 Direct Effects–Size Class 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There are no direct effects to size classes associated with this alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct effects to tree size classes would include an increase in seedling/sapling, and small tree stands on 

approximately 1,007 acres. This would be through the implementation of 1,007 acres in shelterwood, seed 

tree, irregular shelterwood, and broadcast burn treatments. Medium size tree stands would be reduced on 

924 acres. Large tree (15+ inch dbh) stands would be reduced on 83 acres. Large trees would be favored 

for retention in stands where they occur. 

Alternative D 

Direct effects to tree size classes would include an increase in seedling/sapling, and small tree stands on 

approximately 940 acres. This would be through the implementation of 940 acres in shelterwood, seed 

tree, irregular shelterwood, and broadcast burn treatments. Medium size tree stands would be reduced on 

860 acres. Large tree (15 + inch dbh) stands would be reduced on 80 acres. Large trees would be favored 

for retention in stands where they occur. 

Table 3.3.2 displays direct effects of implementation of each alternative to tree size classes in the project 

area.

Table 3.3.2 Change in Size Class Acres by Alternative

Acres by Alternative NPNF Size Class 

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D FEIS1

Grassland/Shrub or Saplings (<5 inch dbh) 0 +1,007 +1,007 +940 +384 

Small Trees (5–9.9 inch dbh) 0 0 0 0 -99 

Medium Trees (10–14.9 inch dbh) 0 -924 -924 -860 -184 

Large Trees (15+ inch dbh) 0 -83 -83 -80 -100 

1

 American & Crooked Project Chosen Alternative (USDA-FS, 2005a) 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

71

3.3.3.3 Indirect Effects–Size Class 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Size class diversity would temporarily increase as shade tolerant grand fir and subalpine fir continue to 

establish in stands in the project area. Small and medium trees would dominate creating continuous fuel 

ladders, increasing the potential for severe fire. Large fire resistant ponderosa pine and western larch 

could eventually become extirpated due to stress induced by competition for water and nutrients, lack of 

suitable conditions for regeneration, or severe fire. In time, there is a high probability that a high 

intensity, stand replacement fire would occur, resulting in reestablishment of single size class stands in 

burned areas. 

Alternatives B, C and D 

Indirect effects associated with harvest and fuel reduction treatments would be increased growth and 

vigor, as well as resistance to damage from fire to remaining trees. Remaining trees in all size classes 

would benefit through reduced competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–Size Class 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable effects to size classes associated with any of the alternatives. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would have some effects on size classes in the project area, though this would be 

temporary. 

3.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects–Size Class 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There would be no cumulative effects to size classes in the American River drainage. 

Alternatives B, C and D 

The NPNF is implementing the American and Crooked River Project. Private landowners within the 

American River watershed would probably continue to change size classes on their ownerships with the 

progression of the current mountain pine beetle epidemic, however, by what amount is unknown. Other 

activities and ongoing hazard tree removal and firewood cutting also have potential to affect forest size 

classes on additional acres in the drainage, but are unquantifiable. Table 3.3.2 above shows the affect on 

tree size classes for the Eastside and NPNF American and Crooked River Project. 

3.3.3.5 Existing Condition–Stand Density 

Stand density, measured in basal area per acre, vary widely across the project area. Variations are due to 

elevation, aspect, soils and moisture, as well as stand history. Stand basal area was measured for stands in 

the project area with tress greater than five inches dbh. Stands with higher basal area are more susceptible 

to perturbations, including insect and disease outbreaks. The current mountain pine beetle epidemic has 

greatly increased the amount of standing dead material in much of the Eastside Project area. Within ten 

years this material would end up as dead and down, increasing the potential for very intense fire scenarios 

with a high resistance to control (see Section 3.1 Fire and Fuels). Figure 3.3.6 shows basal area ranges in 

the Eastside Project area. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

72

<100 SQFT, 1,156, 

35%

100-150 SQFT, 1,408, 

43%

151-200 SQFT, 478, 

15%

>200 SQFT, 232, 7%

Figure 3.3.6 Eastside Live Basal Area

3.3.3.6 Direct Effects–Stand Density 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There are no direct effects to density of stands associated with this alternative. 

Alternatives B, C and D 

Direct effects would be reduced basal area density on approximately 1,293 acres in the project area for 

alternative B; 1,284 acres for alternative C and 1,171 acres in alternative D. 

3.3.3.7 Indirect Effects–Stand Density 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

In the short term, as lodgepole pine is removed by the mountain pine beetle, basal area per acre would 

decrease. However, trees per acres would increase in the short term as lodgepole stands are replaced by 

mainly grand fir and Douglas-fir to a lesser extent. Barring fire, insect or disease epidemics, trees per acre 

would decrease as stands mature and competition results in stem exclusion. Also as trees become larger, 

basal area per acre would increase to the point that eventually creates conditions leading to some type of 

insect and/or disease perturbation. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Increased vigor and resistance to damage from fire, insects and disease would be expected for all tree 

species in the harvest and fuel reduction areas. Reduced density and fuels reduction would create 

openings and favorable conditions for establishment of fire resistant species such as ponderosa pine 

(which occurs only as scattered trees) and western larch, as well as lodgepole pine. Retention of Douglasfir and western larch for seed and shelter trees should increase the percentage of these species in future 

stands. In areas usually dominated by lodgepole pine, this species would be expected to reestablish 

rapidly from local seed sources. In areas where Douglas-fir and western larch are desired these species 

would be planted to assure reestablishment. 

3.3.3.8 Cumulative Effects–Stand Density 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There are no cumulative effects to stand densities associated with this alternative. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

73

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Stand densities would be reduced on approximately 2,510 acres in the drainage for Alternative B; 2,501 

acres for Alternative C, and 2,388 acres in Alternative D. This would include the approximately 1,217 

acres on the American & Crooked Project being implemented by the NPNF (USDA-FS, 2005a). Percent 

changes by alternative are 4.3 percent for Alternatives B and C, and 4.1 percent for Alternative D 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–Densities 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable effects to stand densities associated with any of the alternatives. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce stand densities in the project area, though this effect would be 

temporary. 

3.3.3.9 Existing Condition–Crown Cover 

Stand crown cover is a function of tree size, species composition, and stand density. Crown cover 

illustrates how much of the forest floor would be sheltered from some environmental factors including 

light, precipitation, and temperature. It is also an indicator of stand susceptibility to intense fire behavior 

such as torching and crowning. The mountain pine beetle epidemic has and will continue to cause a 

decrease in crown cover on the project area. Figures 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 show crown cover in the American 

River and Eastside Project area. 

<30 Percent, 9,830, 

17%

30-59.9 Percent, 

27,494, 47%

>=60 Percent, 

21264, 36%

Figure 3.3.7 American River Percent Canopy Cover (acres, percent of area)
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

74

<30 Percent, 344, 

11%

30-59.9 Percent, 

2,055, 62%

>=60 Percent, 875, 

27%

Figure 3.3.8 Eastside Percent Canopy Cover (acres, percent of area)

3.3.3.10 Direct Effects–Crown Cover 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There are no direct effects to crown cover associated with this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects to crown cover would include decreases in area with greater than 30% crown cover. Area 

with less than 30% crown cover would increase by 804 acres. Some residual canopy would occur on all 

treatment acres, there are no clearcuts. Areas with 30–59.9% would be reduced by 682 acres. Areas with 

greater than 60% would be reduced on 152 acres. 

Alternative C 

Direct effects to crown cover would include decreases in area with greater than 30% crown cover. Some 

residual canopy would occur on all treatment acres, there are no clearcuts. Area with 30% crown cover 

would increase by 804 acres. Areas with 30–59.9% would be reduced by 682 acres. Areas with greater 

than 60% would be reduced on 143 acres. 

Alternative D 

Direct effects to crown cover would include decreases in area with greater than 30% crown cover. Some 

residual canopy would occur on all treatment acres, there are no clearcuts. Area with 30% crown cover 

would increase by 714 acres. Areas with 30–59.9% would be reduced by 618 acres. Areas with greater 

than 60% would be reduced on 126 acres. 

3.3.3.11 Indirect Effects–Crown Cover 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

In the short term, as lodgepole pine is removed by the mountain pine beetle, crown cover would decrease, 

the depletion coming mainly from those stands in the 30–59 percent category. Crown cover in mixed 

conifer stands could also decrease as these stands age, and become more susceptible to defoliating 

insects.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

75

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Increased vigor and resistance to damage from fire, insects and disease would be expected for all tree 

species in the harvest and fuel reduction areas. With the change in species composition and increased 

regeneration, canopies would close relatively quickly. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–Crown Cover 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable effects to canopy cover associated with any of the alternatives. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would temporarily reduce canopy cover in the project area. 

3.3.3.12 Cumulative Effects–Crown Cover 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

There are no cumulative effects to stand densities associated with this alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Canopy cover would be reduced on approximately 2,510 acres in Alternative B and 2,501 acres in 

Alternative C. This would include the approximately 1,217 acres on the American & Crooked Project 

being implemented by the NPNF (USDA-FS, 2005a). This would change stand densities in 

approximately 4.3 percent of the drainage. 

Alternative D 

Canopy cover would be reduced on approximately 2,388 acres in the drainage. This would include the 

approximately 1,217 acres on the American & Crooked Project being implemented by the NPNF (USDAFS, 2005a). This would change stand densities in approximately 4.1 percent of the drainage. 

3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants 

3.3.4.1 Regulatory Framework 

Special status plant species management on BLM managed public lands is authorized under and/or 

directed by the FLPMA and Endangered Species Act. Further guidance can be found in BLM Manual 

6840 and BLM directives. 

According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list # SL 06-0146 (letter dated 12/01/2005), two plants listed 

as Threatened may occur on lands managed by the Cottonwood Field Office: Macfarlane's four-o'clock 

(Mirabilis macfarlanei) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). 

Sensitive Species are protected, managed, and conserved in the same manner as candidate species. Rare, 

vulnerable, and representative habitats, plant communities, and ecosystems are conserved through 

monitoring, implementation of plans, and collaboration with other agencies, governments, and interested 

groups.

The minimal level of protection for sensitive species is the level of protection provided to candidate 

species, which includes the following actions: considering these species in land use plans; developing 

plans, strategies, and assessments to conserve these species and their habitats; ensuring BLM actions are 

consistent with objectives for managing these species; and monitoring to determine if objectives are 

being met. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

76

3.3.4.2 Existing Condition 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

After extensive special status plant surveys were conducted during the late spring and summer of 2004, 

over the majority of the project area, it was determined that no listed or candidate plant species on the Biannual Cottonwood Field Office Species List from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (SL 06-0146, 

December 1, 2005) occur in the project area. 

Therefore, there would be no effect on threatened or endangered plant species through implementation of 

any action alternative, and a biological assessment for the project proposal is not necessary. 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Sensitive plant species found in the project area include Idaho barren strawberry, Payson’s milkvetch, and 

Case’s corydalis that occurs in the project area along Kirks Fork. Deerfern has potential habitat present, 

but was not found in the project area. A summary of these species characteristics follows. 

Locations of the BLM sensitive species and other species of concern listed below, which occur on Forest 

Service and/or private lands, were obtained from the Idaho Fish & Game Conservation Data Center’s 

element occurrence records or plants database (2005). 

Idaho barren strawberry (Waldsteinia idahoensis) is known only from north-central Idaho and one 

location in adjacent Montana. This species is usually found on early- to mid-successional moist forest 

sites, from toe to mid-slopes in grand fir, western redcedar, and subalpine fir zones. It is infrequently 

found on poorly drained sites. Idaho barren strawberry is scattered throughout the project area and occurs 

in most of the proposed harvest units, along proposed roads, and where fuel breaks would be constructed. 

There are four other known occurrences of this species on BLM, Forest Service, and private lands within 

one air mile of the project area. 

Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) grows on early- to mid-successional sites dominated by 

lodgepole pine with scattered Douglas-fir and western larch present. It is found on north, northeast, and 

east aspects on flat to moderate slopes (up to 45%). It occurs between approximately 4,600 and 5,800 feet 

elevation. One population is found in the project area approximately 40 feet downhill from an existing 

road and approximately 80 feet from Units 32 and 33. There are at least 23 other known occurrences of 

this species on private and Forest Service lands within one air mile of the project area. 

Case’s corydalis (Corydalis caseana var. hastata), a member of the fumitory family, is a strictly riparian 

species usually found in or on margins of small streams and also near springs. It generally grows from 

3,000 to 5,000 feet elevation in western redcedar forests but also may occur in grand fir forests and the 

lower subalpine fir zone. One population occurs in the project area in the riparian zone of Kirks Fork 

downhill (approximately 120–200 vertical feet) below Units 38, 46, and 47. There are five other known 

occurrences of this species on Forest Service land within 2.5 air miles of the project area. 

Deerfern (Blechnum spicant) is a coastal disjunct species found in northern and central Idaho. It occurs at 

lower elevations (less than 4,200 ft.) within dense, moist, generally mature western red cedar and western 

hemlock forests. It most often grows in western redcedar/wild ginger, western hemlock/wild ginger, or 

western hemlock/oakfern habitat types. It usually occurs on northern aspects and moderate slopes (10–

60%). No individuals or populations were found in the project area; however, potential habitat is present 

and there is one known population of this species on Forest Service land within 0.5 air miles of the 

project area. 

Other Species of Concern 

Clustered lady’s-slipper is on the USDA-FS Northern Region sensitive species list. Potential habitat for 

this plant occurs in the project area, but plants were not found in the project area. 

Candystick remains a locally important plant for the Nez Perce National Forest, although it was dropped 

from the USDA-FS Northern Region sensitive species list (effective October 28, 2004) because there is 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

77

no longer a concern for population viability (USDA-FS 2005a). Also, it is a State Sensitive Species for 

North Central Idaho on the Idaho Native Plant Society (INPS) lists. Candystick occurs in the project area 

and on adjacent FS lands in close proximity to the project area. 

Clustered lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that usually 

blooms from May through June in Idaho. In Idaho, this plant is primarily found in shaded, moist to dry 

western redcedar forests but can also occur in grand fir forests or Douglas-fir stands. This species grows 

from elevations of 1,700 to 4,600 feet. No individuals or populations were found in the project area; 

however, potential habitat is present and there are two known occurrences of this species in the South 

Fork Clearwater drainage. 

Candystick (Allotropa virgata) is a mycotrophic plant (lacks chlorophyll) that obtains its carbohydrates 

from a mycorrhizal fungus associated with its roots (Lichthardt, 1995). The fungal mycelium is shared 

with a photosynthesizing plant that indirectly supplies nutrients to the candystick plant via the fungus. 

The photosynthesizing plant for candystick is lodgepole pine. For this reason, candystick is limited to 

forest habitats in which lodgepole pine are dominant or in a few cases at least a significant component. 

Two subpopulations occur in the analysis area: one on the south side of Telephone Creek downhill 

(approximately 40 vertical feet) from Unit 16, and the other on the northwest side of Whittaker Creek 

near the common boundary of Units 16 and 18 and approximately 300 feet downhill of a proposed road. 

Two other known subpopulations of this species occur on Forest Service land within 0.5 air miles of the 

project area. 

3.3.4.3 Environmental Effects 

Common to All Alternatives 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No listed or candidate plant species were found during field surveys; therefore, there would be no effects. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Plant succession would continue toward the potential natural community. Over a period of years, sites in 

the project area capable of supporting more dense forest vegetation would become dominated by shadetolerant species, until a future disturbance such as logging, wildland fire, insect infestation, or disease 

creates openings in the canopy. The amount of suitable habitat for Idaho barren strawberry and Payson’s 

milkvetch may decrease during later stages of succession as forest canopy progresses from more open to 

more closed. As long as hydrologic requirements are met, Case’s corydalis would likely continue to 

persist. Development of shady, moist conditions characteristic of later stages of succession would favor 

persistence of candystick, and provide more potential habitat for deerfern and clustered lady’s-slipper. As 

candystick is dependent on mid-age to mature lodgepole pine for its symbiotic relationship, the 

continuing mortality in lodgepole pine due to mountain pine beetle will result in decline in suitable 

habitat and the population. 

Impacts to plant populations due to wildfire are expected to be similar to those resulting from hazardous 

fuels treatments. However, a wildfire could potentially have more widespread effects to plant populations 

than prescribed burning under the action alternatives, since it would not necessarily be confined to 

specific treatment units. A wildfire may open more sites to invasion by shade-intolerant competitive 

species such as noxious weeds, or might affect a larger portion of forest stands than the action alternatives 

would. A wildfire has the potential to be stand-replacing, but may also create a mosaic of burned and 

unburned vegetation in certain areas, depending upon variation in fire behavior. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

78

Alternative B–Proposed Action Alternative 

Forest species composition and structure in the project area would shift for a period of time, since certain 

tree species and size classes are targeted for removal or retention, and slash treatment would reduce 

density of smaller diameter woody plant species such as tree seedlings and shrubs. Due to habitat 

requirements of this diverse group of plant species, certain populations or subpopulations may be more 

resilient to vegetation changes resulting from the action alternatives since they persist under early- to midsuccessional conditions. Other species requiring moist and/or shaded conditions for growth and survival 

may be less resilient to these changes since they are linked to habitats in later stages of ecological 

succession. Post-project management actions, weed invasion, or wildland fire may affect the course of 

ecological succession for the project area. 

Vehicles and equipment traveling over the road system in the project area have the potential to distribute 

weed seed or fragments in proximity to existing plant populations. Also, weed seed may be spread into 

disturbed areas by air currents or animal movement. Noxious weed species may compete with native 

special status plant species for light, water, nutrients, or pollinators. The project design features include 

requiring harvest equipment to be cleaned prior to entry to greatly reduce the potential for spreading new 

weeds species into the area. All temporary roads would be closed to public entry, again reducing the 

potential for spreading weeds in these areas. 

Idaho barren strawberry/Payson’s milkvetch. Reducing canopy closure would create habitat 

conditions favorable for growth of these two species. Major ground disturbance, such as skidtrails, could 

kill or injure individuals or portions of the barren strawberry population. Other shade-intolerant nonnative or common native plant species also could thrive under these circumstances and compete with the 

barren strawberry and milkvetch for water, nutrients, pollinators, and light. 

Case’s corydalis. It is expected that the occurrence of this species would be protected indirectly through 

adherence to riparian buffers designed to address fisheries and water quality concerns. The Kirks Fork 

RHCA is an area where fire would not be allowed to back into the RHCA; therefore, there would be no 

direct impact. 

Deerfern/Clustered lady’s-slipper. Due to canopy removal, potential habitat for these shade-tolerant 

plant species may be negatively impacted because resulting warmer, drier growing conditions might not 

be suitable for survival of individuals or populations. Although populations of clustered lady’s-slipper 

have been found in drier Douglas-fir forest types, the plants were associated with shrubs or small conifers, 

indicating a need for a certain level of canopy cover to maintain moisture and light requirements. Also, 

favorable growing conditions may be created for other shade-intolerant plant species that may compete 

with clustered lady’s-slipper and deerfern for water, nutrients, pollinators, and light. 

Candystick. As noted in the American Crooked EIS Environmental Effects analysis, “Generally, the 

greatest threat to candystick in the Idaho range is habitat loss due to harvest (Lichthardt, 1995). 

Candystick is most common in older lodgepole pine communities; thus, successional processes that 

regenerate lodgepole pine on the landscape are necessary to replenish suitable habitat. Consequently, 

altered fire regimes brought about through fire suppression may also pose a threat to candystick 

populations (Lichthardt, 1995). The current extensive mortality of lodgepole pine forests will also cause 

a decline in habitat and the loss of populations as the host trees die.” 

The candystick subpopulation growing on the northwest side of Whittaker Creek would be affected by 

this alternative. Tree-falling or tractor skidding in Units 16 and 18 could cause injury or death of 

individuals or perhaps the entire subpopulation, depending upon proximity to harvest-related disturbance. 

Removal of 70% of the forest canopy in this unit would result in warmer, drier habitat conditions which 

would likely not be suitable for the survival of certain individuals or possibly the entire candystick 

subpopulation. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

79

Alternative C 

General project impacts to the forest setting would be similar to Alternative B, except for slightly less 

ground disturbance due to more acres logged by helicopter instead of tractor/cable logging. 

Idaho barren strawberry/Payson’s milkvetch. Ground-based impacts to barren strawberry would only 

be slightly less than Alternative B because the units converted to helicopter logging under Alternative C 

contain zero to very small amounts of this species compared to the rest of the project units. Reduction in 

canopy closure would benefit both species, but there would still be threats from other shade-intolerant 

non-native or common native plant species that could thrive under these circumstances and compete with 

the barren strawberry and milkvetch for water, nutrients, pollinators, and light. 

Case’s corydalis. Same as Alternative B. 

Deerfern/Clustered lady’s-slipper. Potential habitat for these shade-tolerant plant species may be more 

impacted under this Alternative because units scheduled for only broadcast burning under Alternative B 

would be helicopter logged and then burned. As with Alternative B, favorable growing conditions may be 

created for other shade-intolerant plant species that may compete with clustered lady’s-slipper and 

deerfern for water, nutrients, pollinators, and light. 

Candystick. Same as Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

General projects impacts to the forest setting would be less than Alternatives B and C because certain 

units would not be treated. 

Idaho barren strawberry/Payson’s milkvetch. Ground-based impacts to barren strawberry would be 

less than Alternatives B or C because 10 units where the species occurs would not be treated. Reduction 

in canopy closure in the remaining units would benefit both species, but there would still be risk from 

other shade-intolerant non-native or common native plant species that could thrive under these 

circumstances and compete with the barren strawberry and milkvetch for water, nutrients, pollinators, and 

light.

Case’s corydalis. Same as Alternative B. 

Deerfern/Clustered lady’s-slipper. Less potential habitat for these shade-tolerant plant species would be 

impacted under this Alternative than Alternatives B or C because 11 units would not be treated. 

Candystick. Same as Alternative B. 

3.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects 

The area for cumulative effects analysis includes the American River watershed. Included in this is the 

American and Crooked River Project (see Map 7a, USDA-FS, 2005a) (approximately 15,600 acres), 

private lands (approximately 7,825 acres), and BLM’s Eastside Project area (see Appendix A, Map 1) 

(approximately 3,100 acres). These two project areas adjoin one another. Only species of concern that 

were found to occur or have potential habitat present (in the Eastside Project area) which could be 

impacted by project implementation will be discussed. 

BLM Sensitive plants found in the project area include Idaho barren strawberry, Payson’s milkvetch, and 

Case’s corydalis. Case’s corydalis occurs in the project area along Kirks Fork; however, this fish-bearing 

stream will have a 300-foot no-treatment buffer. Therefore, there will be no direct effects from the 

proposed project, and there will be no further discussion in this cumulative effects section for this species. 

Deerfern a BLM Sensitive species was not found but does have potential habitat present. Other Species of 

Concern include candystick, found in the project area, and clustered lady’s-slipper that has potential 

habitat present. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

80

Cumulative effects for plants are addressed through consideration of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. It is not possible to directly quantify effects of specific past activities that are several 

years or decades old on species of concern today. The status and occurrence of sensitive plants was not 

known for much of the management history of the American River watershed. Historically the changes in 

condition and abundance of specific habitats important to these species are also unknown. Therefore, the 

effects of these past projects can only be qualified through general discussions. However, the results of 

past projects contribute to the current existing condition, which can be used to discuss and quantify 

effects of proposed activities on this group of plant species. 

In general terms and on lands in Federal and private ownership in the vicinity of Elk City, the following 

cumulative effects have or could be expected to occur: 

BLM and NPNF land: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities are documented in Table 

3.0.1. The American and Crooked River Project would protect Sensitive plant populations, although it 

would impact Sensitive plant potential habitat. The selected alternative would impact 8 percent of the 

potential habitat for barren strawberry; 13% of the potential habitat for milkvetch; 4 percent of the 

potential habitat for clustered lady slipper; and 1% of the potential candystick habitat, not a 

designated sensitive species (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

Private lands: Additional habitat for Idaho barren strawberry and Payson’s milkvetch has been or 

would be created where disturbance has or would re-set ecological succession to early- to mid-stages. 

Losses of Case’s corydalis individuals, subpopulations, populations, or habitat on private lands has 

occurred or could occur if riparian buffers were not or are not established or are inadequate for 

protection. Decreases in habitat for candystick and loss of individuals, subpopulations, or populations 

has occurred or could occur where mature lodgepole pine stands were or will be harvested. Harvested 

forest communities that provide potential habitat for clustered lady’s-slipper and deerfern have or 

could become unsuitable as habitat until later successional characteristics redevelop. 

Discussion of cumulative effects for sensitive species and species of concern can be addressed through 

the general trend of habitat type groups found in this cumulative effects analysis area as a result of past, 

present, and future management actions. The analysis area for cumulative effects contains several Habitat 

Type Groups (HTGs) which contain the micro-features that are important to the plant species discussed 

above. The two HTGs which cover the most acres in this analysis area are Cool and Dry Grand Fir (HTG 

3) and Moist Grand Fir (HTG 4). Approximately 95% of the Eastside Project Area is composed of Cool 

and Dry Grand Fir (HTG 3) and 5% is composed of Moist Grand Fir (HTG 4); and approximately 30% of 

the American and Crooked River Project Area in the American River Watershed is composed of Cool and 

Dry Grand Fir (HTG 3), 60% is composed of Moist Grand Fir (HTG 4), and 10% is composed of other 

Habitat Type Groups which won’t be discussed here (see Map 4, USDA-FS, 1998a). Portions of the 

discussion on the two HTGs below is from the American and Crooked River Project, FEIS, March 2005, 

and is applicable to both BLM and FS lands in the cumulative effects analysis area. 

Cool and Dry Grand Fir (HTG 3) 

This Habitat Type Group is very common in much of the analysis area and contains such habitats in the 

grand fir and Douglas-fir series as beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) and twinflower (Linnaea borealis)

among others that indicate relatively cool and dry sites for these forests types. This HTG is found on 

approximately 7,625 acres of the analysis area. 

Much of this zone has seen significant management activity in the past. Seedling and sapling forest 

structure are increased due to even-aged management. Road densities are relatively high in portions of the 

zone, and some livestock grazing occurs along roads and in forest openings. Exotic plants are scattered 

along these roads and openings. Mining activity was once common but is not abundant today. Cool and 

dry grand fir does not provide habitat for many sensitive species and species of concern but does support 

habitat and populations of Payson’s milkvetch and Idaho barren strawberry. Seral forests dominated by 

lodgepole pine provide the necessary habitat for some populations of candystick. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

81

Disturbance to the landscape through timber harvest and temporary roads is relatively common. The 

overall effect expected on potential sensitive plant habitat would be static to improved conditions. Where 

Payson’s milkvetch or Idaho barren strawberry are present in these habitats, both species are well 

documented to not only withstand light ground disturbance, but generally are increased by it (Crawford, 

1980). As a result, population viability for these species is not a concern. 

Occurrences of candystick are expected to decline due to extensive lodgepole mortality from a 

combination of mountain pine beetle, timber harvest, temporary road construction, and fuels reduction. 

Management activity may improve candystick habitat in the long-term by providing future seral 

lodgepole pine habitats and allowing the lodgepole pine to develop into 60–80 year old stands. However, 

candystick habitat will continue to decline for the foreseeable future, and it is unknown at this time the 

extent of the affects on existing populations of this unique plant. 

Moist Grand Fir (HTG 4) 

The Moist Grand Fir Habitat Type Group covers approximately 9,515 acres in the analysis area. The 

majority is found on FS lands north and east of the BLM lands in the Eastside Project area. The Grand-fir 

mosaic is well represented in this HTG and is a common habitat on the FS lands mentioned above. 

Generally this zone has seen significant management activity over past decades. Seedling and sapling 

forest structure are increased due to even-aged management. Road densities are relatively high in portions 

of the zone, and some livestock grazing occurs along roads and in forb and alder glades within the Grandfir mosaic zone. Historic mining has occurred along the main river bottoms of the American River 

watershed, but this activity is less common today. Noxious weeds such as spotted knapweed and Canada 

thistle (see Section 3.3.5 Weeds) are present along roads. Moist grand fir provides habitat for deerfern, 

clustered lady’s slipper, Idaho barren strawberry, and ridges dominated by seral lodgepole pine support 

candystick. 

Disturbance to the landscape through timber harvest, mining, grazing, and roads is relatively common and 

may continue in the future. Overall effect on potential sensitive species and species of concern habitat 

would be a slight decrease in the amount and quality of suitable habitat. Long-term trends would be static 

to slightly downward. A slight downward trend in habitat quality would not lead to concerns for 

population viability since moist grand fir habitats are common in the upper portions of the watersheds. 

3.3.4.5 Conclusions 

In the analysis area, there will be some impacts to sensitive species and species of concern and/or their 

habitats. Due to the amount of temporary roads that will be constructed in the analysis area, the ground 

disturbance associated with timber harvest, and use of fire as underburns, etc., and the potential for 

invasion by noxious and other weeds, the following effects determinations were made: 

For Alternative A: No impact (to individuals, subpopulations, populations, or habitat) for Idaho barren 

strawberry, Payson’s milkvetch, Case’s corydalis (found to occur), deerfern and clustered lady’s-slipper 

(potential habitat present) or candystick (found to occur). 

For All Action Alternatives: May impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to cause a trend toward 

Federal listing or reduce viability for the populations or species for Idaho barren strawberry or Payson’s 

milkvetch, which occur in the project. 

This proposed project would not contribute to the need to list Idaho barren strawberry as Threatened or 

Endangered because: 1) thousands of Idaho barren strawberry plants have been documented by field 

surveys in the Elk City area, and a lot of potential habitat remains unsurveyed and possibly occupied; 2) 

mitigation would be applied, when possible (logging on snow), to reduce impacts; 3) it does seem to be 

favored by a certain level of disturbance; and 4) relatively speaking, only a small percentage of plants and 

habitat would be affected by the alternatives. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

82

The proposed project would not contribute to the need to list Payson's milkvetch as Threatened or 

Endangered because it would impact individuals and/or subpopulations; therefore, the species as a whole 

is expected to still persist. The impact on habitat is variable, with short-term negative impacts but possible 

long term beneficial impacts. 

Also Payson's milkvetch and Idaho barren strawberry are Type 3 Idaho BLM Sensitive Species. These 

species are, at the rarest, Type 3 species, (Rangewide / Globally Imperiled Species – Moderate 

Endangerment: Includes species that are globally rare with moderate endangerment factors. Their global 

rarity and inherent risks associated with rarity make them imperiled species). Impacting individuals will 

not cause a decline sufficient to trigger these species moving to the Type 2 Sensitive Species Category, 

much less the Type 1 (listed, proposed, or candidate) Sensitive Species Category. 

The project may impact potential habitat for deerfern and clustered lady’s-slipper which do not occur in 

the proposed project area. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the need to list these species as 

Threatened of Endangered. Also Design Item #38 was incorporated after this analysis was completed, 

therefore the project would not effect the known populations of this plant. 

Candystick is not a BLM Sensitive Species. As noted previously it was dropped from the USDA-FS 

Northern Region sensitive species list (effective October 28, 2004) because there is no longer a concern 

for population viability (USDA-FS 2005a). Therefore, the project would not contribute to the need to list 

this species as Threatened or Endangered. Also Design Item # 40 was incorporated after this analysis was 

completed, therefore the project effect on the populations of this plant would be mitigated. 

3.3.5 Indicator 4–Weeds 

3.3.5.1 Regulatory Framework 

BLM

Noxious weed control has been recognized through land use planning and the NEPA process with 

decisions to take appropriate action for control and eradication. Analysis and evaluation of invasive plants 

in this EIS is based on direction contained in the following laws, executive orders, EISs, etc.: 

The Federal Noxious Weed Law (1974) as amended. 

Executive Order 13112 for Invasive Species: 

Section 2 (a) (3) directs federal agencies to “not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are 

likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere 

unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its 

determinations that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive 

species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction 

with the actions.” 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)–Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States, May 1991. 

Idaho Record of Decision (ROD) to the FEIS above dated July 1991. 

Idaho Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision dated May 5, 1987. 

Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Final EIS of December 1985 as Supplemented (FSEIS). 

State law mandates the eradication/control of noxious weeds (Idaho Noxious Weed Law-Title 22, Chapter 

24, Idaho Code). Weed control is in conformance with meeting our (BLM’s) legal mandates in the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (3 U.S.C. 1700 et seq.); the Taylor Grazing Act of 

1934 (43 U.S.C. 15 et seq.); the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); 

the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801-1813), as amended by Sec. 15, Management of 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

83

Undesirable Plants on Federal Lands, 1990; and the Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-583) 

Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Control on the Coeur d’Alene District ID060-94-05. 

Nez Perce National Forest 

Analysis and evaluation of Invasive plants in this EIS is based on direction contained in The Federal 

Noxious Weed law (1974) as amended, Executive Order 13112 for Invasive Species, Forest Service 

policy (2080), Northern Region Supplement (R1 2000-2001-1) Implementation of Integrated Weed 

Management on National Forest System lands in the Northern Region, and the Nez Perce National Forest 

Plan (II-7, II-20, II-26, III-6). 

In general, the Forest is directed to implement an effective weed management program with the objectives 

of preventing the introduction and establishment of noxious weeds; containing and suppressing existing 

weed infestations; and cooperating with local, state, and other federal agencies in the management of 

noxious weeds. 

Section 2081.03 of Forest Service policy 2081 Management of Noxious Weeds directs Forests to 

determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds as a result of any ground disturbing action 

or activity. For projects having moderate to high risk of spread, the project must identify noxious weed 

control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation. 

3.3.5.2 Existing Condition 

Portions of the first two paragraphs are from American River/Crooked River–Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Chapter 3 Pages 329 and 330. 

Invasive plants have been identified as a significant threat to western ecosystems. As invasive plants 

invade and establish, native species richness and frequency may be reduced (Forcella and Harvey, 1983), 

erosion rates may increase (Lacey et al., 1989), ecological processes may be altered (Whisenant, 1990) 

and rare plants could be threatened (Rosentreter, 1994). Bedunah (1992) noted that exotic plants have the 

potential to alter ecological equilibrium to a point where the change is permanent. Invasive plants can 

clearly alter ecosystem processes in the west (Dukes and Mooney, 2001). Significantly higher rates of 

sedimentation from runoff in knapweed dominated sites have been documented in Montana (Lacey et al., 

1989).

Invasive plants can expand following human-caused or natural disturbances, and invade degraded as well 

as intact habitats (Tausch et al., 1994; Parker, 2001; Willard et al., 1988). At present, the analysis area has 

two known noxious weeds occurring. Spotted knapweed (Centurea stoebe ssp. micranthos) is currently 

occupying disturbed sites along roads and in dredge tailings. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) commonly 

occurs in areas impacted by various surface disturbing activities. There is the potential for other invasive 

species considered noxious to become established in the area. One species that occurs in similar habitats 

is orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum). It is not currently known to exist in the analysis area but 

does occur within a fifty-mile radius. The seed of this species is airborne and may be introduced into the 

area via air currents or human travel vectors. 

The Elk City township, which includes the project area, contains treatment sites for noxious weed control 

in the Field Office (FO). Integrated pest management activities presently occurring in the analysis area 

include herbicide, mechanical, revegetation, and biological treatments. These activities are conducted in 

concert with cooperators in the Clearwater Basin Weed Management Area based upon annual operating 

plans agreed upon by members. Treatments are conducted in order of priority beginning with treatment of 

new invader species and moving toward reducing the size and density of established weed infestations. At 

present, weed control is being conducted mainly along travel corridors. The Eastside Project would not 

change the weed treatment areas or methods. If a population of noxious weeds is discovered, they would 

be mapped and reported to the weed coordinator for further evaluation. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

84

3.3.5.3 Environmental Effects 

The first three paragraphs are from: American River/Crooked River–Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Chapter 3, pages 330 and 331, and are entirely applicable to the project area for the Eastside 

Project EIS. 

Weed expansion in the project area is greatly influenced by habitat susceptibility, seed availability, seed 

or propagule dispersal, and habitat disturbance. The probability that weeds will expand in the analysis 

area depends on the interaction of these four factors. Weed expansion begins with the dispersal of seed 

from existing weed infestations adjacent to uninfested areas. 

Land use practices and resource conditions may be important factors that encourage the initial invasion of 

exotic plants (Hobbs, 2000). In mountainous habitat roads and trails are the primary means by which 

people and their equipment interact with the environment and therefore may be an important spread 

pathway. These linear corridors act as dispersal conduits for exotic plants (Gelbard and Belnap, 2003; 

Marcus et al., 1998). In addition, road and trail management creates sustained levels of soil disturbance 

that promotes establishment of exotic plants thereby increasing seed or propagules for ongoing dispersal 

(Parendes and Jones, 2000). From these small isolated infestations along roads and trails, invasive plants 

may colonize adjacent native habitats or may respond to periodic disturbance by spreading into previously 

uninfested areas. 

Disturbance creates spatial and temporal openings where sites become suitable for plant establishment, 

where usable light, space, water and nutrients are available to meet the specific growing requirements of 

the plant. Disturbance may increase the susceptibility of an otherwise intact plant community to weed 

invasion by increasing the availability of a limited resource (Hobbs, 1989). Natural or human-caused fires 

along with timber harvest and grazing are broad scale disturbances that influence the amount of available 

habitat for weed establishment and may promote invasion of exotic plants (D’Antonio, 2000; Belsky and 

Gelbard, 2000; Pauchard et al., 2003). 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under Alternative A, current conditions and trends will continue. The Elk City area receives significant 

recreational activity by a variety of users. These activities include hunting, fishing, ATV riding, 

horseback riding, sight-seeing, etc. Many of these activities have the potential to cause disturbance and 

introduce new invasive plant propagules which may then become established. These uses also encourage 

the spread of those weeds currently in the area further along travel corridors. There are also commercial 

activities, i.e., outfitted hunting, timber harvest on other Federal and private lands, mining, etc. occurring 

which can spread invasive plants through the same methods. 

Given the current trend in lodgepole pine mortality and the fuel accumulation documented in the Fuels 

section (Section 3.1), there is a high probability of stand replacing fire(s) occurring in the analysis area. 

While the extent cannot be accurately predicted, the result would be substantial areas of disturbed surface 

which would be conducive to weed invasion. Suppression actions involving mechanical and hand firelines 

would also provide vectors for weed propagation. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

All of the action alternatives have potential to spread noxious and other weeds due to ground disturbing 

activities from timber harvest activities including fire (broadcast burns, underburns, and burning slash 

piles) and road construction (temporary and permanent) and maintenance. Table 2.2.1 provides a 

summary of disturbance area for each alternative. Spotted knapweed is present along roads leading to and 

within the project area. Canada thistle is also present on previously disturbed areas (natural and humancaused) adjacent to and within the project area and along roads throughout the area. Canada thistle seeds 

are primarily dispersed by wind (airborne seeds), so it may spread to disturbed areas away from roads as 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

85

well as along roads. Spotted knapweed plants produce up to 25,000 seeds each that are viable for up to 

eight years and are dispersed by wind, animals, and people. Spotted knapweed will likely continue to 

spread primarily along roads and trails. 

Proposed restoration activities are similar between all the action alternatives. Areas that are disturbed by 

these activities along American River will be highly susceptible to increased infestations of both spotted 

knapweed and Canada thistle, because both are currently present in the area. Spotted knapweed is 

currently present along American River (both along the road and in dredge tailings). Canada thistle 

currently occurs along the road and in previously disturbed areas adjacent to where ground disturbing 

restoration activities would occur. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would result in the most disturbed acres from ground based timber harvest activities and 

temporary road construction therefore, it would have the largest area available for spotted knapweed, 

Canada thistle, and other weeds to invade and occupy. Table 2.2.1 provides specific information on 

timber harvest acres and methods, etc. 

Alternatives C and D 

These two alternatives have a relatively similar total amount of disturbance associated with them. 

Alternative C has more acres of ground based timber harvest and total acres proposed for treatment than 

Alternative D, but it has fewer miles of temporary roads proposed. Conversely, Alternative D has less 

acres of ground based timber harvest and total acres proposed for treatment than Alternative C, but it has 

more miles of temporary roads proposed. Table 2.2.1 provides specific information on timber harvest 

acres and methods, etc. 

3.3.5.4 Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis for weeds is the American River watershed. Most noxious and other weed 

infestations occur on disturbed areas in the analysis area. It is foreseeable that increased disturbance 

would occur both inside and outside of the analysis area. Timber harvest, road construction, etc. are likely 

to occur on both public and private lands. These various disturbances would increase the area for new and 

established noxious and other weeds to invade and occupy. 

Past and present disturbances associated with vegetation treatments added to reasonably foreseeable 

actions would create a cumulative effect on weed expansion by the combination of distribution of weed 

seed, ground disturbance and creation of spread pathways. The degree of the cumulative effect would 

vary depending upon the number and size of disturbances over time, distribution of disturbance across the 

analysis area and acres disturbed (USDA-FS, 2005a). The degree of cumulative effect would also depend 

upon the success of prevention measures, inventory actions, and subsequent effective weed control 

treatment actions taken. Implementation of organized weed control activities along with partners 

significantly decreases the impact of newly established invaders over time. The impacts of cumulative 

effects incurred by the action alternatives to risk of weed expansion would be reduced with the 

implementation of preventive measures and weed management actions described in Table 2.3.1: Project 

Design Measures. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

86

3.4 Watershed ______________________________________ 

3.4.1 Introduction

This section substantially relies on much of the analysis done for the NPNF American and Crooked River 

Project FEIS for the base line conditions within the American River watershed. The descriptions of 

indicators from a cumulative effects standpoint, the geographic scope, the regulatory framework and 

analysis methods are very similar. Cumulative effects for the Eastside and American and Crooked River 

Projects were analyzed using the Forest Service’s NEZSED model. 

BLM personnel have collected considerable on-the-ground data and maintain ongoing monitoring 

programs for streams within BLM-administered lands. Interpretation of field data and model predictions 

are considered together in analyzing potential effects of proposed alternatives. 

3.4.1.1 Scope of the analysis 

This section analyzes watershed condition, considers physical processes such as water yield and sediment 

yield, including effects on channel morphology and water quality. It is closely linked to the soils and 

fisheries sections. 

The geographic scope of the analysis for watershed resources includes the 5th code watershed, American 

River. American River contains fifteen 6th code subwatersheds. Eastside Project activities are located in 

nine of the fifteen 6th code subwatersheds in American River (see Appendix A, Map 17). 

The affected area for cumulative effects analysis includes the American River and the mainstem South 

Fork Clearwater River to immediately downstream of the confluence with Crooked River. The time 

period for the water yield analysis from project activities is about ten years. For a regeneration harvest to 

recover to pre-treatment conditions in terms of water yield is considerably longer. However, most effects 

from timber harvest should be manifested within ten years. Water yield effects from existing activities are 

considered since the late 1950s, which is about when timber harvest records begin. Timber harvest 

activities associated with the early mining period (1860s–1930s) are assumed to have recovered in terms 

of water yield. Large wildfires have not occurred in American River since 1919. Water yield effects from 

historic fires are assumed to have largely recovered.

The time period for the sediment yield analysis from project activities is about ten years. Sediment yield 

effects from project activities are expected to be recovered within that time period. Cumulative effects of 

sediment yield from wildfires and human activities are considered since about 1870. 

3.4.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

Clean Water Act and Idaho State Water Quality Standards 

The Clean Water Act stipulates that states are to adopt water quality standards. Included in these 

standards are provisions for identifying beneficial uses, establishing the status of beneficial uses, setting 

water quality criteria, and establishing BMPs to control non-point sources of pollution. 

The Idaho Water Quality Standards designated beneficial uses for American River (IDAPA 58.01.02). 

Tributaries of American River within the project area do not have designated beneficial uses. However, 

they do support existing beneficial uses and these are protected under the water quality standards. There 

are numerous private and two-State water uses adjacent to or downstream of the project area. Designated 

and existing beneficial uses are detailed in Sections 3.4.2 American River. 

The South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

address water quality-limited streams listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (IDEQ et al., 

2004). The Assessment and TMDLs are a joint effort of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

(IDEQ), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Nez Perce Tribe. The Bureau of Land 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

87

Management participated in the assessment and TMDL development, with technical input and 

representation on the Watershed Advisory Group. The TMDLs applicable to the analysis area are for 

water temperature and sediment and were approved by the EPA in July, 2004. 

The BLM along with other federal, state and partners participated in the development of the South Fork 

Clearwater TMDL Implementation Plan (South Fork Clearwater Watershed Advisory Group, 2006). It is 

the expectation of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality that this document will be updated as 

necessary. 

The sediment TMDL targets a 25 percent reduction in human-caused sediment yield to the South Fork 

Clearwater River. No specific targets were set for tributaries, but it was recognized that much of the 

sediment yield reduction would need to take place in the tributaries. The water temperature TMDL calls 

for canopy density or shade targets on a stream reach basis throughout the subbasin, including American 

River. Different analytical approaches were used for forested reaches than for the non-forested reaches 

and the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River. 

The Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project, along with BLM ongoing and proposed restoration 

actions, support achievement of South Fork Clearwater River temperature and sediment TMDLs in the 

long term. BLM lands comprise 2 percent of the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin and 13 percent of 

the American River watershed. Consequently, BLM’s small watershed ownership limits our ability to 

have large impacts on the TMDL achievement and is reflected in the South Fork Clearwater TMDL 

Implementation Plan (South Fork Clearwater River Watershed Advisory Group, 2006). The restoration 

actions in the Eastside Project are reflected in the pollutant control strategies included in Table 2 of that 

plan contain. The South Fork Clearwater River subbasin TMDL does not identify a specific time frame 

for full achievement and recognizes that a reduction of existing levels over baseline would be 

accomplished with many projects. 

Within the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin, 13 water bodies were listed on the 1998 IDEQ 303(d) 

list. Three of these were in the American River watershed, and include Buffalo Gulch (sediment), Big Elk 

Creek (temperature), and Little Elk Creek (temperature). The main stem of the South Fork Clearwater 

River was listed for sediment and water temperature from its mouth upstream to the confluence of Red 

and American Rivers. 

In June 2003, the IDEQ issued a draft Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Report for Idaho. Waterbodies affected by 

the Eastside Project and listed as impaired in the IDEQ draft 2003 integrated 303(d)/305(d) report are as 

follows: Little Elk Creek (temperature), American River downstream from East Fork American River 

(temperature), and South Fork Clearwater River (sediment and water temperature). It is assumed that all 

of the streams above will be moved to Section 4a, waters having an approved TMDL. 

The project is expected to comply with implementation guidelines under the South Fork Clearwater River 

TMDLs for sediment and water temperature. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires permits to dredge or fill within waters of the United States. 

The US Army Corps of Engineers administers these provisions. Most of the instream activities proposed 

under the Eastside Project will require authorization under Section 404 through application of either 

nationwide or site-specific permits. 

3.4.1.3 Analysis Methods 

Existing condition synthesis was obtained from the South Fork Clearwater Landscape Assessment 

(USDA-FS, 1998a), South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment (USDA-FS, 1999a) and South 

Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and TMDLs (IDEQ et al., 2004). Parts of the analysis relied 

on the Nez Perce National Forest Soil Survey (USDA-FS, 1987c). Additional information was obtained 

from fieldwork conducted in the summers of 2002, 2003 and 2004. New field data collected for this 

project included watershed condition inventories (e.g., road and culvert surveys), headwater channel 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

88

surveys and reconnaissance fish habitat surveys. GIS- generated reports were also used. This analysis 

compares the effects of the alternatives on the five watershed resource indicators detailed below. Though 

discussed independently, there is considerable interaction between these indicators within the watershed 

and stream channel system. 

3.4.1.4 Indicators

Indicator 1–Watershed Condition 

Watershed condition indicators are a series of metrics that can be used to index the level of disturbance in 

a watershed. They are usually expressed as densities or discrete amounts of various disturbances within a 

watershed. For example, road density expressed in miles of road per square mile (mi/mi2) of watershed 

area is a common watershed condition indicator. Extensions of that include road density within riparian 

habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) or landslide prone terrain (LSP). Other indicators include various 

forms of timber harvest density, such as percent of the watershed harvested, percent of RHCAs harvested 

and percent of LSP terrain harvested. 

Various guidelines have been employed to rate watershed condition based on these indicators. One local 

version is a matrix that rates watersheds into low, moderate or high condition based on assembling a 

broad array of indicators (NOAA-NMFS et al., 1998). Within the matrix, road density is one of several 

criteria used to rate watershed condition. Other pertinent matrix indicators which may be affected by 

Eastside Project are discussed and included in the following Indicator sections. 

Indicator 2–Water Yield 

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) analysis is a tool used to index the relationship between vegetation 

condition and water yield from forested watersheds. The basic assumptions of the procedure are that 

removal of forest vegetation results in water yield increases and that ECA can be used as an index of 

these increases. Depending on the interaction between water yield, sediment yield, and stream channel 

conditions, such increases could have impacts on stream channels. 

Water yield increases can be directly modeled, but equivalent clearcut area (ECA) is often used as a 

surrogate. The ECA model is designed to estimate changes in mean annual streamflow resulting from 

forest practices or treatments (roading, timber harvest, and fires), which remove or reduce vegetative 

cover, and is usually expressed as a percent of watershed area (Belt, 1980). The index takes into account 

the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery through regrowth of vegetation since the initial 

disturbance. For purposes of assessing effects of this project, ECA will be used to index changes in water 

yield through time based on timber harvest and roading disturbances. The ECA associated with historic 

wildfires is also considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

There are a number of physical factors that determine the relationship between canopy conditions and 

water yield. These include interception, evapotranspiration, shading effects and wind flux. These factors 

affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow packs and how rainfall is processed. Within the habitat 

types being treated under this project, the time frame for complete ECA recovery to occur is estimated to 

be 65 to 85 years, though the majority of recovery would occur in 20 to 30 years (USDA-FS, 1974). 

Additional factors affecting water yield include compacted surfaces due to roads, skid trails, and landings. 

Existing and new roads are considered as permanent openings in the ECA model. Decommissioned roads 

are considered as openings, so the road decommissioning projects do not contribute to reductions in ECA. 

Various ECA thresholds of concern have been in use in the Northern Region since the 1960s (Gerhardt, 

2000). Early cutting guides recommended a limit of 20–30 percent ECA within a watershed (Haupt, 

1967). More recently, ECA thresholds have been rejuvenated through consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. A recent Biological Opinion on several Land and Resource Management Plans for the Forest 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

89

Service stipulated that watershed analysis should be conducted prior to actions that would increase ECA 

in 3rd to 5th order priority watersheds, where ECA exceeds 15 percent (NOAA-NMFS, 1995). 

Recently, concern over water yield changes relative to stream channel condition has focused on smaller 

headwater catchments. Research in the nearby Horse Creek watershed study has demonstrated 

instantaneous peak flow increases up to 34 percent and maximum daily flow increases up to 87 percent 

resulting from road construction and timber harvest in small catchments (King, 1989). Recent 

observations have suggested that channel erosion from these streams may be contributing to increased 

bedload sediment in the 3rd order receiving channel (Gerhardt, 2002).

The studies by Belt (1980) and King (1989) have also served as field tests of the ECA procedure. Belt 

concluded that the ECA procedure is a rational tool for evaluation of hydrologic impacts of forest 

practices. King recommended local calibration of the model and a greater emphasis on conditions in 1st 

and 2nd order headwater streams. 

Stednick (1996, p. 88) reports a response resulting from a wide range of percent timber harvested; as little 

as 15 percent and up to 50 percent depending on hydrologic region. In general Stednick states harvest of 

less than 20 percent will not necessarily equate to a change in annual water yield. While it is clear that 

removal of live vegetation can result in increases to peak flow, the percent vegetation removal for effects 

to become observable is not clear. 

King (1993) found in his study of north Idaho streams, that 25 to 37 percent removal of forest vegetation 

in small headwater watershed (54 to 364 acres) resulted in an average increase in water yield of 14 inches 

annually. Increases in water yield, particularly peakflows, essentially increase the sediment transport 

capacity of smaller streams (King, 1993, p. 219). 

Troendle and King (1987, p. 145) also found an increase in peak flow as the result of harvesting. Thirtyfive to forty percent of the stand was harvested in two small subwatersheds (101–193 acres) of Deadhorse 

Creek, Colorado. No effect to, or observation of, the stream channel were reported in this study. 

Megahan et al. (1995, p. 777) found that a clearcut on 23 percent of a 162-hectare (400 acres) watershed 

in the Idaho Batholith produced little change in water yield response from the logging and burning 

activities.

Further disclosures of ECA model assumptions, limitations and tests are found in Appendix H. 

Indicator 3–Sediment Yield 

Sediment yield is defined as the movement of sediment past a point in the stream system over a period of 

time. The Cottonwood Field Office relies on the Nez Perce National Forest for modeling sediment in this 

area. On the Nez Perce National Forest, sediment yield is generally modeled using NEZSED, which is the 

Forest Service’s adaptation of the R1R4 Sediment Yield Guidelines (Cline et al., 1981). For the Eastside 

Project, the Nez Perce National Forest modeled the BLM project using project input data supplied by the 

BLM. The model accounts for natural background sediment and activity sediment generated from roads, 

timber harvest, and fire. The activity sediment is estimated from surface erosion processes and small mass 

failures (less than 10 yd3). Sediment yield is commonly expressed as tons/year or percentage over 

baseline.

The proposed timber harvest, road activities and watershed improvement activities could affect sediment 

yield over time. Harvest and road related activities have the potential to increase sediment production and 

delivery into streams. Certain watershed improvement projects have the potential to produce sediment in 

the short-term (e.g., road decommissioning) but most are designed to result in long-term reductions in 

sediment yield. Sediment yield modeling is used as one indicator to determined trends in water quality 

and fish habitat conditions. Effects of activities on sediment yield are further analyzed by applying 

accumulated scientific knowledge and field observations of erosion, delivery, transport and storage 

processes. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

90

NEZSED has been tested using locally collected sediment yield data (Gerhardt and King, 1987; Gloss, 

1995; USDA-FS, 1998a; USDA-FS, 2001; Thomas and King, 2000; Gerhardt, 2005). Results of the 

individual tests varied, with predictions being over, under and close to observed values. The model has a 

general tendency to under predict but has been determined to be a reasonably realistic tool for alternative 

assessment (Gloss, 1995; Gerhardt, 2005). The model has limitations, including that it does not 

incorporate certain processes related to activity-generated sediment yield, such as streambank erosion and 

mass failures greater than 10 yds3 in size. Further disclosures of NEZSED model assumptions, limitations 

and field tests are found in Appendix H. 

Sediment yield is of concern to water quality and fisheries in terms of suspended sediment and turbidity. 

Bedload sediment is closely associated with deposition in the stream substrate. Deposition of fine 

sediment (less than 6 mm) can affect spawning success, winter carrying capacity and macro invertebrate 

production. Deposition of coarse sediment can affect channel morphology and fish habitat. Sediment 

yield is a key parameter in the South Fork Clearwater River TMDL. 

The MFP and supplement guidance (USDI-BLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b) identifies fisheries/water 

quality objectives by prescription watersheds for the Cottonwood Field Office management area. 

Sediment is a key parameter in the fisheries/water quality objectives. See the Fisheries Section (Section 

3.6) and Appendix H for additional details. 

Indicator 4–Channel Morphology 

Water and sediment yield can interact to change channel morphology conditions through erosion of 

stream channels or deposition of sediment. Channel morphology can also be affected directly through 

activities such as road encroachment, stream crossings and in-channel improvements. Sediment delivery 

and routing processes vary by upland settings, stream types and disturbance level and type. 

Sediment routing considers the disposition of sediment within the watershed system, including processes 

of erosion, deposition, storage and transport. It includes upslope and instream components. The upslope 

component includes initial detachment, erosion and delivery efficiency. The instream component includes 

suspended and bedload sediment yields, as well as substrate deposition and composition. The instream 

component also includes consideration of streamflow and channel morphology, both of which influence 

the capability of the stream to transport or deposit sediment. A further discussion of sediment routing in 

relation to streams in the project area is found in Appendix H. 

Indicator 5–Water Quality 

Water quality includes physical and chemical characteristics of water. Parameters commonly measured 

include pH, alkalinity, hardness, specific conductance, nutrients, metals, sediment and water temperature. 

Many of these parameters are affected only to a slight degree, or not at all, by forest practices. Water 

temperature controls the rate of biologic processes, is of critical concern for fish populations and is a 

primary indicator of habitat conditions. It is also a key parameter in the South Fork Clearwater River 

TMDL.

3.4.2 American River 

3.4.2.1 Introduction

The American River watershed is about 91.6 square miles in area, with about 15 percent private land, 13 

percent managed by the BLM and the remainder Forest Service. Major tributaries of American River 

include East Fork American River, Kirks Fork and Elk Creek. American and Red Rivers join to form the 

South Fork Clearwater River. From there, it is 62.5 miles to the confluence with the Middle Fork 

Clearwater River where they combine to form the Clearwater River. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

91

The geology, soils and landforms of the watershed are described in Section 3.5 (Soils). The stream 

channels in the American River watershed are predominately low to moderate gradient, with higher 

gradient channels in the mountain uplands. Much of the mainstem has been dredged and the natural 

vegetation community has been lost, but it was probably predominately a grass/sedge and shrub meadow, 

interspersed with conifers. Elevations in the American River watershed range from 3,880 feet at the 

confluence with Red River to 6,847 feet at Anderson Butte. Precipitation ranges from 30 to 50 inches 

(University of Idaho, 1993). Much of the precipitation falls as snow from November through March. 

Snowmelt is the predominate factor leading to a spring peak in the hydrograph, which typically occurs 

from mid to late May. Springtime flows are often augmented by rains. Winter peak flows are rare, with 

only about three percent of flood peaks occurring during the period of November through March (USDAFS, 1998a). Lowest flows typically occur during the late summer and early fall. An annual hydrograph 

showing median, minimum, and maximum flows for the USGS stream gage on the upper South Fork 

Clearwater River is found in Appendix H (Figure H.2). American River, though ungauged, exhibits a 

similar flow regime. 

Beneficial Uses 

Under the Idaho Water Quality Standards, designated beneficial uses in American River are cold-water 

communities, salmonid spawning, primary contact recreation, domestic water supply and special resource 

water (IDAPA 58.01.02). No tributaries in the project area have designated beneficial uses but existing 

uses generally include cold-water communities, salmonid spawning and secondary contact recreation. 

A search of non-federal water rights applications, permits, decrees, licenses, claims and transfers was 

made for areas affected by project activities. The selected areas included all lands east of American River 

and downslope of the project area, as well as the mainstem of American River from the project area to its 

confluence with Red River. Using these criteria, 38 private water uses were located. Since de minimus 

domestic claims do not require a water right, there are likely to be more uses than identified. A summary 

of identified water uses follows. 

Table 3.4.1 Number of Potentially Affected Water Uses–American River 

Source Name Domestic 

Irrigation 

Domestic

Stock 

Irrigation 

Stock Domestic Irrigation Stock Mining Industrial 

American River 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 

Whitaker Creek 2 

Queen Creek 1 

Kirks Fork 1 

Unnamed Stream 1 

Spring 3 6 

Groundwater 1 12 

A number of consumptive use claims have been filed in American River by the Nez Perce Tribe, Bureau 

of Land Management, and the Forest Service. In addition, instream flow claims are being pursued for the 

mainstem of American River by the Nez Perce Tribe and the Forest Service. Tribal consumptive and 

instream flow claims accrue from treaty rights that were recently negotiated in a settlement under the 

Snake River Basin Adjudication. 

3.4.2.2 Existing Condition and Environmental Effects 

This section discusses the environmental effects of implementing the no action and action alternatives. 

Existing conditions are described under the “no action” alternative, but future effects of implementing no 

actions are also discussed. Long term trends in aquatic conditions are discussed in Section 3.6 (Fisheries), 

with supporting information in Appendix H. The affected area for cumulative effects analysis on all 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

92

watershed indicators is the American River and the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River to 

immediately downstream of the confluence with Crooked River. 

Indicator 1–Watershed Condition 

Existing watershed condition indicators were compiled for American River using Nez Perce National 

Forest Service corporate databases and GIS overlays. The subwatersheds affected by the project and the 

American River watershed conditions are summarized in Table 3.4.2. 

Table 3.4.2 Watershed Condition Indicators by subwatershed affected by the Eastside Project area 

Watershed 

Name 

Area

(mi2)

Road

Density 

(mi/mi2)

RHCA2

Road

Density 

(mi/mi2)

LSP3

Roads 

(miles)

Timber

Harvest 

(% wsd 

area) 

RHCA 

Harvest 

(%RHCA 

area) 

LSP

Harvest 

(acres) 

Middle American River 5.1 3.0 2.7 0 13 5 0 

East Fork American R. 8.6 1.0 0.7 0 6 3 0 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 3.9 2.6 0 27 23 0 

Queen Creek 1.7 4.3 3.7 0 33 22 0 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 3.3 3.1 0 16 8 0 

Kirks Fork 9.8 0.6 0.5 0 4 3 0 

Lower American River 6.8 2.0 3.5 0 NA NA NA 

Little Elk Creek1 8.0 

Lower Elk Creek1 25.5 

Entire American River 91.6 2.3 1.9 0.4 NA NA NA 

1

Data for existing condition is lacking for these subwatersheds at this time. They are very minor components of the 

Eastside Project

2

 RHCA = Riparian Habitat Conservation Area 3

 LSP = Landslide Prone Terrain 

Post-project road density is shown in Table 3.4.3. The changes in road density include decommissioning 

and new construction of permanent roads. 

Table 3.4.3 Post-Project Road Density by Alternative

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A (existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D* 

Middle American River 5.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 

East Fork American River1 8.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Queen Creek 1.7 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 

Kirks Fork 9.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Lower American River 6.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 

Little Elk Creek1 8.0 >3 >3 >3 >3 

Lower Elk Creek1 25.5 >5 >5 >5 >5 

Entire American River 91.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 

1

 Specific data for existing condition is lacking for these subwatersheds at this time. They are very minor components 

of the Eastside Project. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

93

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Various watershed road density criteria have been used to assess watershed condition. Local guidelines 

have been developed that suggest less than one mi/mi2 is one indicator of good watershed condition, 1–3 

mi/mi2

 is moderate and greater than 3 mi/mi2 is low (NOAA-NMFS, 1998). Table 3.4.3 displays that, 

with regard to road density, of the nine project prescription watersheds within the Eastside Project, six are 

in the low condition category, two are moderate, and one is good. 

The density and distribution of roads within most of the subwatersheds indicate there is a high probability 

that the hydrologic regime (i.e., timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of runoff) is 

substantially altered. Road surfaces limit infiltration, which causes surface runoff during storm events and 

snowmelt with insloped roads with ditches having the greatest effect. Native surface roads with traffic can 

often develop ruts, which cause runoff to be concentrated on the road surface. Roads are also subject to 

surface and mass erosion. Surface erosion is the dominant erosion process on roads in American River. 

Most of the roads within these watersheds are on private or National Forest lands. 

Timber harvest on Nez Perce Forest and private land has affected a relatively high proportion of Queen 

and Whitaker Creeks. This has affected water yield and timing through reductions in forest canopy and 

soil compaction from skid trails and landings. Estimated reductions in canopy, as equivalent clearcut 

acres (ECA), are displayed in Table 3.4.5. A relatively high proportion of RHCAs have been harvested in 

Whitaker and Queen Creeks on Nez Perce Forest land. A considerable amount of timber harvest and road 

construction has occurred in Lower American River on private land. Mass erosion is a relatively minor 

process in American River. There is a minimal amount of past roading and timber harvest on high 

landslide risk (i.e., landslide prone) terrain. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Referring to Table 3.4.3 above, five of the watersheds will have no change in road density between any of 

the action alternatives. Post-project prescription watershed condition categories (NOAA-NMFS, 1998), 

based on road density, would not change from six in low condition, two in moderate and one in good 

condition.

The lowest road densities result from Alternatives C and D, which have the most aggressive road 

decommissioning package. Of the action alternatives, B decommissions the least amount of road and 

results in the highest remaining road density. 

Cumulative Effects 

Road construction history in American River watershed was summarized from the NPNF Watershed 

Database. The earliest road construction recorded in the database was dated 1890. The total length of 

roads in American River recorded in the Watershed Database was 269.3 miles. Road construction history 

by decade is shown in Table 3.0.3. Timber harvest and road construction history for American River are 

displayed on Map 14a of the American and Crooked FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

The changes in overall road density from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the scale of 

the American River watershed are very slight. Table 3.4.4 illustrates the cumulative effects of the Eastside 

Project and the NPNF American-Crooked Project. Approximately 80 percent of the BLM roads proposed 

for decommissioning occur in RHCAs. 

Table 3.4.4 Cumulative Road Density by Alternative 

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A 

(existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River 5.1 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.3 

East Fork American River 8.6 1.0 .9 .9 .9 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

94

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A 

(existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 

Queen Creek 1.7 4.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 

Kirks Fork 9.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Lower American River 6.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 >3 >3 >3 >3 

Lower Elk Creek 25.5 >5 >5 >5 >5 

Entire American River 91.6 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 

Indicator 2–Water Yield 

ECA was calculated by prescription watershed for each alternative. The calculations take into 

consideration effects of harvest and temporary road construction. Road decommissioning was not 

modeled as decreasing ECA even though the roads would recover vegetation over time. The ECA 

analysis does not include the effects of insect and disease agents. Within the American River watershed, 

lodgepole pine comprises 15% of stand cover dominance. Dead and dying lodgepole pine will continue to 

contribute to ECA over the next two decades. 

Table 3.4.5 shows the estimated peak year watershed ECA for each alternative. Existing condition is 

represented by Alternative A. Year 2006 represents the modeled peak activity 

year. ECA recovery begins the following year and occurs gradually from then on. 

Table 3.4.5 Percent (%) ECA by Alternative for 2006 (Eastside Project only)

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A (existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River 23.8 3 5 4 4 

East Fork American River 18.4 6 6 6 6 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 10 17 16 16 

Queen Creek 1.7 13 18 18 18 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 6 11 11 11 

Kirks Fork 9.8 2 2 2 2 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 11 11 11 11 

Lower Elk Creek 25.5 14 14 14 14 

Lower American River 91.6 9 10 10 10 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under this alternative, no management actions, including vegetation treatments, road reconditioning, or 

temporary road construction would occur. Associated restoration activities, such as road 

decommissioning, soil restoration, riparian restoration projects, and road to ATV trail conversion projects 

would not occur. 

There would be no change in flow timing and quantity associated with roads because no road 

decommissioning would occur. Soil compaction would continue to reduce water infiltration, so effects to 

water yield would remain the same. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

94

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A 

(existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 

Queen Creek 1.7 4.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 

Kirks Fork 9.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Lower American River 6.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 >3 >3 >3 >3 

Lower Elk Creek 25.5 >5 >5 >5 >5 

Entire American River 91.6 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 

Indicator 2–Water Yield 

ECA was calculated by prescription watershed for each alternative. The calculations take into 

consideration effects of harvest and temporary road construction. Road decommissioning was not 

modeled as decreasing ECA even though the roads would recover vegetation over time. The ECA 

analysis does not include the effects of insect and disease agents. Within the American River watershed, 

lodgepole pine comprises 15% of stand cover dominance. Dead and dying lodgepole pine will continue to 

contribute to ECA over the next two decades. 

Table 3.4.5 shows the estimated peak year watershed ECA for each alternative. Existing condition is 

represented by Alternative A. Year 2006 represents the modeled peak activity 

year. ECA recovery begins the following year and occurs gradually from then on. 

Table 3.4.5 Percent (%) ECA by Alternative for 2006 (Eastside Project only)

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A (existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River 23.8 3 5 4 4 

East Fork American River 18.4 6 6 6 6 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 10 17 16 16 

Queen Creek 1.7 13 18 18 18 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 6 11 11 11 

Kirks Fork 9.8 2 2 2 2 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 11 11 11 11 

Lower Elk Creek 25.5 14 14 14 14 

Lower American River 91.6 9 10 10 10 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under this alternative, no management actions, including vegetation treatments, road reconditioning, or 

temporary road construction would occur. Associated restoration activities, such as road 

decommissioning, soil restoration, riparian restoration projects, and road to ATV trail conversion projects 

would not occur. 

There would be no change in flow timing and quantity associated with roads because no road 

decommissioning would occur. Soil compaction would continue to reduce water infiltration, so effects to 

water yield would remain the same. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

95

Watershed recovery would continue at the current rate, in the absence of a large disturbance such as 

wildfire or flood. Dead or dying lodgepole pine and additional insect infestations would have varying 

affects on water yield in some watersheds over the next two decades. Effects to water yield from a 

potential fire are highly variable depending on timing, location, size, weather, and suppression activities. 

Runoff timing and quantity would reflect the magnitude of the disturbances. The risk of peak flows would 

depend on the extent of the vegetation change, conditions of the soil, floodplain and channel conditions, 

and weather following natural events. 

Alternatives B, C, D– action alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

With the exception of two watersheds, all of the other prescription watersheds will be below 15 percent 

ECA. The highest levels are found in Queen, Box Sing and Whitaker Creeks, respectively. These are 

small prescription watersheds with channels that would be considered relatively sensitive to changes in 

watershed conditions. Overall, Alternative B shows only a slight increase over Alternative C for Whitaker 

Creek, followed by Alternative D. Box Sing Creek has the same ECA for all action alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Historic analysis of ECA conditions in American River since 1870 was conducted in the South Fork 

Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) and updated for the American and Crooked 

River project (USDA-FS, 2005a). Figure 3.4.1 below shows the results of those analyses. 

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

% ECA 

Figure 3.4.1 American River ECA 1870–2004

The peaks in ECA prior to 1950 were caused by wildfires totaling about 59,200 acres. Recorded large 

fires occurred in 1878 (2,743 ac); 1889 (21,281 ac); 1910 (10,793 ac); and 1919 (24, 266 ac). Roads 

recorded as being constructed prior to 1950 also contributed to a small extent. Timber harvest related to 

mining and homesteading also occurred prior to 1950, but is not quantified in the ECA analysis. The ECA 

starts at zero in 1870, but this is an artifact created by the beginning of the fire history records. Fire 

history prior to 1870 is unquantified, though residual ECA from earlier fires likely existed. ECA increases 

after 1950 are associated with road construction and timber harvest on federal, state and private lands. 

Figure 3.4.1 indicates that ECA levels resulting from wildfires prior to 1950 were considerably larger 

than those resulting from timber harvest. This is understandable, given the large extent of these fires, 

which tended to be stand-replacing. 

Forest Service and BLM records were queried to determine historic timber harvest in American River. 

Most of the larger timber sales also included road construction. From the NPNF Watershed Database, the 

total recorded timber harvest in the 1950s was 142 acres; 1960s was 2,687 acres; 1970s was 2,591 acres; 

1980s was 1,977 acres; 1990s was 5,168 acres; and 2000s to date has been 809 acres. The watershed 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

96

database includes activities on BLM and private lands. Timber harvest occurred prior to the 1950s, 

associated with mining and homesteading activities. This is undocumented. 

Foreseeable actions include known projects, including those listed in Table 3.0.1, which were considered 

for cumulative effects, as reflected in Table 3.4.6. Although it cannot be quantified, it is anticipated that 

timber harvest on private lands within the project area watersheds will continue, but the estimated 

quantity and silvicultural prescription cannot be predicted. 

Table 3.4.6 Percent (%) ECA by Alternative for 2006, Cumulative Effects 

Watershed Name Area (mi2) Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River 23.8 3 5 4 4 

East Fork American River 18.4 6 7 7 7 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 10 20 20 20 

Queen Creek 1.7 13 23 23 23 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 6 15 15 15 

Kirks Fork 9.8 2 3 3 3 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 11 11 11 11 

Lower Elk Creek 25.5 14 14 14 14 

Lower American River 91.6 9 11 11 11 

American River

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

% ECA Acres

No Action American Crooked American Crooked + Eastside Twp

Figure 3.4.2 American River ECA 2000–2012

With the addition of the American and Crooked Project, the larger watersheds show ECA increases of 2–

3% over the existing condition. Kirks Fork, Middle American, East Fork American, Little Elk, Lower Elk 

and Lower American all remain below 15 percent ECA under all alternatives. More substantial increases 

in ECA (5 to 13 percent) are seen in Whitaker, Queen and Box Sing Creeks. This is a reflection of the 

relative size of the treatments in these small watersheds. The ECA is highest in Queen, at 23 percent, 

when the American and Crooked Project is combined with the Eastside Project. 

Indicator 3–Sediment Yield 

This section compares the existing condition to the action alternatives for effects on sediment yield. The 

indicator used for sediment yield is tons per year, expressed as a percent over natural baseline sediment 

yield. Base or natural yield represents the tons of sediment that are produced and subsequently transported 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

97

out of the subwatershed each year under natural conditions. The existing sediment yield over base 

represents annual activity generated tons of sediment produced by previous activities or disturbances such 

as roads, timber harvest and fire. 

Sediment yield was modeled for each prescription watershed. The primary sediment producing activities 

modeled include road construction, road reconstruction, road decommissioning and timber harvest. 

Effects were modeled for a 10-year period (2003–2012 assuming project activities will begin in 2006). 

Activities occurring throughout the life of the project are modeled as occurring all in 2006. Modeling was 

done on a peak year basis in order to meet the assumptions under which fishery and water quality 

objectives were established for the BLM MFP (Appendix H). 

Table 3.4.7 shows the estimated sediment yield over base by alternative for each prescription watershed 

in American River. Year 2003 represents the existing condition, 2006 and 2007 represents the modeled 

peak activity year and 2012 represents the conditions at the end of the modeled period, when sediment 

yield from new activities is assumed to have ceased or stabilized. 

Table 3.4.7 Percent (%) Over Base Sediment Yield by Alternative, Eastside Project Only 

Watershed

Name

Area

(mi2) Year Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

2003 13 13 13 13 

Middle American River 2006 12 17 15 15 1 23.8 

2012 12 12 11 11 

2003 12 12 12 12 

East Fork American River 2006 12 12 12 12 1 18.4 

2012 12 12 12 12 

2003 66 66 66 66 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 2007* 31 57 34 57 

2012 31 31 31 31 

2003 37 37 37 37 

Queen Creek 1.7 2007* 37 59 38 40 

2012 37 37 37 37 

2003 21 21 21 21 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 2006 21 47 47 47 

2012 21 21 21 21 

2003 5 5 5 5 

Kirks Fork 9.8 2006 5 7 6 6 

2012 5 5 5 5 

2003 24 24 24 24 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 2006 24 24 24 24 

2012 24 24 24 24 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

98

Watershed

Name

Area

(mi2) Year Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

2003 16 16 16 16 

Lower Elk Creek 2006 16 18 18 18 1 25.5

2012 16 16 16 16 

2003 16 16 16 16 

2006 15 22 20 18 

2007 15 17 16 16 

Lower American River1 91.6 

2012 15 14 14 14 

*Note: Queen and Whitaker creeks are modeled for harvest and roading in 2007 

1

 Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for sediment yield analysis. 

Figure 3.4.3 is a time trend graph of sediment yield over base for Lower American River. 

Lower American

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

% Over Base

BLM Guidelines alt a alt b alt c alt d

Figure 3.4.3 Lower American River Sediment Yield

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Existing sediment yields in 2006 are all 15 percent over base or less, with the exception of Whitaker, 

Queen, Little Elk, and Box Sing Creeks. Activity on private land resulted in a significant modeled 

sediment yield peak in Whitaker Creek in 2003. 

Under this alternative, no timber harvest, road construction, or prescribed burning would occur. As 

predicted by NEZSED model, sediment yield would be stable or have very low levels of decrease (see 

Table 3.4.7 above). Proposed restoration actions, such as riparian restoration within dredge mined areas, 

road decommissioning, and soil restoration would not occur. In the absence of fuel treatments, fuels loads 

would increase. If a fire occurred within the analysis area and the area was large and the burn was severe, 

increased sediment yields would result. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Sediment yield from the action alternatives that is modeled results from road construction, road 

reconstruction, road decommissioning, road to trail conversion and timber harvest. Activities that yield 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

99

sediment that are not modeled by NEZSED include road maintenance, elevated road use, stream crossing 

improvements, instream improvement, and riparian restoration. Some sediment yield increase could occur 

from the channel system related to increased water yields. This is also not modeled. 

Sediment yields in the peak activity year of 2006 and 2007 all stay below BLM sediment yield guidelines. 

The Sediment yields for Whitaker and Queen do approach threshold levels (i.e., 60 percent). Entry 

frequency guidelines are also met with this action. Peak year sediment yield in most watersheds is highest 

under Alternative B. Peak year sediment yield is lowest in most watersheds in either Alternative C or D 

depending on the watershed. Alternative C has the most restoration actions identified for reduction of 

chronic sediment, and is followed by Alternative B and C (see Appendix H, Table H.3). Restoration 

actions for reduction of chronic sediment yield would occur in Middle and Lower American River 

watersheds.

No adjustment was made in modeled sediment yield for increased traffic associated with project 

activities. Of the 43 miles of designated log haul routes in American River, about 6 miles are located in 

streamside areas. It is acknowledged that some additional sediment yield will likely occur due to traffic 

increases (Bonn and Graves, 2005). This will be reduced through road maintenance where needed and 

contract provisions to minimize resource damage during wet periods. 

Riparian restoration actions will also result in sediment yield increases that are not modeled. In American 

River, this is associated with re-contouring of streambanks, ford restoration, and a channel re-connect. 

Modeled sediment is primarily “pulse” source. The primary exception is the permanent road constructed 

for the American River subdivision and a vehicle bridge (Alternatives C and D) that would be a “chronic” 

source. The Eastside Project restoration actions will reduce chronic sediment sources in the long term, 

and support achievement of the South Fork Clearwater River TMDL for sediment and reduction of 

chronic sediment sources occurring on BLM lands. Refer to Appendix H, Table H.3 for a summary of 

project related short term and long term effects. 

Cumulative Effects 

Historic analysis of sediment yield in American River since 1870 was conducted in the South Fork 

Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) and updated for this analysis. Figure 3.3.4 

below shows the results of those analyses. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% over base

Figure 3.4.4 American River Sediment Yield 1870–2004 

The peaks in sediment yield prior to 1950 are the result of the same wildfires discussed above under ECA 

cumulative effects. The fire peaks associated with the 1889 and 1919 wildfires appear to be somewhat 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

100

larger than peaks associated with later roads and timber harvest. Sediment yield associated with fire is 

assumed to recover relatively quickly, whereas roads tend to produce a level of long term, chronic 

sediment yield. 

The sediment yield peaks associated with road construction prior to 1980 are likely underestimated, since 

the road sediment mitigation values reflect current conditions, rather than practices which were in effect 

at the time of construction. Although roads were built in the watershed prior to 1940, the sediment yield 

effects of these roads are not displayed until 1940. Sediment yield peaks associated with historic mining 

activities are not reflected in Figure 3.3.4 and likely exceeded those associated with other activities. 

Table 3.4.8 shows the percent over base sediment yield by alternative. Figure 3.3.5 shows the percent 

over base sediment yield for Lower American River. These include effects of past activities and 

foreseeable future on BLM and NPNF lands. 

Table 3.4.8 Percent (%) Over Base Sediment Yield, Cumulative Effects 

Watershed

Name

Area

(mi2) Year Alt A (existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

2003 13 13 13 13 

Middle American River 2006 12 17 16 17 1 23.8 

2012 12 11 11 11 

2003 12 12 12 12 

East Fork American River 2006 12 17 17 17 1 18.4 

2012 12 9 9 9 

2003 66 66 66 66 

2006 31 57 57 57 

2007* 31 59 36 58 

Whitaker Creek 1.4 

2012 31 30 30 30 

2003 37 37 37 37 

2006 37 56 56 56 

2007* 37 60 40 41 Queen Creek 1.7 

2012 37 33 30 33 

2003 21 21 21 21 

Box Sing Creek 1.4 2006 21 60 60 60 

2012 21 19 19 19 

2003 5 5 5 5 

Kirks Fork 9.8 2006 5 8 8 8 

2012 5 5 5 5 

Little Elk Creek 8.0 2003 24 24 24 24 

2006 24 24 24 24 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

101

Watershed

Name

Area

(mi2) Year Alt A (existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

2012 24 24 24 24 

2003 16 16 16 16

Lower Elk Creek 25.5 2006 16 18 18 18

2012 16 16 16 16

2003 16 16 16 16 

2006 15 23 22 22 

2007 15 17 17 17 

Lower American River1 91.6 

2012 15 14 14 14 

*Note: Queen and Whitaker creeks are modeled for harvest and roading in 2007 

1

 Composite watersheds were combined with upstream watersheds for sediment yield analysis. 

When the Eastside and American and Crooked Projects are combined, the larger watersheds of Middle 

American, East Fork American and Lower American all remain below 30 percent over base (the threshold 

level for these watersheds) in the peak year under all alternatives. The smaller subwatersheds of 

Whitaker, Queen, and Box Sing are near or at the threshold levels (i.e., 60 percent) identified in The MFP 

and supplement guidance (USDI-BLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b). 

Middle and Lower American River will primarily show a reduction in long term chronic sediment yield, 

resulting from the watershed improvement projects. 

American River

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

% over base

No Action American Crooked American Crooked + Eastside Township

Figure 3.4.5 American River Sediment Yield 2000–2012 

Figure 3.4.5 shows the trend of sediment yield for Lower American River of Alternative D from the 

American and Crooked Project and the Proposed Action of the Eastside Project. The effects of harvest on 

private lands can be seen in 2000, followed by the modeled project peaks in 2006. A slight long term 

reduction in sediment yield is indicated as a result of watershed improvements, this reduction is also 

routed to the Upper South Fork of the Clearwater River, which supports reduction of the sediment TMDL 

attributed to BLM lands. 

Historic and current sediment yield have also occurred from activities not modeled in NEZSED. In 

American River, these include grazing, mining, and residential and commercial development. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

102

Grazing by domestic stock probably preceded European settlement but increased with the onset of the 

mining era. This has mostly affected the lower elevation meadows in American River and Elk Creek. 

The primary influence on sediment yield has probably been through streambank disturbance, resulting in 

greater bank erosion. 

Mining occurred in both upland and riparian areas. Sediment yield from upland placer mining has 

recovered to a large extent. Instream dredge mining caused large amounts of sediment yield during the 

active mining period. Some residual sediment yield from dredge mining is likely still occurring due to 

destabilized streambank and lack of vegetation. Residential and commercial development has occurred 

within the Elk City township. Most of the roads associated with this development have been modeled, but 

the excavations for building pads, driveways, etc., have not. 

There have also been watershed and riparian improvement projects in American River that have served 

to reduce sediment yield. These have included erosion control on existing roads, riparian fencing, stream 

stabilization and mine site stabilization projects. 

Indicator 4–Channel Morphology 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Stream surveys conducted during the past 10 years, and verification assessment surveys and 

reconnaissance fish habitat surveys were conducted in project area watersheds in 2004 and 2005. The 

results of these surveys are found in the BLM Eastside Project file. 

Channel gradients for subwatersheds in American River are found in Appendix H, Table H.2. Following 

those tables is a general discussion of erosion, sediment transport and sediment deposition processes. 

Channel morphology in project subwatersheds has been altered through three primary processes: sediment 

deposition, channel encroachment and dredge mining. 

Legacy elevated sediment deposition has occurred in analysis area stream, which is summarized in 

Section 3.6 (Fisheries). Elevated cobble embeddeness levels and adverse impacts to winter rearing habitat 

has been documented and summarized in Section 3.6 (Fisheries). Some of the elevated levels appear to be 

attributed to natural conditions, channel type, and a variety of land uses. High levels of deposited 

sediment have been documented in both watersheds that have had low levels and high levels of human 

development (e.g., roading, timber harvest, etc.). 

Channel encroachment has occurred where roads and other activities have taken place adjacent to streams 

and their floodplains. The highest road densities in riparian areas are found in the Middle American, 

Whitaker, Queen, Box Sing and Lower American subwatersheds (see Table 3.4.3). 

Dredge mining has occurred primarily along American River and in the lower ends of its tributaries. 

Dredge mining has severely altered stream channel morphology, reduced stream complexity, and 

impacted riparian/streambank habitats (USDA-FS, 1998a; USDA-FS, 1999a). Dredge mined stream 

reaches are often lacking or devoid of LWD, which is a primary component for creating pools and 

providing instream cover, refer to Section 3.6 (Fisheries) for additional information. 

Implementation of Alternative A would leave these conditions unchanged. Some slight natural 

improvements to stream channels is occurring; however, because of legacy effects existing currently from 

dredge mining and slow rate of recovery (50+ years), full recovery is not expected to occur without active 

restoration measures. Some past and ongoing restoration measures have taken place in the watershed, 

which has improved instream channel habitats (e.g., pool creation, LWD). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

103

Alternatives B, C, D 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The action alternatives are expected to have relatively little effect on channel morphology. Generally, the 

ECA and sediment yield estimates are at levels where little channel erosion or deposition is anticipated. 

The highest estimated sediment yields are in Queen Creek in Alternatives C and D. The FISHSED 

analysis found in Section 3.6 (Fisheries) elaborates further on these effects. 

Several stream ford obliterations and restoration improvements should improve channel morphology 

conditions in their immediate vicinity. These improvements are site-specific. In the case of culvert 

replacements, the improvements often result from less backwatering upstream of the site and less scour 

downstream. Similar improvements occur where culverts are removed, with the additional benefit of 

enhanced floodplain function through the crossing site. Some of the road decommissioning and road to 

trail conversion projects involve crossings and riparian areas. Channel morphology should be improved in 

those areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Historically, the greatest impact to channel morphology in American River, Little Elk Creek, and Buffalo 

Gulch was caused by dredge mining. Encroachment of roads in riparian areas and floodplains also had a 

direct effect on channel morphology. 

There are a number of past, present, and proposed activities in the American River watershed and upper 

South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and private lands. 

Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project and analysis area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at the beginning of 

Chapter 3 that could affect channel morphology include NPNF American and Crooked River Project, 

proposed BLM restoration actions, private land restoration actions, private land timber harvest and road 

construction. 

The American River Restoration Projects (USDI-BLM, 2006) will result in beneficial effects to channel 

morphology. The proposal identifies instream restoration for 3.5 miles of American River, a road to trail 

and channel re-connect project for Telephone Creek, and construction of a culvert that will improve fish 

access to 13 miles of stream. Refer to the Section 3.6 (Fisheries) for additional cumulative effects 

information. All of these projects involve direct and indirect long term beneficial effects to instream 

channel conditions. 

Indicator 5–Water quality 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Water temperature was recorded at several locations in the American River watershed during the summer 

of 2003. These sites were American River at the Forest boundary, East Fork American River, Queen 

Creek, Kirks Fork and American River at the mouth. These data are shown in Appendix I. The data show 

a considerable variation across the watershed. Exceedance of the Idaho salmonid spawning criterion of 

not-to-exceed 13°C were noted at all sites at certain times. Exceedance of the Idaho cold water 

communities of not-to-exceed 22°C were noted at American River at the Forest Boundary and at the 

mouth. Exceedance of the EPA bull trout criterion of not-to-exceed 10°C (as a 7-day average of daily 

maximums) were noted at all sites. Some basic metrics from the 2003 data are shown in Table 3.4.9 

below. As evidenced in the 1993–2004 South Fork Clearwater River water temperature data (see Table 

3.4.10), 2003 was one of the warmest years since 1993. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

104

Table 3.4.9 Summary of 2003 Water Temperature Data 

Stream Name/Site Number of Days > 20°C Maximum Instantaneous (°C) 

American River at Forest Boundary 31 22.9 

East Fork American River 0 17.5 

Queen Creek 0 17.0 

Kirks Fork 7 20.6 

American River near mouth 46 25.6 

Under the “no action” alternative, insect and disease agents may tend to reduce shade over time in some 

riparian stands. In the absences of fuel treatments, and increased levels of dead and dying lodgepole, the 

potential to have severe fires in riparian areas exists. Shade in dredge-mined reaches would tend to 

increase very slowly over time as these areas are naturally re-vegetated by riparian vegetation and stream 

shading improves. Some dredge mined areas still are devoid of adequate riparian vegetation after fifty 

years (USDA-FS, 1999a). 

A number of water quality parameters were sampled at stream sites in American River during the period 

1977–1981 by the NPNF. Summaries of data for pH, conductivity and hardness for Upper American 

River and Lower American River are found in Appendix F for the American and Crooked River FEIS 

(USDA-FS 2005). These data show that pH is near neutral to slightly acidic, which is considered normal 

for area streams. Conductivity and alkalinity are both relatively low, indicating relatively low amounts of 

dissolved constituents and also relatively low biological productivity. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

All alternatives are designed to minimize effects on streamside shade. Timber harvest would not occur in 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). No direct ignition of prescribed burning would be 

conducted within RHCAs. Action alternative prescribed burn objectives would target reduction of fuel 

loads within treatment units. Potential does exist for direct or indirect effects occurring to RHCAs from 

incidental burning or erosion. Such potential effects would be expected to have discountable effects to 

stream shading or water quality (e.g., temperature). Within riparian areas, one new permanent road and a 

vehicle bridge will be constructed in Alternative C and D; and a temporary road for timber harvest would 

be constructed in Alternative D. These projects would have negligible effects on water temperature. 

Under all action alternatives, insect and disease agents may tend to reduce shade over time in some 

riparian stands. Fire could also reduce shade, but the threat would be reduced through fuel reduction 

efforts. This approach is expected to be in compliance with and support long term achievement of the 

South Fork Clearwater River water temperature TMDL. Beyond sediment yield described above, there 

would be little change in most water quality parameters. Beneficial uses would be protected in all 

alternatives. Riparian restoration actions, relocating a road out of the riparian area, ford restoration 

actions, and decommissioning of roads within riparian areas would restore riparian conditions and stream 

shading in the long term (see Appendix I, Table I.1) and Section 3.6 (Fisheries). 

Cumulative Effects 

Historically, the greatest impact to water quality in the American River watershed was caused by the 

impact of dredge mining and the encroachment of roads on the stream channels. Dredge mining has 

resulted in a loss of riparian vegetation and shade along the mainstem of American River, Little Elk 

Creek, Buffalo Gulch, and the South Fork of the Clearwater River, with a presumed increase in water 

temperature as a result. Heavy metals present in the valley bottom materials were also mobilized. There 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

105

was likely some introduction of mercury, since it was often used as an amalgam in the gold mining 

process.

Grazing has also altered streamside shade and stream bank stability. Domestic livestock grazing continues 

to occur within the watershed on private, NPNF, and BLM lands. Private land grazing is prevalent in the 

large meadows associated with Elk Creek, Big Elk Creek, and Little Elk Creek. With improved grazing 

management as a result of federal listing of fish, grazing management has improved along stream reaches 

crossing BLM and NPNF lands within the watershed (USDA-FS, 2005a; USDA-FS, 1999a). Sediment 

yield was increased as a result of road construction, timber harvest, fire and residential and commercial 

development. 

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D are not expected to adversely affect water 

temperature within the analysis area, when considered cumulatively with past contributors to the degraded 

condition. No tree harvest would occur within any RHCAs. Implementation of restoration actions, 

specifically streamside road decommissioning and riparian restoration is expected to contribute to 

improved riparian conditions, stream shading, and improvements to water temperature in the long term 

(see Appendix I, Table I.1). 

Sediment yield effects from the Eastside Project and NPNF American and Crooked River Project are 

disclosed above. Residential and commercial development can be expected to continue in the Elk City 

township, with some effect to water quality, primarily through increased sediment yields. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects (All Indicators) 

There are no effects to watershed resources in American River from this project that are considered to be 

fully irreversible or irretrievable. Construction and obliteration of temporary roads will leave some 

residual effects in terms of soil conditions and interruption of groundwater flow paths. Sediment delivered 

to low gradient stream reaches tends to have a long residence time, but eventually will be transported or 

reorganized by high stream flows. No long term geomorphic changes in stream channels are predicted 

from project activities. 

3.4.3 Mainstem South Fork Clearwater River 

Beneficial Uses 

Under the Idaho Water Quality Standards, designated beneficial uses in the South Fork Clearwater River 

and are cold-water communities, salmonid spawning, primary contact recreation and special resource 

water (IDAPA 58.01.02). 

3.4.3.1 Existing Condition 

The South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is about 1,175 square miles in area. Of this, about 864 square 

miles, or 74 percent of the area, is part of the Nez Perce National Forest. The majority of the remaining 

land ownership is private, with lesser amounts of BLM, State of Idaho and Nez Perce Tribal ownership 

(USDA-FS, 1998a). The American River where the Eastside Project occurs is one component of this 

larger watershed. Map 17 displays subwatersheds within the American River watershed and also 

identifies the main stem South Fork Clearwater River assessment area, mouth of Crooked River upriver to 

confluence of American and Red River. 

The South Fork Clearwater River forms at the confluence of American and Red Rivers. Crooked River 

enters the South Fork about three miles below that point. The South Fork joins with the Middle Fork 

Clearwater River at Kooskia to form the Clearwater River. The main stem length of the South Fork is 

about 62.5 miles. In that distance, it falls about 2,700 feet, for an average stream gradient of 0.8 percent. 

The South Fork main stem can be broken into several major reaches. From its origin to about Tenmile 

Creek, it is a relatively low gradient riffle/pool channel dominated by gravel and cobble substrate. Below 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

106

Tenmile Creek, the river enters a confined canyon characterized by steeper stream gradient and large 

substrate dominated by boulders and cobbles. Downstream of Mill Creek, the river alternates between 

confined and less confined reaches. Near Threemile Creek, the river enters a less confined, flat valley 

floor and is characterized by low gradient, a riffle/pool channel and dominated by gravel and cobble 

substrate (USDA-FS, 1998a). 

The South Fork has been highly altered by encroachment from State Highway 14 along much of its 

length. This has resulted in loss of floodplain function, simplification of the channel, loss of riparian 

vegetation and loss of large woody debris. The upper reaches were also dredge mined. The lower few 

miles were diked after a flood in 1964, especially near Stites and Kooskia. Water temperature and 

suspended and deposited sediment conditions have all been determined to be elevated above natural 

conditions in the South Fork (IDEQ et al., 2004). 

3.4.3.2 Environmental Effects 

With the exception of transportation, direct effects to the South Fork Clearwater River would not occur 

since none of the project activities take place along the river. Use of State Highways 13 and 14 would 

occur for log and aggregate haul, equipment mobilization and personnel transport. This use is subject to 

State and federal regulations. 

Indirect effects to the South Fork Clearwater River would need to translate downstream via the main stem 

of American River. Given the nature, magnitude and location of activities proposed in American River, it 

is considered highly unlikely that indirect effects would be detectable in the South Fork Clearwater River 

with the exception of the Eastside Project restoration activities. A portion of the restoration work would 

be conducted in lower American River. It is likely that some turbidity associated with suspended sediment 

could reach the South Fork Clearwater River during certain phases of the instream restoration work. This 

work would be done in accordance with Idaho State Water Quality Standards, Section 404 Permit 

requirements and Stream Alteration Permit requirements. 

3.4.3.3 Cumulative Effects 

Indicator 1–Watershed Condition 

Watershed condition indicators for the South Fork subbasin were described in the South Fork Clearwater 

River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a). The primary watershed indicators affecting watershed 

condition, which are applicable to the Eastside Project and cumulative effects include fire, timber harvest, 

roading, and restoration actions in the American River watershed and the Upper South Fork Clearwater 

River which reduce sediment yield and enhance riparian/streambank shading and riparian conditions. 

Fire was the primary vegetation disturbance prior to 1950, burning an average of about 45,100 acres per 

decade. Although some timber harvest occurred prior to 1950, it has not been quantified. Since 1950, fires 

have burned about 3,400 acres per decade, whereas timber harvest has averaged about 17,900 acres per 

decade. Timber harvest records indicate 3,090 acres cut in the 1950s, 23,154 acres in the 1960s, 32,559 

acres in the 1970s, 20,155 acres in the 1980s and 10,701 acres in the 1990s. 

In the general area above the Forest boundary, there are approximately 2,150 miles of roads for an 

average road density of 2.5 miles per square mile. Peak road construction occurred in the 1960s, when 

about 600 miles of road were built. In the 1970s and 1980s, about 400 miles of road were built per 

decade. At the time of landscape assessment (1998), about 100 miles of road had been built in the 1990s. 

Indicator 2–Water Yield 

Historic analysis of ECA conditions in the South Fork Clearwater River since 1870 was conducted in the 

South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) and updated for the American 

and Crooked River project (USDA-FS, 2005a). It includes ECA effects of historic activities, including the 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

107

following recently completed timber sales: 806, Honker II, Lucky Marble Mackey Day, Middle Face, 

Mill Helo, Otter Wing, Prospector Bunny, Ridge Running, Silver Quartz, Silver West, and 2021. Figure 

3.11 below shows the results of those analyses. 

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% ECA

Figure 3.4.6 South Fork Clearwater River ECA 1870–2004 

Figure 3.4.6 indicates that ECA for the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin peaked at about 20 percent 

in the decade of 1910, associated with the large wildfires of the era. ECA associated with timber harvest 

and road construction after 1950 has not exceeded about 10 percent and has been gradually recovering in 

recent years. There are no ECA guidelines applicable at the level of a 4th code subbasin, but the general 

ECA trends and levels are a useful indicator of overall subbasin conditions, relative to vegetation changes 

and water yield increases. 

The American and Crooked River project FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a) contains analysis of the effects on 

South Fork Clearwater River ECA of historic, ongoing and foreseeable projects. Figure 3.4.7 illustrates 

the effects of this analysis. 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

% ECA

No Action + Ongoing American Crooked Forseeable

Figure 3.4.7 South Fork Clearwater River ECA 2000–2012 

Figure 3.4.7 indicates a slight increase to just over 8 percent ECA, followed by a gradual recovery to preproject conditions. The NPNF Blacktail project was not modeled for ECA and sediment yield since data 

were not yet available. The project proposes fuel treatments on approximately 3,500 acres and prescribed 

burning on approximately 10,000 acres. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

108

Indicator 3–Sediment Yield 

Historic analysis of sediment yield in South Fork Clearwater River since 1870 was conducted in the 

South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) and updated for the American 

and Crooked River project (USDA-FS, 2005a). It includes sediment yield effects of historic activities, 

including the following recently completed timber sales: 806, Honker II, Lucky Marble Mackey Day, 

Middle Face, Mill Helo, Otter Wing, Prospector Bunny, Ridge Running, Silver Quartz, Silver West, and 

2021. Figure 3.4.8 below shows the results of those analyses. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% over base

Figure 3.4.8 South Fork Clearwater River Sediment Yield 1870–2004

The peaks in sediment yield prior to 1950 are the result of the same wildfires discussed above under ECA 

cumulative effects. After 1950, peaks of sediment yield occurred largely in response to road construction. 

Timber harvest affects sediment yield to a lesser degree. It can also be seen that chronic sediment yield 

gradually accumulated as a result of road construction. 

The sediment yield peaks associated with road construction prior to 1980 are likely underestimated, since 

the road sediment mitigation values reflect current conditions rather than practices which were in effect at 

the time of construction. Although roads were built in the subbasin prior to 1940, the sediment yield 

effects of these roads are not displayed until 1940. Sediment yield peaks associated with historic mining 

activities are not reflected in Figure 3.4.8 and likely exceeded those associated with other activities. 

Figure 3.4.9 shows the effect on South Fork Clearwater River sediment yield of historic, ongoing and 

foreseeable projects, in addition to Alternative B of the Eastside Project. Ongoing actions reflected above 

include Meadow Face, Starbucky and Whiskey South. Foreseeable actions reflected below include 

American and Crooked River Project, Red Pines, and the Newsome Creek Restoration projects. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

109

South FK Clearwater River at Crooked River

0

6.3336

12.6672

19.0008

25.3344

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

% over base

Ongoing Eastside Twp American Crooked + Eastside Twp

Figure 3.4.9 South Fork Clearwater River Sediment Yield 2000–2012 

Figure 3.4.9 indicates a slight increase to 20 percent over base, followed by a slight reduction in long term 

chronic sediment yield as a result of implementing watershed improvement projects. 

Actions associated with the proposed projects may contribute to and/or reduce cumulative sediment yield 

in the South Fork Clearwater River downstream of project area, dependent on the analysis timeframe. The 

NEZSED model was used to calculate the predicted cumulative effects sediment yield based on the 

proposed timber harvest, road construction, road maintenance, and road reconstruction. As discussed in 

Section 3.4.5.2 (Project Effects), these effects are expected to be short-term, and improvements in 

watershed condition over time would contribute to improved conditions in the river, assuming concurrent 

negative impacts do not occur off BLM-managed lands. 

Indicator 4–Channel Morphology 

Historically, the greatest impact to channel morphology in South Fork Clearwater River was caused by 

dredge mining and encroachment of Highways 13 and 14. Channel alterations from residential and 

agricultural development have affected the river below the Forest boundary. Dikes constructed after the 

June 1964 flood have affected the channel morphology from Stites to the mouth. Aggradation of the 

channel is also noticeable, particularly in the lower reaches from Butcher Creek to the mouth. The source 

of the material causing the aggradation appears to be the bed and banks of tributary streams, bank erosion 

along the mainstem; and landslides in the breaklands of the lower parts of the subbasin. 

Substrate data in the South Fork Clearwater River have been collected by the IDEQ, BLM and NPNF. In 

2002, the IDEQ contracted data collection for surface fines and cobble embeddedness. Data were 

collected in four reaches, from Threemile Creek to Crooked River, with 32 cross-sections sampled in each 

reach. Reach mean percent fines (less than 6mm) ranged from 2.2 percent to 6.0 percent and cobble 

embeddedness ranged from 46.6 percent to 48.2 percent. In 2002, the BLM collected surface fines and 

cobble embeddedness data at a site just above Crooked River. Surface fines (less than 6mm) was 5.3 

percent and cobble embeddedness was 29.6 percent. In 1989, the NPNF collected surface fines at four 

cross-sections at a site just above Crooked River. Composite surface fines (less than 6mm) was 5 percent. 

The levels of surface fines are considered to be quite low. This is probably due to the relatively high 

transport capacity of the river. The cobble embeddedness levels are moderate to high, perhaps indicating 

that higher levels of fine material are residing below an armor surface layer of coarse particles. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

110

The Eastside and the American and Crooked River projects are expected to have negligible effects on 

channel morphology of the South Fork Clearwater River. The pathway for such an effect would be 

transport of coarse sediment that could lead to aggradation. Coarse sediments that could be liberated 

during instream activities should be attenuated within the tributary channels rather than transported to the 

South Fork. The risk of delivery of coarse sediment from landslides caused by project activities is 

considered to be low. If such an event were to occur, the delivery would be to a tributary, and similarly 

subject to attenuation prior to reaching the South Fork. 

Indicator 5–Water Quality 

Water temperature in the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River commonly exceeds Idaho State Water 

Quality Standards during the warm months (IDEQ, 2004). Daytime summer water temperatures are 

warmest in the lower reaches (River Miles 0 to 20), below the Forest boundary. This is largely because 

the river is wider, shallower and more exposed to solar radiation in the lower reaches. The river is coolest 

where it runs east to west in a narrow, confined canyon (RM 35 to 50). It is somewhat warmer in its upper 

reaches where it is once again wider and shallower, with less effective topographic shading (River Miles 

50 to 65). Nighttime water temperatures follow a somewhat different profile, generally increasing 

downstream, but with little change below RM 25. 

Table 3.4.10 displays data since 1993 for three sites on the South Fork Clearwater River. It reflects some 

of the trends discussed above. It is also noticeable that, with the exception of 1994, the years since 1998 

have shown longer durations of warm temperatures. 

Table 3.4.10 Summary of Water Temperature Data for South Fork Clearwater River (1993–2004) 

# of Days >20°C Max Instantaneous Temp Year

Upper Mt. Idaho Stites Upper Mt. Idaho Stites

1993 2 0 32 25.0 19.0 22.7 

1994 34 24 50 24.5 23.3 28.4 

1995 0 21 371 16.5 20.71 24.91

1996 2 7 52 20.0 21.6 26.2 

1997 1 3 48 20.5 21.0 24.7 

1998 24 14 31 22.2 21.6 22.0 

1999 26 10 47 22.5 21.2 25.6 

2000 35 26 61 24.7 22.9 27.9 

2001 25 16 57 24.2 21.7 26.7 

2002 31 16 52 25.1 22.5 26.7 

2003 39 33 56 24.7 26.0 27.5 

2004 NA 28 43 NA 23.2 27.5 1

 Data started August 1 

The Eastside Project, when combined with other ongoing and foreseeable projects is not expected to have 

a noticeable effect on water temperature in the South Fork Clearwater River. This is because shade is not 

being reduced and channel morphology changes resulting in a wider, shallower channel are not 

anticipated. Over time, shade and channel morphology in the project area should improve with 

implementation of the riparian and instream improvements. The effect on water temperature from these 

improvements will be subtle and occur over a long period of time. 

The BLM South Fork Clearwater River Riparian Project is planned to occur in the foreseeable future 

(2006–2007). This project includes riparian plantings, tributary stream channel restoration, stream side 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

111

road decommissioning, restoration of stream bank at a dispersed camp site, and implementation of ATV 

trail erosion control measures (USDI-BLM, 2005b). Long term improvement to riparian condition, stream 

shading, and improved fish habitat condition is expected to occur along localized areas adjacent to the 

South Fork Clearwater River (USDI-BLM 2005b). Implementation of these actions supports BLM 

commitment to achieving the sediment and temperature TMDL for the South Fork Clearwater River 

(USDI-BLM, 2005b). 

The South Fork Clearwater River was analyzed for cumulative effects, including an effort to quantify 

sediment yield increases. In general, sediment yield conditions have probably improved in recent years. 

This is partly because the level of activity, particularly road building on federal lands has been 

substantially less than during decades of the 1950s through the 1980s. Additionally, dredge and placer 

mining has been substantially reduced since the 1950s. In addition, a number of watershed and fisheries 

restoration projects have occurred within the South Fork Clearwater subbasin. Future timber sales in 

prescription watersheds on federal lands are subject to similar design and upward trend requirements as 

the proposed American/Crooked and Eastside Projects. 

As the BLM MFP and Forest Service LRMP guidance of upward trend in aquatic conditions for below 

objective watersheds is followed, and the South Fork Clearwater River TMDLs for sediment and water 

temperature is implemented, aquatic conditions should continue to improve in the South Fork Clearwater 

River, when considered at the Forest Boundary near Mt. Idaho Bridge. General warming of the climate 

(Mote et al., 2003) may ultimately preclude reductions in water temperature over the next several 

decades, even though streamside shade should improve over time. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

112

3.5 Soils ___________________________________________ 

3.5.1 Introduction

The NPNF recently completed the American and Crooked River FEIS. That analysis includes the 

American River watershed in which the Eastside Project is located. Much of the information and analysis 

methods in this section are incorporated from that analysis. 

3.5.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The scope of the analysis for soils, including landslide risk, includes the American River watershed. Soil 

productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, 

and soil biota. Soil also performs an important role in hydrologic function: the ability of the soil to 

absorb, store, and transmit water both vertically and horizontally. 

Soil erosion may decline to negligible levels within five years on burned and harvested areas; however 

soil recovery following hot slash pile burns are not known, but effects are evident 30 years after burning. 

Mass wasting is considered to affect soil productivity for 20 years or more, until soil organic matter 

accumulates and colluvium fills in channels scoured by debris torrents. 

Temporal bounds for road-related effects are indefinite, because roads may continue to erode and produce 

sediment throughout their life, although peak erosion is typically at construction. 

3.5.1.2 Soil Physical Properties 

Indicators include: 

Soil Compaction and Displacement: 

x Acres of ground based logging on soils highly susceptible to compaction and displacement 

(USDA-FS, 1987c; Page-Dumroese, 1993) 

x Acres of road construction 

Surface and Substratum Erosion: 

x Acres of harvest on soils rated as high for surface erosion (USDA-FS, 1987b) 

x Acres of road construction on soil substrata (parent materials) rated as high hazard for erosion 

(USDA-FS, 1987b) 

x Acres of road decommissioning 

Mass Erosion: Acres of road construction or timber harvest on areas mapped as high landslide hazard.

3.5.1.3 Analysis Methods 

Baseline conditions and ecosystem processes are derived from ecological land unit mapping and field 

reconnaissance. Soil susceptibility to compaction, displacement, and erosion was inferred from soil 

survey map units (USDA-FS, 1987c). 

Past soil compaction and displacement were inferred from areas that have been tractor logged or dozer 

piled, and through photo interpretation or field reconnaissance. The linkage between tractor operation and 

machine piling, and their effects on soil compaction, displacement, and reduced soil productivity, is 

established through scientific research (Cullen et al., 1991; Froelich et al., 1983) and monitoring (USDAFS, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1999c, 2003b, and 2003c). 

The management strategy for landslide prone terrain is to minimize risk of slope failure in response to 

management activities. For the Eastside Project, field reconnaissance surveys were conducted by BLM on 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

113

areas of questionable stability. Roads and past harvest units were inspected for instances of instability; 

none were evident either on harvest units or roads (Stevenson, field notes, 7/2005). No harvest or road 

construction will occur in areas identified as having a high landslide hazard. 

3.5.2 Existing Condition 

Introduction

The South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) recommended as a high 

priority, “Restore aquatic processes” as the area theme for the American River watershed. Restoration 

should include both restoration of aquatic conditions and processes in the watershed and adjustments to 

the road and trail system to support aquatic restoration and maintain wildlife security while providing for 

administrative and public uses. The South Fork Clearwater Landscape Assessment (SFCLA) is not a 

decision document but provides an important synthesis of existing condition and resource potential in the 

watershed.

Soil resource management affects aquatic processes primarily through erosion, mass wasting, and soil 

compaction or disturbance that affects subsurface slope hydrology. 

Geology, Soil Development, and Landforms 

Rocks weather to form soil parent material. Soil texture, chemistry, and resistance to erosion are highly 

conditioned by geology. 

Metamorphic rocks or their derivatives comprise 97 percent of the rock types in the watershed. Belt-age 

metamorphic rocks: gneiss, schist, and quartzite, weather to sandy loam, loamy sand, or sand parent 

materials and develop into soil parent materials that are rated moderate to high for substratum erosion 

hazard (USDA-FS, 1987c). Tertiary sediments and other alluvium are important in the American River 

Township, and are stratified sediments derived from the same geologic materials. They typically weather 

into soil parent materials that are rated moderate to high for substratum erosion hazard. 

These materials typically have low levels of inherent nutrients, and moderate to poor ability to retain 

nutrients (Garrison and Moore, 1998). Potassium deficiencies noted in these rock types can affect tree 

growth and susceptibility to root disease. 

Granitics comprise about 3 percent of the project area. They are higher in certain nutrients, including 

potassium, but weather to sandy soils with low ability to retain nutrients. They typically weather into soil 

parent materials that are rated high to very high for substratum erosion hazard (USDA-FS, 1987c). 

Most soils in the project area have surface layers formed in volcanic ash-influenced loess derived from 

the eruption of Mt. Mazama about 6,700 years ago. This material is physically highly favorable to root 

growth, being very permeable and with a high ability to hold moisture and nutrients. This material is very 

easy to compact or displace at any moisture content (Page-Dumroese, 1993), Soil response to disturbance 

depends not only on soil type, but topographic setting and slope hydrology. Landforms have characteristic 

slope shape, steepness, and stream dissection, which affect erosion and sediment delivery to streams. 

x Rolling hills of low to moderate relief dominate the watershed at lower and mid elevations (80 

percent of the watershed). The volcanic ash influenced soil surface layers buffer against erosion 

except where soil substrata are exposed, as in roads or mines. Substratum erosion hazard is 

moderate to high. Slopes are gentle to moderate and sediment is delivered to streams with 

moderate efficiency. Unstable slopes are uncommon, and typically occur as small areas on lower 

slopes or near stream headlands. West and south facing slopes at low elevation may have thin or 

mixed ash surface layers. These soils do not hold moisture as well as ash-influenced soils and are 

more susceptible to surface erosion. 

x Stream breaklands and steep mountain slopes are of limited extent in the watershed (8 percent). In 

comparison to rolling hills, breaklands have steep slopes, shallower soils, thin or mixed loess 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

114

surface layers, higher surface erosion risk, higher risk of mass failure, and more rapid delivery of 

sediment to streams. Debris torrents can occur in headwater channels after intense rainstorms or 

rain-on-snow events. 

x Convex slopes are found at upper elevations (5 percent of the area). In comparison to rolling hills, 

convex slopes have broader ridges, lower drainage density, and bedrock is usually deeply 

fractured. Volcanic ash surface layers are typically present and buffer against surface erosion. 

Underlying these ash surface layers, the substratum erosion hazard is high, Slopes are gentle to 

moderate and sediment is delivered to streams with low efficiency. Unstable slopes are 

uncommon, and typically occur as small areas on lower slopes or near stream headlands. 

x Alluvial valleys form along low gradient stream channels (3 percent of the watershed). Soils are 

often poorly drained and subject to water transport most of the year. Substrata are coarse sands 

with gravel and cobble. Some have been dredge mined and only coarse mine spoils remain. 

Sediment delivery efficiency is very high (USDA-FS, 1987c); most of this landform is a riparian 

area.

The balance of the watershed (4 percent) consists of relatively small percentages of various other 

landforms. 

Soil Compaction and Displacement 

Road building, development, mining, tractor logging, machine piling, and grazing have impacted soils in 

American River. Displacement reduces plant growth where topsoil and organic matter are removed. 

Within the American River watershed, mining effects have been localized but severe: soils in dredge and 

placer-mined areas have been removed, and sterile tailing piles remain. Soil recovery has been very slow 

and some of these areas still act as sediment sources. About 11,314 acres (19 percent of the watershed) 

have been tractor logged, machine piled or displaced by mining or development, resulting in soil 

compaction and displacement over some of that area. This estimate is derived from Forest Service timber 

stand record systems, photo interpretation, and field reconnaissance. Where the volcanic ash surface layer 

is compacted, displaced or mixed, soil moisture holding capacity is significantly impaired (USDA-FS, 

1999b). Excavator piling has been documented on 250 acres in American River. This is usually less 

impactive than dozer piling, but can sometimes result in more than 20 percent detrimental disturbance. An 

estimate of total soil damage from past ground-based logging is 35 percent of the total area tractor logged, 

or 3,960 acres. About 778 acres of cable yarding have occurred in American River. Soil damage is usually 

confined to yarding corridors and landings, and accounts for about 4 percent of the activity area, based on 

monitoring in other areas (USDA-FS, 2003b). 

Road construction also displaces soil, with long-term to permanent impairment of soil productivity. About 

860 acres of documented system roads occur where topsoil has been displaced, mixed, or lost to erosion. 

This represents about 1.5 percent of the watershed. Additional undocumented non-system roads occur in 

the Elk City township. 

Motorized and non-motorized trails account for an estimated 65 acres of soil disturbance. Soils are both 

compacted and displaced. Numerous undocumented user-created ATV trails exist, which add to the 

amount of detrimental disturbance in the project area. 

The larger privately owned meadows near Elk City have been grazed since the mining era, and about 700 

acres are likely to have been most compacted. Although no documentation exists, grazing after the fires of 

1889, 1910, and 1919 was probably widespread in the burned areas of the watershed. 

Surface and Substratum Erosion 

Road building is the primary current source of erosion and sediment production in the watershed. 

Excavated skid trails and temporary roads are prone to erosion because the surface soil is removed. Road 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

115

erosion and sediment yield usually decline over time but continue at a chronic (i.e., continual) level 

indefinitely (Cline et al., 1981). Periodic large pulses of erosion may occur during intense or prolonged 

rainstorms or rain-on-snow events, or after burning or harvest that increases water yield and overland 

flow in interaction with road drainage systems (Wemple, 1994). 

Past mining has caused locally severe erosion of both surface soil and substrata, often concentrated in 

valleys where eroded material can reach streams. American River, Little and Big Elk Creeks, and Buffalo 

Gulch have been most affected (USDA-FS, 1998a). A minimum of 307 acres has been affected by dredge 

mining. Past fires have resulted in locally severe surface erosion, but post-fire erosion typically declines 

to negligible levels with vegetation recovery in about 4 years (Megahan, cited in Cline et al., 1981; Elliot, 

Robichaud, and Brown, 1999, as shown in Elliot and Robichaud, 2001). The most recent large fire 

occurred in 1919. This fire burned about 24,000 acres or 41 percent of the watershed. This was also the 

largest documented fire in American River. Other large fires burned in 1878, 1889, and 1910. 

Surface erosion from timber harvest has been slight. The volcanic ash-influenced surface soil is rated as 

low surface erosion hazard (USDA-FS, 1987c) and occurs over more than 75 percent of the project area. 

Excavated skid trails and temporary roads are prone to erosion because the surface soil is removed. About 

507 acres have been harvested in the past on soils with high surface erosion potential. These are on steep 

slopes, usually on south aspects, or in riparian areas where soil is readily detached and transported by 

water. Harvest has occurred on 510 acres on soils with moderate surface erosion hazard. They are usually 

on steep slopes on north aspects. Surface erosion on harvest units typically declines to negligible levels 

over time, except for some landings and excavated skid trails that remain on the landscape (Cline et al., 

1981).

Motorized and non-motorized trails account for 65 acres of soil disturbance which is susceptible to 

surface and subsurface erosion. Thirty-five acres are on soil substrata rated high for erosion hazard. 

Numerous undocumented user-created ATV trails exist in addition to the system trails. They add 

disproportionately to potential surface erosion because they are often gullied or rutted and may go straight 

up slopes or across creeks and have no erosion controls. 

Mass Erosion 

Landslide hazard is low in most of the analysis area, and few instances of mass erosion have occurred in 

harvest units or along roads. Mass erosion is the movement of large bodies of soil under the effect of 

gravity. Movement may be accelerated by high moisture levels, undercutting of toe slopes, or loss of tree 

rooting strength, among other factors (Chatwin et al., 1991). Landslides here include slumps, creep, debris 

avalanches or flows, debris torrents, and bedrock slides. Landslides can result in on-site loss of soil 

productivity, as surface soils are translocated down slope. Sediment delivered to streams may comprise 

fine sediments, which could have negative impacts, or larger rock and large organic debris, which could 

enhance stream habitat complexity. 

About 362 acres (less than 0.6 percent of the watershed) are mapped as high hazard for landslides and no 

project activities will occur on these. These are steep slopes, especially in concave headwalls, and have 

features that show evidence of past mass wasting. Debris avalanche, debris torrent, and shallow slumps 

are the most likely kinds of mass failures in the area, but field reconnaissance indicates past mass wasting 

has been generally restricted to small scale-events with modest impacts. Field reconnaissance for this 

project found few instances of mass wasting from roads and old harvest units. 

Cable logging typically produces relatively little soil damage (research cited in Alexander and Poff, 

1985).

About 8,820 acres, or about 15 percent of the American River watershed, has been clearcut harvested 

with dozer piling or broadcast burning. Most of this harvest was prior to 1990, when the first large woody 

debris prescriptions might have been implemented. Nitrogen losses have probably been substantial on 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

116

these sites. Because slash disposal burns logs on the ground rather than standing trees, soil temperatures 

can be hotter and nitrogen loss by volatilization may therefore be greater than with a wildfire. 

Highly decayed wood provides sites for ectomycorrhizal colonization, which contributes to plant growth 

and plays a role in the food chains of many small rodents and their predators. 

Coarse woody debris in natural systems fluctuates with forest growth, mortality, fire, and decay. Harvest 

and slash burning can remove large wood to a degree that its soil function is impaired, since both standing 

boles and down wood may be much reduced. 

3.5.3 Soil Compaction and Displacement 

3.5.3.1 Direct Effects 

Table 3.5.1 Indicators of Soil Compaction and Displacement: Eastside Project

Activity Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

Acres of ground-based timber harvest on soils rated high for 

compaction or displacement hazard plus new temporary road 

construction

0 840 819 779 

Acres of soil restoration through decommissioning of old roads 0 8 12 6 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, no soil compaction or displacement would occur as a consequence of 

road construction, timber harvest, or fuel reduction activities. Existing soil compaction and displacement 

would persist with very slight natural recovery of surface layers of compacted soils. No soil restoration or 

watershed improvement activities would occur, so the long-term upward trend would be slow. 

If wildfire occurred, mechanized suppression activities and subsequent salvage logging could create 

severe soil impacts, depending on fire characteristics and administrative decisions. Although it is not 

possible to predict an ignition or the size and severity of a wildland fire, it is well documented that the 

risk is rapidly increasing (see Section 3.1 Fire and Fuels). Given the increasing risk of severe wildland 

fire the continued accumulation of dead and down fuel loads could contribute to increased potential for 

locally severe fire effects on soil, including physical alteration of soil structure and development of 

hydrophobic layers, but compaction and displacement from a potential natural wildfire are not likely. 

The scope of such impacts is not foreseeable, given the uncertainties of fire ignition and burning weather. 

Because the location, intensity, and size of future fire, or agency actions in response to fire, are uncertain, 

with or without implementing any action alternative, the evaluation of alternatives by fire hazard is most 

appropriately addressed in Section 3.1 (Fire and Fuels). 

Action Alternatives B, C, and D 

Alternative B would result in the greatest potential for direct soil compaction and displacement, 

Alternative D is the least, and alternative C intermediate. There is only an approximately eight percent 

difference in acres of compaction and displacement between Alternatives B and D. The amount of 

compaction and displacement are largely driven by the tractor yarded and piled acres by alternative. The 

area impacted by road construction and recovery through decommissioning, and mine site rehabilitation is 

miniscule by comparison. Short-term changes to the livestock grazing will result on areas with prescribed 

burning and reforestation, but the long-term pattern will be unchanged (see Section 3.12 Grazing). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

117

3.5.3.2 Indirect Effects 

Action Alternatives B, C, and D 

Indirect effects of soil compaction and displacement include effects to vegetation and hydrologic 

processes. Compaction and displacement can result in reduced moisture holding capacity, greater drought 

stress, and susceptibility to pathogens or fire. Certain species have a greater competitive advantage in 

disturbed soils, like weeds or lodgepole pine, so that shifts in plant community composition have been 

noted in field inventories of harvest units (USDA-FS, 2003c). Altered soil porosity and moisture holding 

capacity (USDA-FS, 1999b) could contribute to higher drought stress, lower ground cover, and shifts in 

disturbance regimes like erosion or fire. The relative ranking of likely persistent indirect effects by 

alternative is (least effect to greatest): D, C, and B. 

3.5.3.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–All Alternatives 

Soil compaction effects can last 70 years (Froelich et al., 1983). Effects are irretrievable for that time 

period, but not irreversible. Decompaction can at least partly restore soil porosity and productivity. Soil 

displacement that mixes or removes the volcanic ash surface layer reduces soil moisture holding capacity, 

which may be irreversible and irretrievable. The relative ranking of likely persistent soil compaction and 

displacement by alternative is (least effect to greatest): A, D, C, and B. 

3.5.3.4 Cumulative Effects–All Alternatives 

The affected area for cumulative effects analysis is the American River watershed. 

Table 3.5.2 Indicators of Cumulative Compaction and Displacement: American River 

1

 The primary foreseeable action includes 251 acres of tractor logging or temporary road construction and 30 miles of 

road decommissioning in the American and Crooked River Project (in American River) and 17 acres of tractor logging 

in the Elk City school timber sale. 

Project design features and restoration can reduce the likelihood of effects to productivity, diversity, and 

weed susceptibility. Additional soil restoration associated with decommissioning of old roads would also 

reduce the extent of cumulative effects within the project area. Cumulative effects are directly related to 

the scope of timber harvest and mechanical fuel reduction activities, road construction, and soil 

restoration, including road decommissioning. The relative ranking of likely cumulative effects by 

alternative is (least to greatest effect) A, D, C, and B. 

Activities that cause soil compaction and displacement may have cumulative effects on soil porosity, 

water holding capacity, aeration, and long-term productivity, with repeated entries. Cumulative effects 

may also occur at the landscape level, where large areas of compacted and displaced soil affect vegetation 

dynamics, runoff, and water yield regimes in a subwatershed. About 4,849 acres are currently estimated 

to have sustained detrimental compaction or displacement in the American River watershed due to 

logging, mining, or road construction. (see the description of historic activities in American River at the 

Existing Condition Plus Proposed and 

Foreseeable Actions1

Activity 

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Existing

Condition2

Acres of ground-based timber harvest on 

soils rated high for compaction or 

displacement hazard, plus road construction 

or mining 

12,814 13,386 13,365 13,325 12,546 

Acres of soil restoration through road 

decommissioning. 34 42 46 40 0 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

118

head of this chapter). About 50 percent of the documented ground-based logging occurred in the years 

1972–1981, and about 14 percent from 1993 through 1996. Undocumented logging was extensive for 

land clearing and construction during the earlier mining eras. Major locations and timing of harvest 

included the late 1950s in Little Elk Creek subwatershed, 1961 in Middle American River, middle 1960s 

as part of the Little Elk Creek project, 1970s in Lower American, Upper American and Flint Creek, 1980s 

in Flint Creek and Kirks Fork, 1990s as part of multiple BLM sales in the Township in Big Elk Creek and 

Lower American River, 2000 and 2002 in Lower American River throughout the private lands in the 

Township. Impacts tended to change by time period because different equipment, constraints, and 

silvicultural prescriptions were used. 

Early logging in the mining era was sometimes selective and slash disposal negligible, so that effects 

were variable and sometimes slight. From the mid 1950s through 1980s impacts were severe due to both 

uncontrolled skidding and heavy scarification for fuels and site preparation. Broadcast burning occurred 

in some areas in the 1960s and 1980s and usually resulted in reduced compaction and displacement. 

During the late 1980s and 1990s some restrictions on timing of operations and skid trail spacing may have 

been employed. Recent use of forwarders and fuels concerns have prompted extensive grapple piling, 

both of which result in more widely spread compaction, but often less displacement (USDA-FS, 2003c). 

The Eastside Project alternatives will add from 779 to 840 acres of compacted or displaced soils, 

depending on alternative but will not impact areas already affected by harvest or mining, so cumulative 

effects considered on an activity area basis would be negligible. Considered across the watershed, 

cumulative effects of this project and the e American and Crooked River project and foreseeable Elk City 

school harvest, which could add an estimated 1,560 to 1,621 acres of compacted or displaced soils due to 

harvest and road construction, would comprise about 3 percent of the American River watershed. 

Mining activity has contributed to cumulative effects on soil displacement primarily through ditching in 

the late 1800s, which interrupted local slope hydrology and displaced surface soils, hydraulic mines 

which washed away both topsoil and subsoils, hard rock mining which excavated pits and adits, and 

dredging in the 1930s, which removed valley alluvium and left sterile mine spoils. Dredging has 

particularly displaced valley soils in the American, Lower American River and Little Elk Creek 

subwatersheds. No harvest is proposed in areas affected by past mining. 

Grazing has probably occurred along the privately owned valley meadows since the discovery of gold in 

1861 until the present. Lower forested slopes around the meadows have been converted to pasture and 

also grazed for many years. Livestock grazing probably compacted the moist soils of these low-lying 

meadows and slopes. No harvest is proposed in these areas. 

3.5.4 Surface and Substratum Erosion 

3.5.4.1 Direct Effects 

Table 3.5.3 Indicators of Surface and Substratum Erosion

Activity Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Acres of timber harvest on soils rated high for surface erosion 

hazard 0 0 0 0 

Acres of road construction on soil substrata (parent materials) 

rated high for erosion hazard 0 5 4 4 

Acres of road decommissioning or soil restoration 0 8 12 6 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, surface and substratum erosion processes would continue on roads, skid 

trails, and landings with slight abatement as slow natural vegetation recovery occurs. Erosion from 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

119

harvest units would continue to decline to negligible. No new management sources of surface or 

substratum erosion would occur, so the net trend would be reduced management-derived erosion. 

However, no soil or watershed improvement activities would occur, so the long-term upward trend would 

be slow. 

If a wildfire were to occur, consequent surface soil erosion would range from negligible to severe, 

depending on location, size and severity of burn, soil disturbance associated with suppression, salvage 

logging, or burn rehabilitation activities, and interaction of watershed response with the existing 

transportation system. Although the scope of such impacts is not foreseeable, given the uncertainties of 

fire ignition and burning weather, data displayed in the Section 3.1 (Fire and Fuels) displays an increasing 

risk of stand replacing fire. The continued accumulation of dead and down fuel loads could contribute to 

increased potential for locally severe burning behavior, which can increase the likelihood of surface 

erosion, but this may be similar to risks associated with logging and broadcast burning on areas proposed 

for treatment. 

Action Alternatives B, C, and D 

Alternative D would result in little surface erosion and the least substratum erosion, Alternatives B the 

most, with Alternative C intermediate, considering both harvest, road construction and restoration effects. 

Road construction is more likely to result in erosion than harvest. 

3.5.4.2 Indirect Effects 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The relative ranking of likely indirect effects by alternative is (least to greatest effects): D, C, and B. All 

alternatives would implement design criteria and mitigation measures to minimize rill erosion and 

sloughing on road cut slopes, and develop burn prescriptions to minimize erosion on harvest units. 

Indirect effects of soil surface and substratum erosion include effects to vegetation and hydrologic 

processes. Surface erosion removes the soil materials with the greatest ability to hold moisture and 

nutrients, potentially resulting in greater drought stress, poorer growth, and susceptibility to pathogens or 

fire. Since volcanic ash is not easily replaced, these effects may be very long lasting. Certain species have 

a greater competitive advantage in eroded soils, like knapweed or lodgepole pine, so that shifts in plant 

community composition and consequent disturbance regimes like erosion or fire, could occur. Eroded 

surface and substratum material may be delivered to streams and have consequences to water quality, 

stream temperature, quality of fish habitat, and channel morphology. See the discussions in Sections 3.4 

(Watershed) and 3.6 (Fisheries). 

3.5.4.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Effect 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The relative ranking of likely soil erosion by alternative is (least to greatest effects):, D,C,B. Effects of 

eroded substratum material are not irretrievable or irreversible, although effects as delivered sediment 

may be long lasting. 

Eroded surface soil, where it is derived from volcanic ash influenced loess, is irretrievable and 

irreversible. Residual soil materials would develop into topsoil over several decades to hundreds of years, 

but this material may lack the moisture holding properties of volcanic ash. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

120

3.5.4.4 Cumulative Effects–All Alternatives 

Table 3.5.4 Indicators of Cumulative Soil Erosion: American River

Activity Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Existing

Condition

Acres of timber harvest or burn on soils rated high for 

surface erosion hazard 507 507 507 507 507 

Acres of road or trail construction on soil substrata rated 

high for erosion hazard 298 303 302 302 286 

Acres of road decommissioning or soil restoration 44 52 56 50 0 

The affected area for cumulative effects analysis is the American River watershed. 

Cumulative effects are directly related to the scope of timber harvest and road construction on susceptible 

soils, and the degree of compensation offered by road decommissioning, road to trail conversion, and soil 

restoration. The relative ranking of likely cumulative effects by alternative is (least to greatest effects): 

C, B, D. 

Activities that result in soil surface and substratum erosion may have cumulative effects on water holding 

capacity, nutrient pools and retention, and long-term productivity, with repeated entries. Past activities 

considered in cumulative effects are mining, timber harvest and road construction on soils susceptible to 

erosion. No repeated entries into previously harvested areas are proposed for this project so cumulative 

effects at the harvest unit scale should be negligible. 

Cumulative effects may also occur at the landscape level, where large areas of soil exposed to erosion 

may affect vegetation dynamics, invasive species, runoff, and sediment regimes in a subwatershed. 

Erosion of surface soils on most old harvest units is expected to have declined to zero, but substratum 

erosion from roads continues on about 843 acres in the watershed. The alternatives would add from 4 to 5 

acres of temporary road construction on soil substrata highly susceptible to erosion, and the American 

Crooked Project about 7 acres of road construction on highly erodible substrata. Although it cannot be 

quantified, it is anticipated that road construction, development and timber harvest on private lands within 

the watershed will continue. As private landowners are not required to file for permits prior to activity, 

the estimated quantity cannot be predicted. These source areas contribute to loss of soil productivity. 

Required mitigation and restoration should maintain current or slightly improved soil erosion levels, 

because of the road decommissioning and soil restoration. Control of erosion is generally easier to attain 

than restoration of compacted or displaced topsoil. 

Existing roads have been constructed on highly erodible substrata throughout the settlement history of the 

watershed. Some of the most impactive were those constructed along valley bottoms during the mining 

eras: in 1935 in American River and Lower American River subwatersheds, 1895 and 1930 in Buffalo 

Gulch, and of undocumented age up Little Elk Creek. These roads generally were located and constructed 

with little regard for erosion control. Jammer roads built around 1967 for logging on steep slopes are 

concentrated in Big Elk Creek. These are stacked above one another and may interact to concentrate 

erosion. Other roads were built in the 1960s and 1970s on highly erodible substrata in the Kirks Fork, 

Upper American River, Lick Creek, West Fork American, and Little Elk Creek subwatersheds. These had 

low levels of design controls for erosion control. In the 1980s and early 1990s more roads were built in 

East Fork American River and Flint Creek, but better road location and design measures for erosion 

control were implemented during these decades. The temporary roads proposed for the Eastside Project 

on highly erodible substrata are located in the Lower American River subwatershed. Temporary roads 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

121

would contribute most to cumulative erosion in this subwatershed, per acre of ground disturbance, but 

erosion would decline to negligible levels after decommissioning. The proposed permanent roads for the 

Eastside Project are located in the Upper and Lower American subwatersheds. These roads are not on 

lands mapped as having highly erodible substrata. 

Past mining impacts on at least 307 acres are likely to have resulted in localized severe erosion. This 

activity was concentrated in Lower and Main American River, Buffalo Gulch, and Little Elk Creek. 

Proposed harvest and road construction are most extensive in Main American River, but are not on highly 

erodible materials, and cumulative erosion due to the Eastside Project would be constrained by design and 

mitigation applied to harvest units, new roads, and decommissioning of temporary and old roads. 

Motorized and non-motorized trails account for an estimated 72 acres. Soils are both compacted and 

displaced. Numerous undocumented ATV trails exist, which add to the amount of detrimental disturbance 

in the project area. 

3.5.5 Mass Erosion 

3.5.5.1 Direct Effects 

Table 3.5.5 Indicator of Mass Erosion: American River

Activity Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Acres of road construction or timber harvest on lands 

preliminarily mapped as high landslide hazard 0 0 0 0 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, mass erosion processes would remain a slight factor in soil processes in 

the watershed. Mass erosion from natural causes would continue at small scales and infrequent rates. 

Mass erosion from past management activities would continue at a much localized scale and declining 

rate as old roads stabilized and harvest units revegetated. If a wildfire occurred, consequent mass erosion 

could range from negligible to modest, depending on location, size, and severity of burn, soil disturbance 

associated with suppression, salvage logging, or burn rehabilitation activities, and interaction of 

watershed response with the existing transportation system. The scope of such impacts is not foreseeable, 

given the uncertainties of fire ignition and burning weather. 

The continued accumulation of dead and down fuel loads could contribute to increased potential for 

locally severe burning behavior, which can increase the likelihood of mass erosion in steep draws, 

drainage headlands, and on steep, wet lower slopes, because rooting strength would be lost, and more 

moisture available. 

Action Alternatives B, C, and D 

Mass erosion would change little from natural rates under Alternatives B, C, or D. No harvest or road 

construction would occur under any alternative on lands mapped as high risk for landslides. No roads 

proposed for decommissioning under any alternative are on land mapped as high landslide hazard, but 

local road and slope failures would be identified and treated as roads are decommissioned.

3.5.5.2 Indirect Effects–All Alternatives 

Indirect effects of mass erosion include effects to vegetation and hydrologic processes. Mass erosion may 

affect surface or substratum materials. Indirect effects are likely to be minimal, and differences among 

alternatives slight, because of the low landslide hazard in American River and because mass erosion 

potential would change little from natural rates under any of the action alternatives. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

122

3.5.5.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–All Alternatives 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable direct effects from the action alternatives which would impact 

mass erosion potential, except for potential loss of volcanic ash-influenced topsoil. Anticipated mass 

erosion processes under action or “no action” alternatives are of slight probability, size, or effects, and are 

unlikely to exceed natural rates. 

3.5.5.4 Cumulative Effects–All Alternatives 

The affected area for cumulative effects analysis is the American River watershed. 

There are no management activities planned within any of the action alternatives on areas identified as 

high risk of mass failure (i.e., landslide prone). Consequently, no cumulative effects resulting in increased 

mass erosion potential are anticipated. 

Past road construction in the watershed almost never crossed areas of high landslide hazard (less than 

0.04 miles). Small road cut failures, especially associated with areas of Tertiary sediments, occur in this 

moist climatic zone. They are not documented during routine road maintenance, but can contribute to 

cumulative erosional losses. Only 34 acres on high hazard areas have been harvested in the past and no 

mass wasting response has occurred, even during the flood years of 1996–1997. No road 

decommissioning is proposed for areas of high landslide hazard. 

The thinning and pruning that have occurred around administrative structures as part of defensible space 

projects in the analysis area will not increase mass wasting risk, because these are in areas of low risk and 

large, deep rooted trees that contribute to slope stability, are retained. 

3.5.6 Soil Chemical and Biological Properties 

3.5.6.1 Direct Effects 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

If a wildfire occurred, consequent soil nutrient loss could range from negligible to severe, depending on 

location, size, and severity of the burn, loss through salvage logging, and loss of nutrients through erosion 

or leaching. Fire could also make more nutrients readily available for plant uptake and benefit post-fire 

plant growth. The scope of such impacts is not foreseeable, given the uncertainties of fire ignition and 

burning weather. 

The continued accumulation of dead and down fuel loads could contribute to increased potential for 

locally severe burning behavior, which can increase the likelihood of nutrient loss to volatilization, 

erosion, or leaching. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Potential for potassium and nitrogen loss has been constrained by design measures under Alternatives B, 

C, and D. Design features specify that burn piles would be small and well distributed throughout the unit 

so that burn intensity would be reduced and redistribution of nutrients would be minimized. Piling would 

have adequate oversight and monitoring during implementation to ensure that adequate tops and limbs are 

left well distributed. 

3.5.6.2 Indirect Effects–All Alternatives 

The design and mitigation measures reduce differences among action alternatives to slight. Indirect 

effects of loss of soil nutrients include reduced growth and yield, increased susceptibility to pathogens 

(like root infection), and shifting species composition as species with the ability to sequester nutrients 

(like grand fir) out compete species less able (like larch) (Garrison and Moore, 1998). The “no action” 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

123

alternative would result in less immediate nutrient loss, but wildfire could affect any alternative by 

resulting in volatilization, leaching or erosion loss of nutrients, but also by making more nutrients readily 

available for plant uptake. 

3.5.6.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–All Alternatives 

Irreversible or irretrievable direct effects of nutrient loss will be reduced, because of the design measures 

adopted to protect tops and limbs from severe burning in large slash piles. 

3.5.6.4 Cumulative Effects–All Alternatives 

Activities that cause soil potassium and nitrogen loss may have cumulative effects on soil productivity, 

plant growth and yield, susceptibility to pathogens, and successional processes, with repeated entries. Past 

effects to potassium and nitrogen reserves due to management are not thought to be significant for the 

proposed activities, on a site-specific basis, because no entry into areas with prior timber harvest is 

proposed.

Some thinning and pruning have occurred around administrative structures as part of defensible space 

projects in the analysis area. This work is accomplished by hand. Lower branches and small trees were 

generally removed, and either hand piled or burned. Localized potential for cumulative soil nutrient loss 

is possible, if treatment is continuously sustained. 

Differences among alternatives are only due to the scope of harvesting and the relative ranking is (least to 

greatest effect): A, D, C, and B. Cumulative effects are in proportion to the scope of past, proposed and 

foreseeable regeneration timber harvest, particularly whole tree yarding, and likelihood for piling and 

burning slash that may result in extensive nutrient redistribution and volatilization. 

Activities that cause soil potassium and nitrogen loss may have cumulative effects on soil productivity, 

plant susceptibility to pathogens, and successional processes. Geologic materials potentially susceptible to 

potassium loss are dominant in American River. 

Design measures are required that will ensure that machine piling, where required, results in small welldistributed piles that would less likely to result in loss through volatilization than large piles. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

124

3.6 Fisheries _______________________________________ 

3.6.1 Introduction

This section will address the aquatic species and habitats found in areas potentially affected by the project 

and the associated potential direct and indirect affects of the project on aquatic species and their habitats. 

Refer to previous sections and chapters for a complete list of projects by alternatives which would be 

considered for this analysis. 

3.6.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The fisheries analysis area includes the American River watershed and the mainstem South Fork of the 

Clearwater River to the mouth of Crooked River. Within the American River watershed a total of 15 

subwatersheds occur (see Figure 3.6.1); the following nine subwatersheds may be potentially affected by 

the Eastside Project: Middle American River, Lower American River, East Fork American River, 

Whitaker Creek, Queen Creek, Box Sing Creek, Kirks Fork, Elk Creek, and Little Elk Creek. Appendix 

A, Map 17 displays subwatersheds within the American River watershed. 

The upper and middle South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is primarily under Forest Service 

management, BLM lands only occur within the Elk City township in the upper portion of the subbasin, 

which has mixed ownership and a long history of development. The lower portion of the South Fork 

Clearwater River subbasin consists of mixed ownership, and private lands are dominant. BLM lands 

within the lower subbasin consist of scattered tracts of lands, which are intermingled with private lands. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects have been analyzed for streams and subwatersheds within the 

analysis area.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

125

Figure 3.6.1 Composite v. Pure Watersheds–American River

3.6.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

Analysis and evaluation of fisheries and aquatic threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species data 

in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is based on direction contained in Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. 

In accordance with national policy (BLM Manual 6840), a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has 

been signed by the State Director and Idaho Department of Fish and Game Director that designates BLM 

sensitive species. Consistent with national policy, all BLM offices are to use this list to help them 

“...ensure, to the best of their abilities, that critical habits and populations of sensitive species occurring 

on lands administered by the BLM will be managed and/or conserved to minimize the need for listing 

these animals as threatened or endangered by either Federal or State governments in the future.” 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

126

The Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan (MFP) (USDI-BLM, 1981a) sets direction for 

management of the Cottonwood Field Office. The MFP includes goals and objectives, and where 

appropriate, applicable management emphasis areas for fisheries and water quality. The MFP and 

supplement guidance (USDI-BLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b) identifies fisheries/water quality objectives 

by prescription watersheds for the Cottonwood Field Office management area. Figure 3.6.1 above and 

Table 3.6.1 below identify eight prescription watersheds that would be affected by the proposed actions. 

The Elk Creek subwatershed (17060305-05-17) is primarily private lands and does not meet the criteria 

for a BLM prescription watershed (USDI-BLM, 1989a); however, it does occur in the composite 

watershed for Lower American River (see Figure 1), which will be assessed for cumulative affects. 

Table 3.6.1 Fisheries and Water Quality Objectives 

Prescription 

Watershed 

Prescription 

Watershed Name 

Current 

Fishery 

Habitat 

Condition 

(%) 

Fishery/Water 

Quality 

Objective 

(% Habitat 

Potential)

Sediment

Yield

Guideline

(% Over 

Baseline)

Entry 

Frequency 

Guideline

(Per Decade) 

17060305-05-06 Middle American R. 65% 80% 30% 1 

17060305-05-16 Lower American R. 60% 80% 30% 1 

17060305-05-10 E. Fk. American R. 80% 90% 30% 1 

17060305-05-12 Whitaker Creek 70% 70% 60% 3 

17060305-05-13 Queen Creek 70% 70% 60% 3 

17060305-05-15 Box Sing Creek 65% 70% 60% 3 

17060305-05-11 Kirks Fork 75% 80% 30% 1 

17060305-05-05 Little Elk Creek 60% 80% 30% 1 

Desired Future Condition

To estimate natural fish habitat potential and quantify existing stream conditions as required by the MFP, 

the Cottonwood Field Office is using Desired Future Condition (DFC) tables (USDI-BLM, 1989a) which 

have been further adapted from a model, developed on the Clearwater National Forest (Espinosa, 1992). 

The DFC tables identify specific fish habitat parameters by channel types using a habitat quality index. 

Values for the habitat parameters are quantified in a set of DFC tables. The DFC tables list the specific 

fish habitat parameter and a value or range that a stream should have in order to be at a given percentage 

of the streams potential and to meet the objectives for that watershed. The DFC values, habitat parameter 

data and their relationships are stratified by channel types and fish species. The values for the fish habitat 

parameters listed in the DFC tables are considered achievable for streams under natural conditions in the 

absence of major disturbances or are reflective of what good fish habitat should be. Most of the habitat 

parameters are consistent for each species, but they vary slightly by channel type. Using updated 

monitoring, surveys, and evaluations will permit adjustment of aquatic habitat parameters to better fit 

natural conditions and what is achievable. 

Upward Trend 

Eastside Project activities may potentially affect nine subwatersheds, of which eight are designated BLM 

prescription watersheds in the American River watershed (see Table 3.6.1). 

The MFP Addendums/Refinement (USDI-BLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b) provides direction that timber 

harvest or other land uses can occur in prescription watersheds that do not meet their Fish/Water Quality 

objectives when such is concurrent with watershed improvement efforts that result in a positive upward 

trend in habitat condition. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

127

PACFISH

The Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho and Portions of California, commonly referred to as PACFISH (USDI-USDA, 1995) 

supplemented the MFP in 1995. PACFISH established riparian goals, riparian management objectives 

(RMOs), and defines riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). It includes specific direction for land 

management activities within RHCAs for streams, lakes, wetlands, and landslide-prone terrain. The intent 

of PACFISH is to protect habitat and populations of anadromous fish through the use of RMOs and 

standards and guidelines for specific land use activities and through monitoring requirements. 

RMOs for stream channel condition provide the criteria against which attainment, or progress toward 

attainment, of the riparian goals is measured. They include habitat attributes such as number of pools, 

amount of large wood in the channel, stability of the stream banks, and width-to-depth ratio. The RHCAs 

were established to maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Healthy riparian areas are essential to 

maintaining or improving the quality of fish habitat. This analysis will use a combination of DFC, 

watershed condition indicators, and RMO values to identify conditions in watersheds where activities are 

proposed.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

As per PACFISH direction, RHCA widths to be used would be: 

x 300 feet either side of fish bearing streams; 

x 150 feet either side of non-fish bearing perennial streams; 

x 100 feet either side of non-fish bearing intermittent stream channels, wetlands, landslides, or 

landslide-prone area. 

No timber harvest would occur in RHCAs. In conjunction with the preparation of a BA,(USDI-BLM 

2006a) a site specific watershed analysis would be completed to address any road or landing construction 

which would be proposed for construction within an RHCA. Currently, a draft BA has been prepared for 

the Eastside Project. Ongoing review, conferencing, and consultation for the Eastside Project will be 

taking place with NMFS, USFWS, and BLM staff. Finalization of consultation and submittal of BA to 

NMFS and USFWS would take place prior to completion of the Final EIS. 

Endangered Species Act and Biological Opinions from NMFS and USFWS 

The American River watershed is designated as a priority watershed, as directed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These regulatory agencies 

issued Biological Opinions (BO) for Land and Resource Management Plans (NOAA-NMFS et al., 1998) 

with the following relevant guidelines for priority watersheds: 

x Watershed analysis must be conducted prior to harvest, salvage, or thinning activities in 

RHCAs, and demonstrate that the action would not retard/prevent attainment of RMOs or 

adversely affect listed fish. 

x Watershed analysis must be conducted if a watershed’s ECA exceeds 15 percent and harvest 

activities would increase ECA. 

x The 1998 steelhead BO added a sediment RMO incorporated by reference from the 1995 BO 

for chinook salmon. This RMO includes standards of less than 20 percent surface fines in 

spawning habitat or less than 30 percent cobble embeddedness in rearing habitat. 

The Endangered Species Act also provides direction that federal agencies consult on all activities that 

may affect listed species and/or their habitat. 

It is the policy of Congress that all Federal departments seek to conserve endangered and threatened 

species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of this purpose (ESA 1979 as amended, *1531.2b). 

Pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR Part 

600.920, Federal agencies must consult with NOAA-NMFS regarding any of their actions authorized, 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

128

funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Steven Act, Section 3, defines EFH as “those waters and 

substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Federal agencies may 

incorporate an EFH assessment into Endangered Species Act Biological Assessments. 

EFH for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is not in the analysis area, but does occur in the lower 

Clearwater River subbasin, over 60 miles downstream from the mouth of American River. 

Fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) do not occur in the American River watershed, but 

they do occur in the lower reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River and in the mainstem Clearwater 

River. The mouth of American River is approximately 40 miles upriver from documented fall chinook 

salmon use in the lower South Fork of the Clearwater River. 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) EFH includes all historically accessible reaches of the 

Clearwater River basin (except the North Fork Clearwater River above Dworshak Dam). EFH is present 

in American River and the South Fork Clearwater River for spring chinook salmon. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Steelhead Trout 

Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) is under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries which is 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and occurs within the analysis area. The Snake River 

steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was listed as threatened in a final rule on January 5, 2006 

(71 FR 834, effective date February 6, 2006); the Snake River steelhead was previously listed as 

threatened August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937, effective date October 17, 1997). Critical habitat for Snake 

River Basin O. mykiss was designated on September 2, 2005, and became effective January 2, 2006 

(Federal Register, Vol. 70, 52630). Steelhead trout are distributed throughout the South Fork Clearwater 

subbasin and the American River watershed (USDA-FS, 1999a). 

Steelhead trout in Idaho are the anadromous form of rainbow trout which have been further classified as 

redband trout of the Columbia River basin (Behnke, 2002). “Anadromous” refers to a life history whereby 

fish spawn and rear in freshwater but migrate to the ocean before maturing and returning to fresh water to 

spawn. Steelhead trout and most species of salmon follow an anadromous life history, and adults of both 

may attain large size as a result of time spent in the ocean. Populations of redband trout in the Columbia 

River basin, including those in Idaho, generally follow either an anadromous or resident life history. 

Some stream systems may support both types of individuals. 

Steelhead trout spawning in the upper South Fork Clearwater River and American River watershed 

generally enter fresh water in late summer and fall, spend the winter in the lower Columbia, Snake, and 

Clearwater Rivers, and migrate up the South Fork Clearwater River in early spring. Spawning usually 

occurs in the South Fork Clearwater River and tributaries during April and May. Juveniles may spend one 

to four years in streams and rivers, generally two, before migrating downstream to the ocean during the 

spring runoff period in May and June (Behnke, 2002). 

Steelhead trout are present in the South Fork Clearwater River and all accessible tributaries, including 

American River. All accessible American River tributaries have documented occurrences of steelhead 

trout. The smaller tributaries may only be used by steelhead trout for juvenile rearing. 

Bull Trout 

On July 10, 1998, the FWS listed the Klamath and the Columbia River population segment of the bull 

trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as threatened (Federal Register, June 10, 1998, Vol. 63, 31647). The FWS 

designated critical habitat on September 26, 2005; however, this designation did not include any streams 

or rivers in the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin (70 FR 56212, effective October 26 2005). 

Bull trout are actually a char and are included in the genus Salvelinus, with brook trout, lake trout, Dolly 

Varden, and Arctic char. The bull trout and Dolly Varden were long considered the same species, and are 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

129

generally similar in appearance, but skeletal and genetic analyses have shown they are separate species 

(Behnke, 2002). Large bull trout are known as voracious predators of other fish, although small bull trout 

typically feed on invertebrates. Bull trout spawn in the fall, typically in the coldest reaches of smaller 

tributaries. Clean substrate (rocks), cold water temperatures, and the presence of cover are important 

attributes of preferred bull trout habitat. 

Bull trout are especially vulnerable to human-induced factors that increase water temperature and 

sediment loads, change flow regimes, block migration routes, and established non-native trout, 

particularly brook trout (Behnke, 2002). 

A threat to bull trout is hybridization with, or competitive displacement by, brook trout. The effects of 

hybridization on the genetic integrity of bull trout is a relatively small concern because hybrid offspring 

are almost always sterile. However, when a brook trout breeds with a bull trout, the fecundity of that bull 

trout will be zero for that year–there will be no bull trout from that mating. Also, because brook trout can 

spawn at much younger ages, they can presumably competitively displace bull trout simply by having the 

capacity for higher population growth rates. 

Bull trout are present in the South Fork Clearwater River and many of its tributaries, including American 

River. Bull trout have been documented in Lower, Middle, and Upper American River, East Fork 

American River, and Kirks Fork. 

Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species

Spring Chinook Salmon

Spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) are not listed as a threatened species under the ESA 

in the South Fork Clearwater subbasin because indigenous populations were likely eliminated from the 

Clearwater River by construction of Lewiston Dam in the early 20th century (Schoen et al., 1999; Murphy 

and Metsker, 1962). Naturalized populations of spring chinook salmon have been re-established in the 

South Fork Clearwater River subbasin, including American River, as a result of reintroduction efforts by 

federal and state agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe (Schoen et al., 1999). 

The American River watershed has a high inherent capacity to support spring chinook salmon (USDAFS, 1998a), based on features such as climate, relief, and geology. This river system is comprised of 

significant lengths of low gradient, meadow reaches that provide optimal spawning and rearing habitat for 

this species, offering large areas of appropriately-sized spawning gravels as well as preferred low gradient 

rearing habitat juveniles with a high inherent capability to support spring chinook salmon ( USDA FS 

1998a). Spring chinook salmon have been documented in Upper, Middle and Lower American River, Elk 

Creek, Big Elk Creek, Little Elk Creek, East Fork American River, Kirks Fork, and Box Sing Creek. 

Historically, significant numbers of spring chinook salmon spawned and reared in these systems as well 

as other tributaries of the South Fork Clearwater River. Currently, adult returns vary but are generally 

low. In 2003, the weir at the mouth of Crooked River counted 1360 returning adult spring chinook. The 

1990 fish habitat survey conducted by Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. (1990) identified 9,810 square meters 

of spawning gravel available in the mainstem river from the mouth to Orogrande. If this habitat were fully 

seeded, even in the existing condition, there is potential to produce over 500,000 spring chinook smolts 

annually in Crooked River. The American River is a very similar system. Both rivers have been dredge 

mined using large floating bucket line dredges which resulted in a loss of pool habitat, removal of acting 

and potential woody debris and wider, shallower streams. 

Adult spring chinook salmon destined for the Snake River and tributaries enter the Columbia River in 

early spring, pass Bonneville Dam and reach the Snake River by late April, arrive at staging areas from 

late May to early July, and spawn from August to mid-September (IDFG, 1992). Adult ages range from 

three to six, with ages four and five dominating. Fry emerge from February to April, rear through the 

summer in the natal stream, and then migrate downstream to a mainstem river or large tributary to 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

130

overwinter, depending on habitat conditions in the natal stream. Smolts pass Lower Granite Dam from 

late April through June on their seaward migration (Chapman et al., 1991). 

Redband Trout 

Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) have been designated a sensitive species by the BLM 

and includes both anadromous steelhead and native resident rainbow trout that do not migrate to the ocean 

(Behnke, 2002). They are classified as the same species, except fish included in this category spend their 

entire lives in a stream or river, often at or near their natal area. 

In most anadromous steelhead populations, a portion of the juveniles do not migrate to the ocean and 

remain as resident redbands throughout their lives (Behnke, 2002). This would be expected to occur in the 

American River watershed. There are no known populations isolated above barriers within the American 

River watershed. Isolated populations exist elsewhere in the South Fork Clearwater River sub-basin 

(USDA-FS, 2005a). 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) have been designated a sensitive species by the 

BLM, and the Northern Region, U.S. Forest Service and a species of special concern by the State of 

Idaho. Currently, they are not listed or proposed for listing under ESA. In a letter dated June 10, 1998, the 

FWS “determined that a petition to list the westslope cutthroat trout...presented substantial information 

indicating that the requested action may be warranted.” Cutthroat trout are widely distributed across the 

Clearwater basin, although the current abundance is probably less than historic abundance (USDA-FS, 

1998a).

Westslope cutthroat trout are widespread in the analysis area, and have been found in virtually every 

tributary where surveys have been conducted. Populations may also be present in additional areas where 

surveys have not been conducted or where existing information is insufficient to define species presence 

or absence. 

Historic dredge mining of the American River floodplain has altered the lower reaches of Queen, 

Whitaker, Telephone, and Maggie Creeks, and resulted in no connecting stream channel to American 

River, consequently isolating their fish populations. However, during high flow flood events, and when 

American River flows over its banks and floods the stream bottoms, fish passage and access to these 

small watersheds may be provided for a limited period. These isolated populations offer unique 

opportunities to study genetic differences between isolated fish and those subject to hybridization with 

rainbow trout/steelhead trout or non-native cutthroat trout. It also recognized that human-caused barriers 

also have the potential to impair life history patterns and population viability. 

Although population status of resident westslope cutthroat trout is thought to be strong in some streams, 

the larger fluvial fish, those moving out of the tributaries and rearing in the mainstem are showing very 

low densities, making this species at risk (USDA-FS, 1998a). 

Primary existing threats to westslope cutthroat trout in the analysis area include habitat degradation, 

hybridization with rainbow/steelhead trout or non-native cutthroat trout, loss of connectivity among 

populations, competition with non-native brook trout, and harvest of adults by anglers. 

A potential impact to cutthroat trout exists from introduced species and the loss of genetic integrity from 

hybridization with introduced species such as non-native cutthroat trout and hatchery rainbow trout. In the 

South Fork Clearwater River subbasin, cutthroat trout evolved in the presence of steelhead. Stream 

surveys show that there is hybridization between rainbow trout in the lower to mid reaches (USDA-FS, 

1999a). Although hybridization is occurring, the two species are often reproductively isolated with 

cutthroat in the upper reaches and rainbow/steelhead in the lower reaches (USDA-FS, 1999a). 

Brook trout have been introduced into many streams in the Upper Columbia River basin and are believed 

to have replaced many westslope cutthroat trout populations, particularly in headwater streams (Behnke, 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

131

1992). Where the two species co-exist, westlsope cutthroat trout predominate in higher gradient reaches 

with brook trout prevailing in lower gradient reaches (Griffith, 1988). Brook trout outcompete juvenile 

cutthroat trout for food (Novinger and Rahel, 1999). When brook trout dominate the stream, cutthroat 

trout cannot compete and regain it. 

Pacific Lamprey

Pacific lamprey adults enter freshwater (Columbia River) between July and September and migrate 

several hundred miles to Idaho. They spawn in sandy gravel immediately upstream from riffles between 

April and July and die soon after. Eggs hatch in two to three weeks and the ammocoetes (larval lamprey) 

spend up to six years in soft substrate as filter-feeders before emigrating to the ocean. They remain in the 

ocean for 12 to 20 months before returning to freshwater to spawn. Diatoms appear to be a primary food 

supply for ammocoetes. 

Cochnauer and Claire (2003) documented habitat utilization for Pacific lamprey ammocoetes and 

macrothalmia in the South Fork Clearwater River watershed. Individuals were mostly found inhabiting 

sand and silt substrates in calm water sites adjacent to overhanging riparian canopy cover or in low 

velocity pockets behind boulders. 

Recent sampling in the South Fork Clearwater River and Red River documented the presence of juvenile 

lamprey in the mainstem South Fork Clearwater River and some of the tributaries (Cochnauer and Claire2003). Similar sampling conducted in American River in 2001 did not identify any lamprey (Cochnauer 

and Claire, 2001 and 2002). Much of American River was likely historic habitat for lamprey (Claire, 

2004).

Hydropower development, habitat degradation in spawning and rearing streams, and urban development 

are the major factors contributing to declines. Similar to salmon and steelhead trout outmigrants, the 

slackwater pools resulting from construction of hydroelectric projects in the lower Snake River impede 

lamprey downstream migrations by increasing migration time and susceptibility to aquatic predators both 

native and introduced. 

Other Fish Species of Interest 

In addition to the above special status species, the American River watershed is also known to support 

other fish species which are listed as follows: mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), bridgelip 

sucker (Catostomus columbianus), shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys

cataractae), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).

Brook trout are present throughout the American River watershed and the upper South Fork Clearwater 

River subbasin, including most streams in the analysis area. Brook trout are not native to streams west of 

the Continental Divide. Brook trout can occupy a wide range of habitats and have the ability to compete 

with trout, salmon, and char that are native to streams in Idaho. In degraded habitats, brook trout will 

often out-compete native bull trout (Clearwater Basin Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team, 1998). 

Where the species co-exist, brook trout are likely to displace native westslope cutthroat, particularly in 

low gradient streams. 

Brook trout are a fall-spawning species, and interbreeding with bull trout is common in areas where the 

species coexist. Brook trout are usually much more abundant than bull trout where they occur together, 

and this distorted ratio of abundance can lead to mass hybridization (Behnke, 1992). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

132

3.6.1.3 Analysis Methods 

Introduction

This section will describe in general, how existing conditions for fish and fish habitat were determined. 

The analysis will focus on seven indicators of fish habitat. This general discussion will be followed by a 

description of American River, fish bearing tributaries in the project area, and the South Fork Clearwater 

River and how indicators may potentially change as a result of project implementation. This will be 

followed with a discussion of cumulative effects. Included in the existing condition narratives for the 

American River and tributaries is a mix of both old and new data. Field investigations conducted during 

2004 and 2005 validated previous survey and monitoring data. 

The major improvements to the dredged mine reaches in American River involved the installation of 

instream structures to create pools and the placement of large woody debris. Most of this work occurred 

during the 1980s, with extensive efforts taking place by the BLM during 1992. These actions were 

coupled with riparian planting and seeding in an effort to increase shade and improve stream bank 

stability. The data used to reflect existing conditions reflects some of these improvements. The mining 

impacts were so extensive that even with the instream work, habitat elements remain below objective 

along some stream reaches. 

Comparison of past and current surveys and monitoring and field observations have noted overall 

improving conditions in riparian areas and streams flowing across BLM lands from improved 

management efforts, past and ongoing restoration efforts, and the federal listing of fish and associated 

changes to management in the American River watershed (Craig Johnson, 2005). It has also been noted 

that some legacy dredge mined areas have altered stream channels and riparian habitats and recovery is 

taking place at much slower rates and active restoration is needed in these areas for achievement of 

specific aquatic or riparian desired future conditions (Craig Johnson, 2005).

Indicator 1–Sediment/Substrate Condition 

Short term increases in turbidity and sediment would result from project implementation for most actions; 

however, restoration efforts would focus on long term reductions in chronic or “press disturbance” 

sediment. “Pulse disturbance” like most fires, floods, and some droughts are within the range of natural 

disturbances to which an ecosystem is adapted, are temporary in time and often patchy in space, and 

natural recovery is usually possible without assistance. “Press disturbance” alters the long term resilience 

of an ecosystem, like sediment from permanent roads or channel alteration from mining or grazing. The 

“press disturbance” described in this assessment are generally chronic, often widespread (i.e., roads, 

dredge mining), and may exceed the capacity for recovery without assistance. Surface erosion and 

sediment delivery to streams would be expected to be near pre-project conditions within one to two years 

after project implementation, with gradual improving reductions occurring in the long term. 

Salmonids are typically negatively affected by increasing amounts of sediment (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). 

A review of studies related to the effects of fine sediment on salmonids by Chapman and McLeod (1987) 

concluded that survival to emergence decreases as fine sediment increases in the spawning gravels, the 

loss of pool volume due to sediment deposition reduces the suitability of a stream for adults, 

macroinvetebrates decrease in biomass and diversity, and winter carrying capacity decreases. 

Sedimentation of deep pools and coarse substrate limits the physical space available to juvenile fish for 

rearing and overwintering. The summer or winter carrying capacity of a stream for fish declines when 

sediment fills the interstitial spaces of the substrate (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). 

Fine sediment (less than 6.33 mm) deposited in spawning areas can trap or smother eggs and embryos, 

reducing reproductive success of spawning adults. In spawning areas, egg deposition, development, and 

survival become limited when sediment fills the spaces between gravel, preventing the flow of oxygen 

and the flushing of metabolic wastes. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

133

Concern has been identified that laboratory studies have not duplicated the structure and composition of 

egg pockets in the redds of large salmonids, and have not accurately modeled survival of embryos and 

alevins in natural egg pockets (Chapman, 1988). Consequently, modeled emergence from data from fines 

by depth may not portray actual emergence. One criterium suggested by Chapman (1988) was to use the 

intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration. Fine sediments interfere with the flow of water through 

spawning gravel and therefore the transport of oxygen to incubating fish eggs. To assess the impact of 

fine sediments on salmonid spawning in the natural setting a protocol (Burton et al., 1990) was used that 

evaluated dissolved oxygen, fine sediment, and salmonid embryo survival in artificial redds in American 

River and Big Elk Creek. In 1992 the BLM conducted an artificial redd monitoring study at river mile 1.1 

in American River. In 1993 a similar study was conducted in Big Elk Creek at stream mile 3.55. The 

study (Johnson, 1993) included the creation of artificial redds, monitoring of dissolved oxygen and fine 

sediment in the redds, and documenting embryo survival and steelhead fry emergence. Tables 3.6.2 and 

3.6.3 provide a summary of the findings. 

Table 3.6.2 Assessment of Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Fine Sediment, and Salmonid Embryo Survival in 

1992 American River Artificial Redds–C Channel Type (Stream Mile 1.1) 

Steelhead Emergence Artificial

Redd # 

Eyed 

Steelhead

Eggs Total Fry 

Emergence # %

% Fines by 

Depth < 6.3 

mm

Redd DO Comments

1 100 20 20 29.3 10.7–12.4 

2 100 39 39 19.5 ND 

3 100 Cap Off Basket ND 31.4 ND Emergence 

Data Invalid 

4 100 6-Cap Loose, 

escapement ND 32.5 10.6–11.7 

Emergence 

Data Invalid 

5 100 54 54 30.0 ND 

6 100 17 17 32.4 ND 

7 100 Cap off Basket ND 29.1 11.1–11.7 Emergence 

Data Invalid 

Average 32.5 32.5% 29.2% 10.6–12.4 

Table 3.6.3 Assessment of Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Fine Sediment, and Salmonid Embryo Survival in 

1993 Big Elk Creek Artificial Redds–B Channel Type (Stream Mile 3.55) 

Steelhead Emergence Artificial

Redd # 

Eyed 

Steelhead

Eggs Total Fry 

Emergence # %

% Fines by 

Depth < 6.3 

mm

Redd DO Comments

1 100 34 34 25.7 ND 

2 100 63 63 25.4 ND 

3 100 83 83 25.0 ND 

4 100 8-Cap Loose, 

escapement ND 26.1 ND Emergence Data Invalid 

5 100 91 91 23.8 ND 

6 100 65 65 24.5 ND 

7 100 72 72 24.9 ND 

Average 68 68% 24.9 ND 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

134

It is acknowledged that the above study was not a controlled research study; however, based on past and 

recent monitoring efforts in the watershed, it may be concluded that steelhead embryo survival may be 

approximately 30% in American River (range 17–54%) when percent fines by depth were approximately 

30% in a C channel. The Big Elk Creek study found 68% (range 34–91%) emergence when percent fines 

by depth were approximately 25% in a B channel. It should be noted that even with excellent quality 

spawning gravels along with suitable redd water temperatures and dissolved oxygen that 100% 

emergence may not be expected to occur. 

Substrate conditions are an important component of fish habitat and fish survival. Cobble embeddedness 

is a measure of fine-grained sand that has filled in around the cobble substrate. The more embedded the 

substrate is the more reduction will occur to summer and winter rearing habitat and food production. 

Cobble embeddedness and percent surface fines were used as measures of the amount of deposited 

sediment present in the streambed. Existing measured or estimated cobble embeddedness and percent 

surface fines have been compared to optimal and desired stream conditions. “Desired future condition” 

standards are presented in Table 3.6.6, along with the existing condition. 

The BLM has collected substrate cobble embeddedness and fines by depth (core data) within the analysis 

area since the 1980s. Existing measured or estimated cobble embeddedness in analysis area streams was 

also used to estimate summer and winter rearing capacities for trout and salmon, using the FISHSED 

model (Stowell et al., 1983). The FISHSED model was then used to compare action alternatives using 

both existing cobble embeddedness measurements and sediment increase predictions of NEZSED. These 

elements were used to roughly predict potential changes in summer and winter rearing capacity among 

action alternatives using mathematical relationships in the FISHSED model. These changes were modeled 

for each alternative and are an indication of the amount of sediment expected and corresponding changes 

to cobble embeddedness. The limitations of both the NEZSED and FISHSED models are described in 

Appendix H, Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis. Sediment from sources other 

than surface sediment erosion, including bank erosion and mass movement (landslides) are not included 

in model estimates. 

The FISHSED model includes predictions for impacts to fish embryo survival, summer rearing capacity 

and winter rearing capacity. Summer and winter rearing capacity reflect how the degree of fine sediment 

in the stream bottom affects the stream’s ability to support fish during these seasons. This analysis will 

focus on summer and winter rearing and how these elements are changed as a result of this project. 

Because of the previous concerns identified above for using modeled results to predict fish embryo 

survival in spawning gravels (Chapman, 1988), no FISHSED modeled predictions for fish embryo 

survival will be made. This analysis will utilize BLM pre- and post- monitoring of spawning gravels 

conducted for other projects in the American River watershed and monitoring data from artificial redd 

monitoring discussed above. 

Model results, as displayed below in Tables 3.6.11 and 3.6.12 (Section 3.6.3.2 Indicator 1–

Sediment/Substrate Condition Analysis), are reasonable estimates of potential impacts and not absolute 

numbers with high statistical precision. The capability of the FISHSED model in analyzing and 

displaying change at the levels shown in these tables is somewhat limited. In this case, data from 

FISHSED are most useful in comparing the relative effects among alternatives. The model also reflects 

short-term changes only and does not show the long-term sediment reductions projected in NEZSED. 

Relation of Embeddedness to Management Activities 

The ability of embeddedness to detect changes due to land management activities is unclear and results 

have rarely been published in peer reviewed literature (Sylte and Fischenich, 2003). Burns (1984) 

sampled embeddedness in 19 tributaries of the South Fork of the Salmon River with varying levels of 

development. He found that streams with more development had statistically significant higher mean 

embeddedness than undeveloped or partially developed streams. Partially developed and undeveloped 

streams were not significantly different from each other. Munther and Frank (1986) quantified conditions 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

135

in Montana streams and found significant differences in only four of eight pairings of habitat units 

between developed and undeveloped streams. Potyondy (1993) in one of the most rigorous of all 

embeddedness studies summarized the results of cobble embeddedness analyses conducted on 120 

streams in the Idaho Batholith on the Boise National Forest (Potyondy, 1988) using the Burns (1984) 

measurement methodology. Potyondy found no statistical differences among streams in watersheds with 

various degrees of land-disturbing impacts from timber harvest, road construction, grazing, and mining. 

Stream embeddedness levels appeared to be more closely related to estimated natural sediment yields 

related to geology rather than to management activities occurring in the watersheds. 

Nelson et al. (1997) documented that some cobble embeddedness in undeveloped watersheds failed to 

meet specific cobble embeddedness objectives identified in the planning guidance for the Payette 

National Forest. These results have previously been reported and suggest that sediment conditions, even 

in the absence of development, are highly variable. 

Indicator 2–Large Woody Debris

Large woody debris (LWD) is one of the most important sources of habitat and cover for fish populations 

in streams (MacDonald et al., 1991:129). LWD increases fish habitat complexity, which helps ensure that 

cover and suitable habitat can be found over a wide range of flow and climatic conditions (MacDonald et 

al., 1991:128). Large wood has a major impact on channel forming in smaller streams (Sullivan et al., 

1987). The location and orientation of LWD can influence channel meandering and bank stability 

(Swanson and Lienkaemper, 1978; Cherry and Beschta, 1989). LWD is often the most important 

structural agent forming pools in small streams (MacDonald et al., 1991). Bilby (1984), and Rainville et 

al. (1985) found that 80 percent of pools in small streams in Washington and the Idaho Panhandle 

respectively, were wood associated. LWD also influences sediment transport in streams by forming 

depositional sites (MacDonald et al., 1991). Wood was responsible for storing half the sediment in several 

small stream in Idaho (Megahan and Nowlin, 1976). LWD can also provide storage sites for leaves, twigs, 

and other organic material (MacDonald et al., 1991). In small streams in forested areas, this fine organic 

material can provide the bulk of the energy and materials entering into aquatic food web (MacDonald et 

al., 1991). 

LWD is a component of habitat quality and complexity and is also an important contributor to stream 

productivity, cover, and food production for fish and other aquatic organisms. Large wood in the streams 

also contributes to channel stability in small, low order streams, and is thus an important element even in 

streams where fish are not present. Under natural conditions, large wood is contributed to streams from 

the surrounding riparian areas as trees fall over and may be recruited slowly over time or in large numbers 

over a short period of time. The latter often occurs in response to a significant disturbance event, such as 

wildfire or an extreme weather event where floods or debris torrents wash large amounts of material into 

the stream. Stream restoration for LWD deficient streams often includes felling trees into streams, hauling 

LWD to the stream, and selective placement in the stream. 

The amount of LWD in a stream is usually measured in the field during stream surveys by counting the 

number of large woody pieces present in the stream. Future woody debris recruitment is estimated by 

counting the number of trees in the riparian area that could fall into the stream. 

Field surveys found some stream reaches in the analysis area to be debris-deficient. Most of these reaches 

occur in the streams that have been dredge mined like mainstem American River and Little Elk Creek 

(USDI-BLM. 1992. BLM Subbasin Stream Surveys. Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood Resource 

Area, Cottonwood, ID., Craig Johnson, 2004/2005 field notes). Most of the tributary streams to American 

River have altered stream channels at the mouths or lower stream reaches from dredge mining and are 

also deficient in LWD (Craig Johnson, 2004/2005 field notes). 

Increases in water yield and high flood flows have the potential to scour stream channels and 

streambanks. These increased stream flows also may potentially move and flush embedded or anchored 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

136

LWD from a stream reach. LWD may be moved downstream to a larger stream or river reaches where 

LWD may not have the same important function for instream cover. 

Most woody debris recruitment in this landscape comes from the streamside zone. Landslides and debris 

torrents are uncommon in the American River watershed. 

Robison and Beschta (1990) found that when the distance from a tree to a stream was more than one 

effective tree height, the probability of the tree contributing LWD approached zero. The effectiveness of 

riparian forests along stream channels to deliver LWD is low at distances greater than one tree height 

away from the channel (McDade et al., 1990). 

Indicator 3–Pool Habitat 

Pool:riffle ratio is an indicator of habitat quality and complexity, both of which are important elements for 

salmonid fishes in streams. In addition, the quality of pools is an important consideration. Pool quality is 

generally indicated by pool volume and pool depth, with larger, deeper pools offering greater quality. 

Longitudinal spacing of pools along a stream course is also important. 

Stream survey data have provided estimates of the number and quality of pools for streams in the analysis 

area. Table 3.6.6 displays the summarized data and presents pool information as pool:riffle ratio. A ratio 

of 40 to 50 percent pools is generally desirable for B and C channel types. 

The number of pools in a stream and the quality of those pools can be affected by: 

x Long-term increases in sediment yield, a phenomenon that can result in pool-filling and eventual 

loss of the pool; 

x Increased bedload accumulation that also results in pool-filling; 

x Lack of large woody debris and other pool-forming structures, which can significantly affect 

streams that are dependent on large wood as the primary pool-forming mechanism; 

x Altered channel structure from dredging or road encroachment; and 

x Increased water yield or other high flow scouring events may scour stream channels, resulting in 

the wash-out or degradation of pool habitats. 

Therefore, changes in sediment yield and the amount of large wood available to fall in the stream are 

indicators for predicting changes in the number and quality of pools over time. In addition, pools may be 

artificially created during stream channel restoration projects, such as the construction of upstream rock 

“v” check dams. 

Indicator 4–Water Quality 

Toxics

A spill hazard exists wherever roads are near streams or road drainage enters streams (Furniss et al., 

1991). Fuel spills may negatively affect a fish-bearing stream biologically through direct poisoning of fish 

and invertebrates, a food source. Fuels and fuel oils are moderately to highly toxic to salmonids, 

depending on the concentration and exposure time (Gutsell, 1921). Free oil and emulsions may adhere to 

gills and interfere with respiration and heavy concentration of oil can suffocate fish. The fate of oil in 

water includes spreading, movement, evaporation, solution, emulsification, photo-chemical oxidation, 

microbial degradation, sedimentation, and hydrocarbons deposited in sediments which may persist for 

long periods (Saha and Konar, 1986). 

Water quality analysis includes potential risks for introduction of toxic materials. This assessment does 

not include predictions of the amount of toxic materials entering streams. The project proposal identifies 

measures that minimize potential risks of toxic materials entering streams. 

Historic dredge mining resulted in some accumulation of heavy metals and introduction of mercury, since 

it was often used as an amalgam in the gold mining process. This assessment includes an evaluation of 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

137

project implementation and associated potential to liberate mercury during the implementation of 

restoration projects that involve disturbance of historic mined areas, stream channels, substrate materials, 

and streambanks. 

Water Temperature 

Stream temperatures are the net result of a variety of transfer processes, including radiation inputs, 

evaporation, convection, conduction, and advection (Brown, 1983). Removal of vegetation along streams 

may result in instream temperature increases during summer months, and in the loss of insulating 

vegetation that can contribute to colder winter stream temperatures. Water temperature influences the 

metabolism, behavior, and mortality of fish and other organisms in their environment (Mihurksy and 

Kennedy, 1967). 

Unsuitable temperatures can lead to disease outbreaks in migrating and spawning fish, altered timing of 

migration, and accelerated or retarded maturation. Unsuitable temperatures can also force adult and 

rearing juvenile fish to find thermal refuge in tributaries where there may be increased risk of predation 

and/or competition for food, potentially affecting a fish’s fitness, thus its survival going into winter. Fish 

can often survive short durations of temperatures above or below their preferred range, growth is reduced 

at low temperatures because all metabolic processes are slowed, and at high temperatures, because most 

or all food must be used for maintenance (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). 

Measured buffer strip shading shows that a buffer strip 85 feet wide shades a stream as well as an average 

undisturbed canopy in late successional old growth forests in the Western Cascades (Steinblums, 1977). 

In a study of small streams, Brazier and Brown (1973) found the maximum shading ability of the average 

buffer strip was reached with a width of 80 feet. 

Colder water temperatures due to loss of insulating vegetation can lead to the formation of frazil or 

anchor ice on stream bottoms. Incubating embryos can be killed when frazil or anchor ice forms in 

streams and reduces water interchange between stream and redd (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). 

Generally spawning temperature is not as high of a concern for steelhead and redband/rainbow trout, 

which spawn in the spring, or bull trout, which spawn in the in the fall when stream temperatures are 

typically cooler. High summer temperatures can affect summer rearing habitat for all federally listed or 

BLM sensitive fish species, and the spawning success for spring/summer chinook that spawn in August to 

mid-September. 

Potential increases in stream temperature are addressed by assessing the degree of activities in riparian 

areas that may result in increased or decreased solar radiation to streams. No timber harvest is proposed in 

RHCAs. Within RHCAs, under the action alternatives a limited amount of temporary roads, permanent 

roads, one new vehicle bridge, and replacement of two existing ATV bridges are proposed. Riparian 

restoration activities include road decommissioning, relocating roads out of riparian areas, conversion of 

roads to ATV trails, streambank recontouring and riparian planting designed to increase stream canopy 

and bank stability. See Section 3.4 (Watershed) for additional discussion of this element. 

Indicator 5, Water Yield

The existing condition and a detailed analysis of this indicator are found in Section 3.4 (Watershed). 

Increased water yield is one indicator used to assess potential effects among the alternatives, and it is a 

rough predictor of potential changes in channel condition and instream habitat. Increases in water yield 

may indirectly affect fish habitat through increased bank erosion, channel down cutting, increased 

accumulation of larger streambed materials, reduction in number of pools, overall reduction of habitat 

complexity, and changes in number, size, or frequency of LWD. ECA is a term used to describe the total 

area within a watershed that does or would exist in a clearcut condition. Refer to Appendix H for 

additional information in regards to ECA protocol and use. The results of the water yield analysis 

included in Section 3.4 (Watershed) are used for analysis of potential impacts to fish habitat. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

138

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS, 1995) suggests that an ECA of 15 percent is 

cause for concern in priority watersheds. The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition 

(NOAA-NMFS et al., 1998) identifies less than 15 percent ECA as a high quality habitat condition; 15–

20 percent ECA as moderate quality habitat condition; and greater than 20 percent as low quality habitat 

condition. These thresholds were identified to provide a conservative approach to water yield that would 

avoid the following undesirable effects on stream habitat condition: accumulation of streambed materials 

(aggradation), channel braiding, channel down cutting, and increased bank erosion. The above may 

collectively or singularly contribute to increased width/depth ratio, decreased number of pools, decreased 

pool quality, and overall simplification of instream habitat (Chamberlin et al., 1991). 

Increases in water yield are highly variable in time and space because they are dependant on climate, 

topography, soils, vegetation, and other environmental factors. This high degree of variability makes it 

difficult to quantifiably determine an outcome as a result of timber harvest activities. Stream channel 

types and stability rating were used in conjunction with percent increases in ECA to assess the risk that 

project associated water yield increases may cause channel changes. 

Stream channel stability is determined through an inventory procedure developed by Pfankuch (1978:1). 

He developed a procedure to assess entire channel systems within a watershed, and to use the results in 

conjunction with other hydrologic analyses. Stream channels are rated based on their ability to withstand 

increase in stream discharge associated with decreases in the density and areal extent of vegetation, such 

as the removal of mid-aged to mature trees. A stream with a “poor” rating has a higher risk of sustaining 

damage from increased peak discharge than a stream rated “good” or “excellent.” Scores are the sum total 

of stability indicator classes for streambanks and stream bottoms (Pfankuch, 1978). Stability ratings are 

the result of a scoring system where: 

Excellent: less than 38 

Good: 39–76 

Fair: 77–114 

Poor: greater than or equal to 115 

The fish bearing streams and several representative first order watersheds within the analysis area had 

channel stability evaluations (Pfankuch, 1978) completed during 2004 and 2005. Stream reach inventory 

and channel stability evaluations had a high fair to good rating. No severe stream channel or streambank 

scouring was noted. The potential impact from water yield changes to stream channel conditions, pools 

and LWD are discussed under those indicators. 

Indicator 6–Habitat Connectivity/Fish Passage 

The ability for fish to move between habitats as conditions change, and for individuals to move between 

fish populations, is an important component for short-term survival and long-term population genetic 

diversity.

Human constructed physical barriers within the stream channel, such as culverts or other stream channel 

blockage (i.e., dredge tailings), can impair sediment and debris transport, life history patterns, and 

population viability. Decoupling the stream network (through physical barriers) can result in the 

disruption and loss of functions and processes necessary for creating and maintaining fish habitat. 

Physical barriers prevent the movement of fish in their fulfillment of life history functions. Human-caused 

barriers, for instance, prevent juvenile fish from reaching rearing habitats (Furniss et al., 1991) and have 

blocked significant amounts of historical anadromous salmonid habitat (Roni et al., 2002). Even more, 

barriers restrict the expression of various life history forms within a species. Strong populations rely on 

unimpeded access between watershed reserves, those areas of high quality habitat occupied by viable 

subpopulations, for dispersion and genetic interchange (Noss et al., 1997). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

139

Overall, the presence of roads is highly correlated with changes in species composition, population sizes, 

and hydrologic and geomorphic processes that shape aquatic and riparian systems. Research shows the 

importance of removal or restoration of existing roads to benefit both terrestrial and aquatic biota 

(Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). Roads can alter the landscape distributions of the starting and stopping 

points of debris flows and they can alter the balance between the intensity of flood peaks and the stream 

network’s resistance to change (Jones et al., 2000). Road crossings can prevent or interfere with upstream 

migration of adult and juvenile salmonids, aquatic macro invertebrates, and larval amphibians (Furniss et 

al., 1991). 

Roads, culverts, and sometimes bridges act like dams, constricting stream flow through a single narrow 

outlet. This can prevent the transportation of habitat-forming gravel and woody material down the 

channel. These constriction points also cause deposition and channel widening at the culvert inlet. The 

channels below culvert outlets are typically down cutting and scoured by the high velocity water caused 

by constriction. 

Roads and stream crossings have also been shown to function as barriers to the upstream movement and 

dispersal for many fish and wildlife species (Furniss et al., 1991). Culvert outlets not in contact with 

stream bottoms do not allow access for aquatic species. Undersized culverts constrict flows creating high 

velocity barriers and eliminating substrate from culvert bottoms. These barriers can isolate small aquatic 

populations, limiting or preventing genetic exchange between populations, and preventing the 

recolonization of historic or recovering habitats. 

Stream crossing structures also limit or prevent seasonal upstream movement by fish and other aquatic 

biota. Juvenile salmonids living in rivers often seek refuge in tributary streams during high flow events. 

Additionally, some culverts in fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams within the analysis area are in 

need of repair or replacement to reduce risk of failure. Historically, most culverts were sized to pass 50-

year storm events. In many cases, this sizing is not adequate to handle large flood events or debris 

torrents. Culverts sized for a 100-year or greater event are more likely to pass the water and debris 

associated with a large event. 

Dredge mining of stream bottom areas has altered the stream channels and in some instances has created 

blockage for fish passage and no stream channel exists which would connect the tributary stream with the 

mainstem river in these areas. These blockages typically occur near the mouth areas of small tributary 

streams to American River. 

Indicator 7–Riparian Areas/Stream Channels 

The most common biological features establishing or affecting the relationships of channel and valley 

slope have been native pioneer species of riparian vegetation (Smith and Prichard, 1992). High energy 

runoff and its associated transported sediment have been moderated by dissipation, through spreading 

across floodplains, vegetative entrapment, development of sinuous meander patterns, and seasonal 

recharge of ground-water aquifers and riparian bank storage. Healthy riparian areas are noted for having 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipated energy during high-flow events, limit 

erosion, and improve water quality. Healthy riparian and wetland areas also filter sediment and capture 

bedload, which aids floodplain development and enhances flood-water retention and ground-water 

recharge. In addition, healthy riparian–wetland areas also produce diverse ponding and channel 

characteristics that provide habitat necessary for fish production, waterbird breeding, wildlife habitat, and 

other uses (Prichard et al., 1996). 

Erman et al. (1977) reported that the composition of benthic invertebrate communities in streams with 

buffers greater than 100 feet were indistinguishable from those in streams flowing through unlogged 

watersheds.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

140

Historic dredge mining and road construction have been the most significant land use influences on 

riparian habitats and stream channels within the analysis area, and is followed by livestock grazing within 

some subwatersheds. Roads have encroached on riparian areas and stream channels. Road fords, bridges, 

and culverts exist at stream crossings, and these stream crossings alter stream channels and may be a 

chronic erosion and sediment source. 

3.6.2 Existing Conditions 

3.6.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Fish Species 

TES fish species present in the American River watershed include spring chinook salmon, steelhead trout, 

bull trout, redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and Pacific lamprey. Changes in habitat could affect 

these species directly, indirectly, and/or cumulatively and are collectively considered indicators of effect. 

A Biological Assessment (BA) would be completed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species 

for the selected alternative. Indicators used in the BA are based on accepted indicators developed by the 

Central Idaho Level 1 Team. Any terms and conditions associated with consultation would be included in 

the Record of Decision.

3.6.2.2 Summary of Fish Species Distribution

Appendix A, Map 17 displays fish distribution within the analysis area. Table 3.6.4 identifies known and 

suspected occurrences of trout, salmon, and char in the American River watershed and South Fork 

Clearwater River. 

Table 3.6.4 Known and Suspected Occurrence of Trout, Salmon, and Char in American River 

Stream Name Steelhead Bull Trout 

Spring

Chinook

Westslope

Cutthroat Brook

Trout

Middle American River Present Present Present Present Present 

Maggie Creek Absent Absent Absent Present Absent 

Lower American River Present Present Present Present Present 

Telephone Creek Absent Absent Absent Present Absent 

Baboon Creek Absent Absent Absent Present Present 

East Fork American River Present Present Present Present Present 

Whitaker Creek Absent Absent Absent Present Present 

Queen Creek Absent Absent Absent Present Absent 

Box Sing Creek Present Absent Present Present Present 

Kirks Fork Present Present Present Present Present 

Elk Creek Present Probably Absent Present Present Present 

Little Elk Creek Present Probably Absent Present Present Present 

South Fork Clearwater River Present Present Present Present Present 

3.6.2.3 Existing Condition of Habitat Characteristics: American River Watershed and 

South Fork Clearwater River 

During the 2004 and 2005 field season, the BLM Fisheries Biologist conducted field investigations of all 

fish bearing stream reaches within the project area. Stream reach surveys and monitoring included one or 

more of the following: reconnaissance fish habitat and riparian survey; water quality monitoring; 

substrate monitoring; and fish population monitoring. These field investigations supplemented existing 

survey and monitoring data, or verified current conditions in reference to previously collected data. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

141

Within the past twenty years, there’s been improved livestock management within riparian areas, some 

natural recovery of riparian vegetation, increases in LWD, and stream reaches with implemented fish 

habitat improvement projects that supported achievement of desired aquatic conditions. 

American River (Middle and Lower)–Prescription Watersheds #17060305-06 and 16

Overview: American River is a large watershed (58,612 acres) with important aquatic values and a high 

priority for restoration of aquatic processes. NPNF lands comprise 72% of the watershed, followed by 

15% private lands, and 13% (7,825 acres) BLM lands. The American River watershed has 16 prescription 

watersheds (see Figure 1 and Appendix A, Map 14). The mainstem American River flows through two 

composite watersheds which may be affected by the Eastside Project and include: (1) Middle American 

River, which includes NPNF, BLM, and private lands, the watershed originates on NPNF lands and 

extends into the township and has experienced extensive amounts of historic placer and dredge mining 

and fish habitat degradation; and (2) Lower American River is within the township and has experienced 

similar impacts as Middle American River. 

Fisheries: Steelhead trout, bull trout, spring chinook salmon, redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, 

mountain whitefish, bridgelip sucker, sculpin, dace, and brook trout are present in the American River 

watershed. Their distribution is widespread, with the exception of bull trout for which distribution is 

limited and abundance is low. Suitable habitat exists for Pacific lamprey; however, recent surveys have 

not documented occurrence. Spring chinook salmon and steelhead trout abundance may vary on an annual 

basis from low to moderate, because of fluctuations of returning adults. Westslope cutthroat trout 

populations vary; some areas are devoid of cutthroat trout while others have relatively high densities. 

Although population status of resident westslope cutthroat trout is thought to be strong in some streams, 

the larger fluvial fish, those moving out of the tributaries and rearing in the mainstem rivers, are showing 

very low densities. 

Migratory bull trout are present in American River, although at low levels. The extent of resident bull 

trout in American River is not well known. The Draft Recovery Plan–Clearwater River Recovery Unit

(USFWS 2002) identifies American River as a potential local population. Currently, it appears that the 

East Fork American River may provide the best potential habitat to be utilized for spawning and early 

rearing areas by bull trout in the watershed. Surveys conducted by the NPNF in 1998 did not document 

occurrences of bull trout in upper American River. Recent fish surveys conducted by BLM, NPNF, and 

IDFG (1996–2003) documented bull trout in mainstem American River, East Fork American River, and 

lower Kirks Fork. 

Fish Habitat: The BLM surveyed Lower American River in 1992 using a modified Hankin and Reeves 

(1988) survey methodology. The dominant channel types are B and C, average gradient is 1–2%, and 

unstable stream banks averaged 2%. BLM monitoring (2000) at river mile 1.11 found that cobble 

embeddedness was 31%, spawning gravel composition by depth had 28% less than 6.3 mm, and surface 

fines were 8%. A rating of fair was given for rearing and spawning habitat conditions. 

The NPNF last did an extensive survey of American River (upstream from BLM boundary) in 1993 using 

the Nez Perce National Forest basinwide methodology. During the survey approximately 69% of its 

length was classified as a B type stream channel. The remaining portion was classified as C and A 

channel types, 24% and 7%, respectively. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: Current percent over base sediment yield for the 

watershed is 16%. From 1995–2004 the BLM has monitored water temperature at stream mile 0.1, and 

the annual 7-day running average of high water temperature has ranged from 21.4°C to 27.6°C. Historic 

dredge mining along the stream bottom areas resulted in some accumulation of heavy metals and 

introduction of mercury, since it was often used as an amalgam in the gold mining process. The potential 

for adverse amounts of mercury to occur in the stream is considered slight because of the depth of 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

142

leaching. Current ECA for the American River watershed is 9%. Mean low summer flows at the mouth 

average 15–30 cfs and high flow average 500–600 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Overall, riparian habitats are in an early to mid-seral condition, with some reaches 

rated as “functional at risk” along the mainstem river. Dredge mining of the stream bottom areas has 

significantly altered riparian habitat and stream channel morphology. Roads and human development 

have encroached on riparian habitats and stream channels. The stream channel does not have its natural 

channel morphology and sinuosity (stream channel meanders). 

Land Uses: Timber harvest, livestock grazing, home construction, road construction, and mining have 

had varying levels of impact in the watershed. Dredge mining has impacted and altered the majority of the 

stream bottom areas along stream reaches in the lower and middle American River. Private land 

development is prevalent along some stream reaches, such as the American River subdivision. Refer to 

Section 3.4 (Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for additional summaries and discussion concerning land uses 

and watershed condition evaluations. 

Fisheries Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries/water 

quality objective for this watershed is 80% habitat potential. The existing condition is 60% habitat 

potential for Lower American River, and 65% habitat potential for Middle American River, making these 

stream segments below objective. Current trends are slightly upward in the watershed. The majority of the 

stream bottom area along Lower and Middle American River has been dredge mined. Yearlong and 

seasonal residences occur along some stream reaches. Dredge mining has altered the stream channel and 

reduced the quantity and quality of pools and active large woody debris is lacking. Dredge mining activity 

has reduced large woody debris recruitment along some reaches. High summer water temperatures and 

deposited sediment also reduce fish habitat quality. Because of the lack of LWD and reduced quantity of 

pools, various stream improvement projects have been constructed by the BLM, which include 

installation of upstream “v” rock check dams, log check dams, large woody debris, and habitat rock 

placement.

The primary limiting factors include elevated levels of deposited sediment, high summer water 

temperatures, lack of LWD, and limited number of good quality pools (BLM 1992 Stream Surveys, BLM 

2004 Substrate and Water Quality Monitoring, BLM 2005 Riparian/Greenline Monitoring, Craig 

Johnson, 2004/2005 field notes). 

Maggie Creek

The mouth of Maggie Creek occurs at approximately river mile 12.6 of American River, which is 

approximately two miles upriver from the mouth of the East Fork American River. The watershed is 263 

acres in size. Dredge mining and a road has altered the mouth area of the stream and the stream has no 

connecting channel to American River. The stream flows into a dredge pond and flows subsurface 

through dredge tailings at the mouth area. During high flow flood events, American River flows may flow 

over its banks and floods the river bottom, which may allow periodic limited or unknown fish passage 

into the lower reach of Maggie Creek. 

Westslope cutthroat trout are present in Maggie Creek, but population levels are very low (Craig Johnson 

2005 field notes). The dominant channel types are B5 and B5c, dominant substrate was sand and 

subdominant was small gravel, with a stream gradient of 2 to 3%. Estimated cobble embeddedness was 

60% and surface fines were 60%. With the exception of mining at the mouth area, overall, human impacts 

in the drainage are minimal and elevated deposited sediment exist under natural conditions for this small 

drainage. Summer high water temperatures ranged from 16°C to 18°C. Mean low summer flows for the 

lower reach were less than 0.1 cfs, and mean high flows estimated to be 5 cfs. Estimated ECA for the 

drainage is 5%. Riparian habitats are in mid-seral condition, and are rated as being in “proper functioning 

condition.” With the exception of the mouth area, where dredge mining and a road have encroached on 

the stream bottom area, the riparian areas are in good ecological condition and bank stability is 99% 

(Craig Johnson, 2005 field notes). The primary limiting factors for fish production are low flows, lack of 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

143

good quality pools, limited spawning gravels, and fish passage barrier at the mouth. Because of the small 

size of the watershed and low base flows this stream does not have high fish production capability (Craig 

Johnson, 2005 field notes). 

Telephone Creek

Telephone Creek flows into American River at river mile 10.5. The watershed area is 428 acres in size. 

Because of alteration of the mouth by dredge mining, no stream channel connects with American River. A 

full passage fish barrier occurs at the mouth area and lowest reach segment of the stream. During high 

flow flood events, American River may flow over its banks and flood the river bottom, which may allow 

periodic limited or unknown fish passage into the lower reach of Telephone Creek. The stream flows 

subsurface during low flow periods into dredge tailings. A primitive road parallels the stream and fords 

the stream at two locations. During high flow events the stream floods across the American River road 

and into American River. 

Westslope cutthroat trout are present in Telephone Creek and population levels are low (Craig Johnson 

2004 field notes). The dominant channel type is B3 in the lower reach and A3 channel type in the middle 

and upper portions with a stream gradient of 4 to 20%, the dominant substrate was sand and subdominant 

was small gravel. BLM monitoring (2004) at stream mile 0.1 found that cobble embeddedness was 77%, 

spawning gravel composition by depth had 68% less than 6.3 mm, and surface fines were 67%. The 2004 

seven-day running average maximum temperature was 17.5°C and the maximum temperature recorded 

was 19.3°C. Mean low summer flows were less than 0.05 cfs, and mean high flows estimated at 6–9 cfs. 

Estimated ECA for the drainage is approximately 47%. Riparian habitats are in mid-seral condition, and 

are rated as being “functional at risk.” The majority of the private land headwater area has been logged. 

The private lands in the headwaters are grazed by cattle during the summer. The primitive road is used by 

recreationists, primarily as an ATV trail. The stream has experienced flood scouring events and the road 

has encroached on riparian habitats and the stream channel. During spring run-off, the road erodes and 

rutting is common. The Telephone Creek watershed has an estimated 0.7 mile of fish bearing stream 

within the watershed. The primary limiting factors for fish production are low flows, lack of good quality 

pools, and poor quality rearing habitat (Craig Johnson, 2005 field notes). 

Baboon Creek

Baboon Creek flows into American River at river mile 8.1. The watershed area is 257 acres in size. 

Dredge mining has significantly altered the lower reach of the stream where it flows into American River. 

A private residence occurs at the mouth of the stream and a road crossing/culvert occurs approximately 

125 feet from the mouth of the stream. During low flow periods, the lower 50–150 feet of the stream 

channel may not have not surface flows. 

Westslope cutthroat trout and brook trout are present in Baboon Creek, although population levels are low 

(Craig Johnson 2005 field notes). The dominant channel types are A3 and A4 with a stream gradient of 4 

to 7%, the dominant stream substrate is large gravel and subdominant substrate is small cobble. Estimated 

cobble embeddedness was 35–45% and surface fines were 10–15%. Summer water temperatures ranged 

from 17°C to 18°C. Mean low summer flows for the lower reach were less than 0.1 cfs, and mean high 

flows estimated to be 4–6 cfs. Estimated ECA for the drainage is 5%. 

Riparian habitats are in mid-seral condition and are rated as being in “proper functioning condition.” With 

the exception of the mouth area, where dredge mining and a road have encroached on the stream bottom 

area, the riparian areas are in good ecological condition and bank stability is 99%. The primary limiting 

factors for fish production are low flows and lack of good quality pools. Because of the small size of the 

watershed and low base flows this stream does not have high fish production capability (Craig Johnson, 

2005 field notes). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

144

East Fork American River–Prescription Watershed #17060305-05-10 

Overview: East Fork American River flows into American River at river mile 10.6 and totals 11,392 

acres. The watershed has two subwatersheds (prescription watersheds), which include East Fork 

American River and Flint Creek. The lower to mid reaches of the stream flow through a timbered bottom 

with some stringer meadows. A private residence occurs near the mouth. A non-motorized trail parallels 

the creek. The lower reaches crossing BLM lands are not leased for grazing; however, NPNF lands are 

permitted for grazing. 

Fisheries: The East Fork American River provides habitat for steelhead trout, bull trout, spring chinook 

salmon, redband trout westslope cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, sculpin, dace and brook trout. A 

culvert located at the mouth was a partial/full fish passage barrier; however, it was replaced with a 20-foot 

wide bridge during the summer of 2006 by BLM. 

Bull trout redd surveys completed in 1999 and 2000 failed to document any confirmed bull trout redds, 

but brook trout redds were found (Nez Perce National Forest unpublished data). Fish population surveys 

by BLM, NPNF, and IDFG have documented the presence of bull trout; however, numbers were low and 

most fish were found in the middle reach. The stream may be used for bull trout spawning and early 

rearing; further investigations are needed for verification (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

Fish Habitat: The East Fork American River was surveyed by the BLM in 1992 from the mouth to 

NPNF boundary (stream mile 2.33). In 1993 the NPNF surveyed from that point to the headwaters. Both 

surveys used a modified Hankin and Reeves survey methodology (Hankin and Reeves, 1988). The 

dominant channel type in the lower reaches was C3 or B3 and average gradient ranged from 1–2 percent, 

and unstable stream banks were 2%. BLM monitoring at river mile 0.2 found that cobble embeddedness 

was 44%, spawning gravel composition by depth had 35.6% less than 6.3 mm, and surface fines were 

18%. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: The current sediment yield over base for the entire 

East Fork American River watershed is 12%. Current ECA for the East Fork American River watershed 

is 7%. 

The seven-day running average maximum temperature during steelhead and cutthroat spawning periods is 

13.4 degrees C, and is rated good (SM 0.1–1995). The seven-day running average maximum temperature 

for summer rearing is 16.1°C (SM 0.1–1995). No data on rearing temperatures are available for the 

middle reach, but spot monitoring during fish surveys in 1998 found cool water temperatures, which rated 

high for steelhead and bull trout rearing.The seven-day running average maximum temperature for bull 

trout spawning was 14.4°C (SM 0.1–1995), which is not optimal, cooler water temperatures occur 

upstream in the drainage. 

Low summer flows at the mouth average 3–5 cfs and average high flows are estimated at 140 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Riparian habitats are in mid- to late-seral condition, and are rated as being in “proper 

functioning condition.” With the exception of the mouth area, where dredge mining, a residence and a 

road occur, the riparian areas along the East Fork American River are in good ecological condition. 

Land Uses: Timber harvest and road construction have had low levels of impact in the drainage and have 

occurred primarily on NPNF lands. A culvert located at the mouth of the stream on private lands is a 

partial/full fish passage barrier. With the exception of a small tract of private land located at the mouth of 

the stream, the majority of the watershed ownership is NPNF and BLM lands. A trail parallels the stream. 

No timber harvest or roading has occurred within the watershed on BLM lands. No BLM lands within the 

drainage are leased for livestock grazing. Refer to Section 3.4 (Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for additional 

summaries and discussion concerning land uses and watershed condition evaluations. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

145

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries/water 

quality objective for this watershed is 90% habitat potential. The existing condition is 80% habitat 

potential, making this stream below its objective. Current trends are slightly upward in the watershed. 

Reconnaissance field investigation of the watershed during 2004 and 2005 have not identified any BLM 

land uses adversely impacting fish habitats, riparian habitats or chronic sources of erosion or sediment 

attributed to BLM management actions which would preclude or not support improving trends. 

The primary limiting factor is elevated levels of deposited sediment (BLM 1992 Stream Surveys, BLM 

2004 water Quality Monitoring, and Craig Johnson, 2004/2005 field notes). Because of low stream 

gradients and stream channel morphology, it is expected that this drainage would experience some 

elevated sediment levels under natural conditions. 

Whitaker Creek–Prescription Watershed #17060305-05-12

Overview: The mouth area of Whitaker Creek occurs at approximately river mile 9.7 of American River. 

The watershed is approximately 1,000 acres in size, and 70% is NPNF lands, followed by 22% BLM 

lands, and 8% private. Dredge mining has altered the mouth area of the stream and it has no connecting 

channel to American River. The stream flows subsurface through dredge tailings at the mouth area. Two 

private residences occur along the lower reach of the stream. 

Fisheries: The BLM during 2004 established a permanent monitoring station in the lower reach and 

electrofished 29 westslope cutthroat trout in a 55 square meter station. Whitaker Creek provides habitat 

for westslope cutthroat trout, brook trout, dace, and sculpin. 

Dredge mining has altered the mouth area and it has no connecting channel to American River. The 

dredge mined blockage is a barrier for fish passage into the stream from American River. A natural 

barrier consisting of a small falls and cascade is a full fish passage barrier at stream mile 1.2; westslope 

cutthroat trout have been documented above this barrier (Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

Fish Habitat: Whitaker Creek was surveyed by the BLM in 1991 from the mouth to NPNF boundary 

(stream mile 1.5), using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey methodology. The NPNF surveyed 

their lands upstream in 1989 using the same methodology. The NPNF also conducted surveys in 2003 

with the R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability an Evaluation and Stream Reach Survey 

(Pfankuch, 1978), and a Fish Habitat Reconnaissance Survey (USDA-FS, 2000). The channel types 

starting from the mouth are C3 (short mouth area reach), B4, and A3; and average gradient ranges from 

1–12%. Unstable stream banks were less than 3 percent. BLM monitoring (2004) at stream mile 0.4 found 

that cobble embeddedness was 56%, spawning gravel composition by depth had 47% less than 6.3 mm, 

and surface fines were 37%. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: The current percent over base sediment yield for the 

watershed is 31%. During 2004 water temperature was monitored and the instantaneous maximum water 

temperature was 18.1°C and the seven-day running average maximum summer water temperature was 

16.8°C. The ECA for the Whitaker Creek watershed is 10%. Estimates of low flows at the mouth average 

less that one cfs and high flow average is estimated at 14 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: The stream flows through a moderately confined to confined timbered stream 

bottom. Riparian habitats are in mid- to late-seral condition, and are rated as being in “proper functioning 

condition.” With the exception of the lower reach and mouth area (stream mile 0.0 to 0.4), where dredge 

mining, roads, timber harvest, and private land development has occurred, the upstream BLM and NPNF 

riparian areas along Whitaker Creek are in good ecological condition. 

Land Uses: Timber harvest, road construction, private land development, and dredge and placer mining 

have had varying levels of impact in the watershed. Dredge mining has impacted the mouth and lower 

reach of the stream and no stream channel connects or flows into American River. Private land 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

146

development, timber harvest, and roading have occurred in the lower portion of the drainage. Timber 

harvest and road construction has also occurred on NPNF lands in the upper portion of the watershed. 

BLM lands within the drainage have had minimal past land uses and no livestock grazing is authorized on 

BLM lands in the watershed. Refer to Section 3.4 (Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for additional summaries 

and discussion concerning land uses and watershed condition evaluations. 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries/water 

quality objective for this watershed is 70% habitat potential. The existing condition is 70% habitat 

potential, making this stream at its objective. 

Reconnaissance field investigation of the watershed during 2004 and 2005 have not identified any BLM 

land uses adversely impacting fish habitats, riparian habitats or chronic sources of erosion or sediment 

attributed to BLM management actions which would preclude or not support improving trends. 

The primary limiting factors include lack of connectivity at mouth, elevated levels of deposited sediment, 

and low flows. (BLM 1991 Stream Surveys, BLM 2004 Substrate and Water Quality Monitoring, Craig 

Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

Queen Creek–Prescription Watershed #17060305-05-13

Overview: The mouth area of Queen Creek occurs at approximately river mile 9.4 of American River. 

The watershed is approximately 1,088 acres in size, and 70% is NPNF lands, followed by 25% BLM 

lands, and 5% private. Dredge mining has altered the mouth area of the stream and the stream has no 

connecting channel to American River. The stream flows into dredge ponds and then subsurface through 

mine tailings at the mouth area. 

Fisheries: Queen Creek provides habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and dace. A segment of the lower 

reach was electrofished in 2003 by the Forest Service, and high densities of resident fish were identified 

(22 westslope cutthroat and 6 dace in a 23 square meter reach) (USDA-FS, 2005a). The BLM during 

2004 also established a permanent monitoring station in the lower reach and electrofished 29 westslope 

cutthroat trout in a 55 square meter station. The cutthroat population is isolated from the mainstem 

American River by dredge mining caused blockage and channel alteration of the mouth area and the 

stream has no connecting channel with American River. The stream flows into dredge ponds at the mouth. 

The BLM during 2004 conducted electrofishing in the dredge ponds the stream flows into at the mouth of 

the stream and documented the presence of dace and bridgelip sucker. These ponds have very high 

summer temperatures and during 2004 water temperatures of 20–26°C were documented. During high 

flow flood events, American River flows over its banks and floods the river bottom, which may allow 

unknown limited fish passage into the lower reach of Queen Creek. 

Fish Habitat: Queen Creek was surveyed by the BLM in 1991 from the mouth to NPNF boundary 

(stream mile 1.5) using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey methodology. The NPNF surveyed 

their lands in 1989 using the same methodology and completed a Stream Reach Inventory and Stream 

Channel Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978). In 2003 the NPNF conducted a Stream Reach 

Reconnaissance Survey, R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978), 

Rosgen Stream Channel Classification (Rosgen, 1996) with Wolman pebble count and channel profiles, 

and cobble embeddedness measurements. 

The stream flows through a wide valley bottom at the mouth, while upstream reaches flow through a 

confined timbered stream bottom. The channel types starting from the mouth are C2 (mouth area), B3, 

and A3; and average gradient ranges from 2–7 percent. Unstable stream banks were less than one percent. 

BLM monitoring (2004) at stream mile 0.2 found that cobble embeddedness was 42%, spawning gravels 

had 44.7% less than 6.3 mm, and surface fines were 22%. Deposited sediment levels are elevated; 

however, fish densities are moderate to high for this small stream. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

147

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: The current percent over base sediment yield for the 

watershed is 37%. During 2004 water temperature was monitored and the instantaneous maximum water 

temperature was 15.8°C and the seven-day running average maximum summer water temperature was 

15.3°C. ECA for the Queen Creek watershed is 13%. Estimates of summer flows at the mouth average 

less that one cfs and high flow average is estimated at 16 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Riparian habitats are in mid- to late-seral condition, and are rated as being in “proper 

functioning condition.” With the exception of the lower reach that has been disturbed by historic mining, 

the riparian areas are in good ecological condition with a stable to slight upward trend. Grand-fir is a 

common overstory riparian tree, followed by Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine. 

Understory vegetation includes alder, bracken-fern, arrowleaf groundsel, water sedge, small-fruited 

bulrush, bluejoint, mountain brome, and other forbs. 

Land Uses: Timber harvest, road construction, and dredge and placer mining have had varying levels of 

impact in the watershed. Dredge mining has impacted the mouth and lower reach of the stream and no 

stream channel connects or flows into American River. Timber harvest and road construction has 

occurred on NPNF lands in the upper portion of the watershed. With the exception of some historic 

mining, BLM lands within the drainage have had minimal past land uses and no livestock grazing is 

authorized on BLM lands in the watershed. Refer to Section 3.4 (Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for 

additional summaries and discussion concerning land uses and watershed condition evaluations. 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries/water 

quality objective for this watershed is 70% habitat potential. The existing condition is 70% habitat 

potential, and stream survey data and field investigations indicate this stream is meeting objective. 

Reconnaissance field investigation of the watershed during 2004 and 2005 have not identified any BLM 

land uses adversely impacting fish habitats, riparian habitats or chronic sources of erosion or sediment 

attributed to BLM management actions which would preclude or not support improving trends. 

The primary limiting factors include elevated levels of deposited sediment, limited winter rearing habitat, 

lack of good quality pools, and low flows (BLM 1991 Stream Surveys; BLM 2004 Substrate and Water 

Quality Monitoring; Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

Box Sing Creek–Prescription Watershed #17060305-05-12

Overview: Box Sing Creek flows into American River at river mile 8.5 and the lower segment flows 

across the dredge mined flood plain of American River. Roads, logging, and mining have impacted the 

stream to varying levels. Box Sing is approximately 5.7 miles long with a watershed area of 1,140 acres. 

The watershed is 84% is NPNF lands, followed by 13% BLM lands, and 3% private. Dredge mining has 

altered the mouth area of the stream. 

Fisheries: Box Sing Creek provides habitat for westslope cutthroat trout, brook trout, rainbow/steelhead 

trout, and chinook salmon. The FS documented the presence of chinook salmon juveniles in the lower 

segment of the stream during 2003. During 2005 the BLM monitored two permanent stations in the lower 

reach. Monitoring at stream mile 0.1 documented 10 cutthroat and 3 brook trout from a 57.5 square meter 

station and monitoring at stream mile 0.8 documented 30 cutthroat trout from a 32.5 square meter station. 

During the summer of 1992 the BLM constructed approximately 250 feet of new stream channel to 

connect Box Sing Creek with American River. Historic dredge mining of the mouth area altered the 

American River floodplain and no stream channel connected the stream with American River. At the 

mouth area, Box Sing Creek flowed subsurface through the old tailings during low flows or during high 

flow events flowed into low depressions or over the floodplain area in no distinct channel. 

Fish Habitat: Box Sing Creek was surveyed by the BLM in 1991 from the mouth to NPNF boundary 

(stream mile 0.67), using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey methodology. The NPNF 

surveyed the upstream reaches using the same methodology in 1989. NPNF recon surveys were 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

148

conducted in 2003 in support to this project. Surveys included Stream Reach Reconnaissance Survey, 

Rosgen Stream Channel Classification (Rosgen, 1996) with channel profiles and Wolman pebble count 

and R1 Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch, 1978). 

The stream flows through a confined timbered stream bottom. The dominant channel type in lower 

reaches was B4 and average gradient was 2 percent. Unstable stream banks were less than 3 percent. Box 

Sing is approximately 5.7 miles long. BLM monitoring (2004) at stream mile 0.1 found that cobble 

embeddedness was 44%, spawning gravel composition by depth had 31.4% less than 6.3 mm, and surface 

fines were 19%. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: The current percent over base sediment yield for the 

watershed is 21%. During 2004 water temperature was monitored and the instantaneous maximum water 

temperature was 17.7°C and the seven-day running average maximum summer water temperature was 

16.5°C. ECA for the Box Sing Creek watershed is 6%. Estimates of low flows at the mouth average less 

than one cfs and high flow average is estimated at 14 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Riparian habitats are in mid-seral condition, and are rated as being in “proper 

functioning condition.” With the exception of the mouth area, where dredge mining altered the channel, 

the riparian areas along Box Sing Creek are in good ecological condition with a slight upward trend. 

Common overstory riparian trees include grand fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce. Understory 

vegetation includes alder, arrowleaf groundsel, water sedge, small-fruited bulrush, bluejoint, mountain 

brome, and other forbs/shrubs. 

Land Uses: Low-moderate levels (16% of watershed) of historic timber harvest have occurred in the 

watershed and road density is 3.3 miles per square mile. The lower 2.0 miles of Box Sing Creek is 

moderately disturbed from past dredge mining and placer mining activities. Refer to Section 3.4 

(Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for additional summaries and discussion concerning land uses and watershed 

condition evaluations. 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries objective 

for this watershed is 70% habitat potential. The existing condition is approximating 65% habitat potential 

indicating this stream is near objective. With successional advancement in riparian habitats (mid-age to 

mature timber) and increased contribution of active large woody debris to stream channels from lodgepole 

pine that is dead or dying, it is expected that pool/riffle ratios and active instream woody debris will 

improve in the watershed. BLM restoration work in the watershed includes barricading the lower reach of 

the stream from ATV use, closing a road across a wet meadow, and re-connecting the channel to 

American River in 1992. Further activities that support upward trend include the installation of an open 

arch culvert at a ford that was a chronic sediment source and graveling the road (2002). 

Reconnaissance field investigation of the watershed during 2004 and 2005 have not identified any BLM 

land uses adversely impacting fish habitats, riparian habitats or chronic sources of erosion or sediment 

attributed to BLM management actions which would preclude or not support improving trends. 

The primary limiting factors include elevated levels of deposited sediment, limited winter rearing habitat, 

lack of good quality pools, and low flows (BLM 1991 Stream Surveys; BLM 2004 Substrate and Water 

Quality Monitoring; Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

Kirks Fork–Prescription Watershed #17060305-05-12

Overview: Kirks Fork flows into American River at river mile 6.9. The watershed is approximately 6,530 

acres in size, and approximately 98% is NPNF lands and approximately 2% BLM lands. Dredge mining 

has altered the mouth area and lower reach segment of the stream. A primitive road parallels American 

River on the east side and this road fords Kirks Fork near the mouth. 

Fisheries: Kirks Fork provides habitat for steelhead, bull trout, spring chinook salmon, westslope 

cutthroat trout, brook trout, mountain whitefish, sculpin, and dace. Bull trout use the stream for adult and 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

149

subadult rearing. Fish population surveys of the stream in recent years by BLM, NPNF, and IDFG (1996–

2003) have documented the presence of bull trout; however, numbers were low. 

Fish Habitat: Kirks Fork was surveyed by the BLM in 1992 from the mouth to Forest Service boundary 

(stream mile 0.55) ( USDI-BLM, 1992; USDA-FS 1999a). The Forest Service surveyed from the BLM 

boundary upstream in 1991. Both surveys used a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey 

methodology. The NPNF conducted a recon fish habitat stream survey in 2003. 

The stream flows through a confined timbered stream bottom. The dominant channel type in lower 

reaches was B3 and average gradient ranged from 2–3 percent. Unstable stream banks varied from 3–5 

percent. BLM monitoring at stream mile 0.15 found that cobble embeddedness was 45%, spawning gravel 

composition by depth had 28.9% less than 6.3 mm, and surface fines were 15%. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: Current percent over base sediment yield for the 

watershed is 5%. ECA for the Kirks Fork watershed is 2%. During 2004 water temperature was 

monitored and the instantaneous maximum water temperature was 20.3°C and the seven-day running 

average maximum summer water temperature was 17.8°C. The seven-day running average maximum 

temperature was 16.7°C in 1995. ECA for the Kirks Fork watershed is 2%. Estimates of low flows at the 

mouth average 1–2 cfs, and high flow average is estimated at 80–85 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Riparian habitats are in mid-seral condition, and are rated as being in “proper 

functioning condition.” BLM and NPNF riparian areas along Kirks Fork documented a good ecological 

condition. Common overstory riparian trees include Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, grand fir, and 

subapline fir. Understory vegetation includes alder, red-osier dogwood, arrowleaf groundsel, water sedge, 

small-fruited bulrush, bluejoint, mountain brome, and other forbs/shrubs. 

Land Uses: Timber harvest has occurred on 4% of the watershed and the road density is 0.6 miles per 

square mile. This watershed has relatively low levels of roading, timber harvest, and development. A 

primitive road and ford crossing occurs on Kirks Fork near the mouth of the stream. An ATV trail 

parallels Kirks Fork. Dredge mining has altered the mouth area and lower reach of the stream. With the 

exception of some historic mining and a ford at the mouth, BLM lands within the drainage have had 

minimal past land uses on BLM lands in the watershed. Refer to Section 3.4 (Watershed) and Table 3.4.2, 

for additional summaries and discussion concerning land uses and watershed condition evaluations. 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries objective 

for this watershed is 80% habitat potential. The existing condition is approximating 75% habitat potential. 

With successional advancement in riparian habitats (mid-age to mature timber) and increased contribution 

of active large woody debris to stream channels from lodgepole pine that is dead or dying, it is expected 

that pool quality and active instream woody debris will improve in the watershed. 

The primitive road and ford at the mouth of the stream is a source of erosion/sediment. With the 

exception of the ford, reconnaissance field investigation of the watershed during 2004 and 2005 did not 

identify any land uses adversely impacting riparian or aquatic habitats or chronic sources of erosion or 

sediment attributed to BLM management actions which would preclude or not support improving trends. 

The primary limiting factors include elevated levels of deposited sediment, poor winter rearing habitat 

conditions, and lack of good quality pools (BLM 1992 Stream Surveys; BLM 2004 Substrate and Water 

Quality Monitoring; Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). This subwatershed has relatively low levels of 

human disturbance; however, existing deposited sediment levels are elevated. 

Elk Creek

Overview: Elk Creek flows into American River at river mile 1.5. Elk Creek includes the reaches from 

the mouth to the confluence of Big Elk Creek and Little Elk Creek at stream mile 2.7. The watershed is 

approximately 15,650 acres in size, and approximately 45% is NPNF lands, 39% private lands, and 16% 

BLM lands. The Elk Creek watershed is a composite watershed, with three subwatersheds. The lower 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

150

portion of the watershed is primarily in private ownership, and the creek meanders through a large 

meadow, which is grazed by cattle and horses. Portions of the meadow are also used for hay production. 

The stream flows through the community of Elk City and the watershed is the municipal water source. 

The lower watershed consists of a broad meadow, with moderate slopes that are timbered. The mid and 

upper portions of the watershed are timbered, with meadows occurring along some of the stream bottoms. 

Fisheries: Elk Creek provides habitat for steelhead, spring chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, 

brook trout, mountain whitefish, sculpin, and dace. Bull trout may use the stream for adult and subadult 

rearing; however, an IDFG fish population survey of the creek in 1998 did not document the presence of 

bull trout in the watershed. IDFG sampled ten transects in Elk Creek during 1998, which occurred from 

the mouth to the confluence of Big and Little Elk Creeks (IDFG, 1998). Survey efforts during 1998 

documented that chinook salmon made up the greatest density (subyearlings) (71.4%), followed by 

mountain whitefish (20.48%), brook trout, rainbow/steelhead trout, and westslope cutthroat trout were the 

least populated species in Elk Creek (IDFG, 1998). Chinook salmon and steelhead trout densities can vary 

greatly from year to year, which is dependent on previous year adult salmon that returned to the 

watershed. Sculpin and dace were also observed during the 1998 surveys. 

Fish Habitat: Elk Creek was surveyed by the BLM in 1991 using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) 

survey methodology. The dominant channel type was C4 and average gradient was less than 1%. 

Unstable streambanks varied from 5–45%. The stable streambanks occur within livestock exclosure areas 

constructed by the BLM. BLM monitoring at stream mile 0.8 found that cobble embeddedness was 64%, 

surface fines were 34%, and spawning gravels had 54% less than 6.3 mm. BLM monitoring at stream 

mile 2.2 found that cobble embeddedness was 62%, surface fines were 45%, and spawning gravels had 

36% less than 6.3 mm. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: Elk Creek has some of the highest recorded summer 

water temperatures in the upper South Fork of the Clearwater River watershed. A seven-day running 

average maximum temperature of 23.0°C has been recorded for Elk Creek. The current percent over base 

sediment yield for the watershed is 18%. ECA for the watershed is 13%. Estimates of low flows at the 

mouth average 2–3 cfs and high flows average is estimated at 190 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Riparian habitats are generally in poor to fair ecological condition. Unstable 

streambanks and lack of shrubs are common along some stream segments. Livestock grazing is common 

along most stream segments. The only segment (0.4 mile) of Elk Creek flowing across BLM lands has 

been fenced from livestock use. Common riparian vegetation includes Kentucky bluegrass, redtop, reed 

canary grass, water sedge, small-fruited bulrush, bluejoint, mountain brome, Drummond’s willow, and 

other forbs/shrubs. 

Land Uses: Timber harvest, livestock grazing, home construction, urban development, road construction, 

and mining have had varying levels of impact in the watershed. The Elk Creek watershed is the municipal 

watershed for the community of Elk City. Specific stream reaches flowing across private lands have had 

historic and present summer grazing which have had adverse effects on riparian vegetation and 

streambank stability. Refer to Section 3.4 (Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for additional summaries and 

discussion concerning land uses and watershed condition evaluations. 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: Because of the small amount of 

BLM ownership in the Elk Creek 6th code HUC, no specific fisheries or water quality objectives have 

been established. Livestock grazing is one of the primary land uses impacting this stream reach, and the 

BLM has excluded livestock grazing along the segment flowing across BLM lands. BLM Elk Creek 

exclosures were constructed in 1983 and 2000 and riparian condition and bank stability have improved 

from poor to good along the stream reach flowing across BLM lands. Livestock grazing on private lands 

has resulted in streambank and riparian degradation. The BLM is currently cooperating and coordinating 

with Framing Our Community on several American River restoration projects. One project involves 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

151

private land riparian restoration (e.g., riparian fencing, streambank plantings, and streambank 

stabilization) for Elk Creek. 

The primary limiting factors for Elk Creek are high summer water temperatures, elevated deposited 

sediment levels, poor winter rearing habitat conditions, and lack of good quality pools (1991 BLM stream 

surveys; 2005 BLM Riparian/Greenline Monitoring; Craig Johnson, 2005 field notes). 

Little Elk Creek

Overview: Little Elk Creek flows into Elk Creek at stream mile 2.7. The watershed is approximately 

5,100 acres in size, and approximately 63% is NPNF lands, 23% private lands, and 14% BLM lands. The 

majority of the watershed is timbered with the exception of the lower meadow portion. The lower portion 

of the watershed is primarily in private and BLM ownership, while the mid and upper portion is primarily 

NPNF lands. The creek meanders through a large meadow in the lower reaches. In the mid and upper 

sections, the creek flows through stringer meadows or timbered/shrub stream bottoms. 

Fisheries: Little Elk Creek provides habitat for steelhead trout, spring chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, 

brook trout, mountain whitefish, sculpin, and dace. Bull trout may use the stream for adult and subadult 

rearing; however, an IDFG fish population survey of the creek in 1998 did not document the presence of 

bull trout in the watershed. IDFG sampled 25 transects in Little Elk Creek during 1998 (IDFG, 1998). 

Survey efforts during 1998 documented that brook trout were the most abundant species in the watershed 

(60.09%), followed by cutthroat trout (40.98%), chinook salmon (subyearlings) (12.36%), mountain 

white fish (2.13%), and rainbow/steelhead trout (1.64%) (IDFG, 1998). 

Fish Habitat: Little Elk Creek was surveyed by the BLM in 1991 from the mouth to the NPNF boundary 

using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1988) survey methodology (mouth to NPNF boundary). The 

dominant channel type was C4 and C3 in the lower and mid reaches and B3 in the upper reaches. The 

average gradient ranges from less than 1% to 2%. Unstable streambanks for various stream reaches 

ranged from 10–25%. BLM monitoring at stream mile 3.2 found that cobble embeddedness was 56%, 

surface fines were 39%, and spawning gravels had 37% less than 6.3 mm. 

The primary limiting factors include high summer water temperatures, elevated levels of deposited 

sediment, poor winter rearing habitat, and lack of good quality pools. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: The current percent over base sediment yield for the 

watershed is 24%. A seven-day running average maximum temperature of 23.0°C has been recorded for 

Little Elk Creek. ECA for the watershed is 11%. Estimates of low flows at the mouth average less than 

0.5–1 cfs and high flow average is estimated at 60–70 cfs. 

Riparian Habitats: Riparian habitats are generally in fair ecological condition. Livestock grazing is 

common along most stream segments. Common riparian vegetation includes Kentucky bluegrass, redtop, 

reed canary grass, water sedge, small-fruited bulrush, bluejoint, mountain brome, Drummond’s willow, 

and other forbs/shrubs in meadow reaches. Timbered stringer meadows will have redtop, water sedge, 

small-fruited bulrush, bluejoint, mountain brome, and other forbs/shrubs in meadow reaches. Common 

riparian trees and shrubs in the mid and upper reaches include lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, grand 

fir, alder, red-osier dogwood, and Drummond’s willow. 

Land Uses: Timber harvest, livestock grazing, home construction, road construction, and mining have 

had varying levels of impact in the watershed. Little Elk Creek occurs within the Elk Creek watershed, 

which is the municipal watershed for the community of Elk City. Stream reaches of Little Elk Creek have 

been dredge mined, and sinuosity has been significantly increased in these reaches. Refer to Section 3.4 

(Watershed) and Table 3.4.2 for additional summaries and discussion concerning land uses. 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The established fisheries objective 

for this watershed is 80% habitat potential. The existing condition is approximating 60% habitat potential. 

With successional advancement in riparian habitats (mid-age to mature timber) and increased contribution 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

152

of active large woody debris to stream channels from lodgepole pine that is dead or dying, it is expected 

that pool quality and active instream woody debris will improve in the watershed. 

The primary limiting factors for Little Elk Creek are high summer water temperatures, elevated deposited 

sediment levels, lack of large woody debris, poor winter rearing habitat conditions, and lack of good 

quality pools (1991 BLM stream surveys; Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

South Fork Clearwater River 

Overview: The South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is approximately 746,000 acres in size and BLM 

lands within the subbasin total 2% (15,203 acres). The majority of BLM lands occurring within the 

subbasin are in the Elk City township (12,859 acres). The elevations range from 1,240 feet at the mouth 

(Kooskia) to 10,000 feet. American River and Red River flow together at river mile 62.5 to form the 

South Fork Clearwater River. The South Fork Clearwater River flows into the Clearwater River at river 

mile 74.4. 

Fisheries: Special status fish found in the South Fork Clearwater River include: steelhead trout, bull trout, 

fall chinook salmon, spring chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, rainbow/redband trout, redband trout, and 

westslope cutthroat trout. Other native fish known to occur in the South Fork Clearwater River include: 

mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow, chiselmouth, brdigelip sucker, sculpin, redside shiner, 

speckled dace, and longnose dace. Non-native species occurring in the South Fork Clearwater River 

include: brook trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout, black bullhead, and smallmouth bass. 

The following Table 3.6.5 lists the lifestages for select special status species in the upper South Fork 

Clearwater River and American River/tributaries. 

Table 3.6.5 Lifestages for Federally Listed and BLM Sensitive Species–Upper S. Fk. Clearwater R. 

Lifestage Steelhead

Trout Bull Trout 

Sp/Summer

Chinook

Salmon

Westslope

Cutthroat

Trout

Pacific

Lamprey 

Adult

Migration

AUG–APR

S.Fk.Clearwater

JUN–AUG 

S.Fk.Clearwater

APR–JUL

S.Fk.Clearwater

MAR–JUN

S.Fk.Clearwater

JUL–OCT

S.Fk.Clearwater

Adult

Spawning

MAR–JUN

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

Late AUG–SEP 

Trib. Streams 

AUG–SEP

Trib. Streams 

MAR–JUN

Trib. Streams 

APR–JUL

S.Fk.Clearwater

Trib. Streams 

Adult

Overwintering

NOV–MAR 

S.Fk.Clearwater

NOV–MAR 

S.Fk.Clearwater. N/A NOV–MAR 

S.Fk.Clearwater

NOV–MAR 

S.Fk.Clearwater

Adult / 

Subadult

Rearing

N/A

YEARLONG 

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

N/A

YEARLONG 

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

N/A

Incubation & 

Emergence 

MAR–JUN

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

SEP–MAY

Trib. Streams 

SEP–MAY

S.Fk.Clearwater

Trib. Streams 

MAR–JUN

Trib. Streams 

APR–JUL

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

Juvenile

Rearing

1–3 Years 

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

2–3 Years 

Trib. Streams 

1 Year 

S.Fk.Clearwater

& Trib. Streams 

1–3 Years 

Trib. Streams 

4–6 Years 

S.F.Clearwater 

Trib. Streams 

Smolt 

Emigration APR–JUN Sub Adults SEP–OCT APR–JUL N/A APR–JUL 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

153

Fish Habitat: The mainstem South Fork Clearwater River begins at the confluence of American and Red 

River (River Mile 62.5). From this point to about Tenmile Creek (River Mile 47.1), the river is a 

relatively low gradient riffle/pool stream dominated by gravel and cobble substrate (USDA-FS, 1998a). In 

this reach, it is typically a C channel. It has been highly altered by dredge mining and placement of State 

Highway 14. From Tenmile Creek to Mill Creek (River Mile 32.8), the river is steeper, more confined, 

and the substrate is dominated by boulders and cobbles. The channel type is typically A, B, or C. This is a 

high energy reach through which sediment is readily transported. From Mill Creek to just above 

Threemile Creek (River Mile 7.6) to its confluence with the Middle Fork Clearwater River at Kooskia 

(Clearwater River–river mile 74.7), the South Fork is a relatively flat, unconfined riffle/pool channel with 

gravel and cobble substrate. The channel type is predominately C. This reach tends to be aggradational, 

with fine sediment depositing in the relatively few pools, and gravel and cobble depositing from upstream 

sources and the mouths of tributaries. The lowest reach of the river has also been partially confined by 

dikes, most notable in the vicinity of Stites and Kooskia. BLM monitoring (2000) at river mile 58.6 

found that cobble embeddedness was 30%, spawning gravels had 40% less than 6.3 mm, and surface 

fines were 5.3%. 

Water Quality, Water Yield, and Flow Regimes: The current estimated annual sediment yield over 

base delivered to the main stem South Fork Clearwater River at the NPNF boundary is approximately 

5.6% (USDA-FS, 2005a). The South Fork Clearwater River has elevated summer water temperatures, 

which are summarized in Section 3.4 (Watershed). Refer to Figure H.2, Appendix H, which depicts flow 

regimes for the upper South Fork Clearwater River, immediately upstream from the mouth of Crooked 

River.

Riparian Habitats: The upper South Fork Clearwater River riparian vegetation includes the following 

tree species: Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, grand fir, and Douglas-fir. Understory shrubs, forbs, and 

grasses include: alder, willow, red-osier dogwood, serviceberry, reed canarygrass, mountain brome, 

redtop, and hairgrass. Spotted knapweed infestations are common along roads and disturbed river 

bottoms. Historic dredge mining and Highway 14 have encroached on riparian habitats and the river 

channel.

Fish/Water Quality Objectives, Trends, and Limiting Factors: The primary limiting factors for fish 

production include high summer water temperatures, sediment, and poor instream cover conditions 

(USDA-FS, 1999a). 

3.6.2.4 Summary of Habitat Factors 

The following table 3.6.6 provides a summary of conditions observed and/or documented by the BLM 

and NPNF for streams potentially affected by this action.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

154

Table 3.6.6 American River and Tributaries Existing Conditions of Fish Habitat Indicators Compared to Objectives 

Cobble

Embeddedness

(BO Standard) 

Percent Fines By 

Depth

Spawning Gravels 

(DFC Standard) 

Percent Surface 

Fines

(Steelhead/Bull Trout 

Matrix Standard) 

Pool:Riffle Ratio 

(DFC Standard) 

Prescription 

Watershed

Objective Existing Objective Existing Objective Existing Objective Existi

Middle American River 17060305-05-06 <30 40 23 25.2 <20 10 40:60 29:7Maggie Creek N/A 60 N/A No Data N/A 60 N/A 10:9Lower American River 17060305-05-16 <30 31 23 27.6 <20 8 40:60 40:60 20:8

42:58

Telephone Creek N/A 77 N/A 68.5 N/A 67 N/A 10:9Baboon Creek N/A 40 N/A No Data N/A 10–15 N/A 10:9East Fork American River 17060305-05-10 <30 40 21 35.6 <20 18 45:55 20:8Whitaker Creek 17060305-05-12 <40 56 25 47.2 N/A 37 30:70 15:8Queen Creek 17060305-05-13 <40 42 25 44.7 N/A 20 30:70 11:8Box Sing Creek 17060305-05-15 <40 44 25 31.4 <20 19 30:70 15:8Kirks Fork 17060305-05-11 <30 45 23 28.9 <20 22 40:60 33:6Elk Creek 17060305-05-11 <30 64 N/A 34 <20 54 N/A 13:8Little Elk Creek 17060305-05-11 <30 56 23 39 <20 37 40:60 21:7South Fork Clearwater River <30 30 N/A 39.5 N/A 5 N/A N/A 

1 BLM stream reaches in Lower American River with instream fish habitat projects constructed, which included rock upstream “v” check d

large woody debris.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

155

Deposited Sediment (Cobble Embeddedness and Percent Fines)

Using the above cobble embeddeness measurements, the FISHSED model was used to estimate the 

existing conditions of summer and winter rearing habitat in American River and its tributaries potentially 

affected by this action. As displayed in Table 3.6.7 below, summer rearing is at or near objective for most 

streams. Winter rearing however is well below objective and has been identified as a limiting factor. 

Sediment can also settle in low gradient pool habitats and affects important holding areas for fish in the 

winter.

Table 3.6.7 Existing Conditions of Select FISHSED Variables, Which Are Relevant to the Deposited 

Sediment Indicator

Watershed Name/ 

Channel Type 

Existing Cobble 

Embeddedness

(%)1

Existing Summer 

Rearing Capacity 

(Percent of Optimal)2

Existing Winter 

Rearing Capacity 

(Percent of Optimal)2

Middle American River/C 40 89 35 

Lower American River/C 31 94 45 

East Fork American River/C 40 89 35 

Kirks Fork/B 45 87 31 

Whitaker Creek/B 56 79 23 

Queen Creek/B 42 88 34 

Box Sing Creek/B 44 87 32 

Elk Creek/C 64 72 19 

Little Elk Creek/C 56 79 23 

South Fork Clearwater River/C 30 94 46 

1

Existing cobble embeddedness was measured in the stream. 2

Values derived from FISHSED Model. 

Habitat Connectivity/Fish Passage

Habitat connectivity involves perennial and intermittent stream channels that have human-caused 

impairments which may affect habitat connectivity and fish passage. These impairments include culverts 

or dredge mining that altered stream channels, causing fish passage blockage. Vehicle use of fords 

generally can result in localized disturbance and displacement of fish, or may disturb spawning fish or 

destroy redds. These fords are a chronic sediment source, and vehicle use would result in minor shortterm increases in turbidity. Properly designed bridges or culverts that do not adversely encroach or alter 

natural stream channels do not impair fish passage. Table 3.6.8 displays a summary of stream channel 

crossings within the project area which have been impacted by culverts, dredge mining, bridges, or fords. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

156

Table 3.6.8 Existing Fish Bearing Stream Crossings in Eastside Project Area1

Watershed Name Culvert

Crossings

Vehicle

Bridge

Crossings2

ATV

Bridge2

Vehicle

Fords3

Dredge

Mining

Blockage

Total

Crossings

(Partial or

Full

Barriers)

Middle American River 0 3 0 1 0 4 (0) 

Maggie Creek 0 0 0 0 1 1 (1) 

Lower American River 0 3 1 1 0 5 (0) 

Baboon Creek 1 0 0 0 1 2 (2) 

Telephone Creek 0 0 0 2 1 3 (1) 

East Fork American River 0 1 0 0 0 1 (0) 

Kirks Fork 0 0 1 1 0 1 (0) 

Whitaker Creek 0 0 0 0 1 1 (1) 

Queen Creek 0 0 0 0 1 1 (1) 

Box Sing Creek 1 0 1 0 0 2 (0) 

Total 3 6 3 5 5 17 (7) 1 Includes stream reaches (BLM and private) within or adjacent to East Side project area only. 2 Existing vehicle bridges and ATV bridges are not partial/full barriers to fish passage. However, dependent on bridge 

design, such may encroach on stream channel or cause localized channel scouring or bank erosion. 3 Fords are not full passage barriers to fish. However, dependent of ford characteristics would have varying effects on 

stream channel, streambanks, and riparian habitats. Vehicle use of ford causes turbidity and disturbance or 

displacement to fish utilizing stream crossing habitat. Potential vehicle caused mortality or injury may occur to 

incubating eggs in redds or juvenile fish rearing in the interstitial spaces in the streambottom substrate. 

Water Quality/Temperature

Monitoring of water temperature within the American River watershed has documented that streams are 

not in compliance with the Idaho State Water Quality Standards. Cold-water biota, salmonid spawning, 

and bull trout criteria were exceeded at selected stream monitoring sites within the past four years. See 

Watershed section 3.4 (Indicator 5 – Water Quality), Tables 3.4.9 and 3.4.10, for additional information 

in regards to water quality and temperature. 

3.6.3 Environmental Effects 

3.6.3.1 Introduction 

This section will assess the effects of various alternatives on fish and aquatic habitats and the methods 

used to analyze the changes as a result of the Eastside Project. Assessment will focus on action alternative 

effects to “key” indictors, along with corresponding analysis of cumulative effects. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

RHCA widths identified in PACFISH (USDI-USDA, 1995) were developed to protect sensitive areas that 

are important to maintenance of aquatic ecosystem integrity. RHCAs do this by: (1) influencing the 

delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams: (2) providing root strength for 

channel stability; (3) shading the stream; and (4) protecting water quality (Naiman et al., 1992). Eastside 

Project RHCA widths should be sufficient to provide and protect riparian functions, including delivery of 

organic matter and woody debris, stream shading, and bank stability (Gregory et al., 1987; Beschta et al., 

1987; McDade et al., 1990; Belt et al., 1992). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

157

Watershed and Stream Restoration 

For a complete description of the activities covered in this section, please refer to Appendix I. Most of the 

restoration actions are associated with streamside riparian areas and rehabilitation of past dredge mining 

and roads. Listed (ESA) fish and BLM sensitive fish are present in the area. The in-channel and 

streambank disturbance from this work would cause some previously deposited sediment at the work sites 

to be mobilized within the stream. This short-term impact must be weighed against the long-term benefit, 

particularly when the activities provide long-term reduction in sediment and improve riparian, aquatic, 

and water quality conditions. The NEZSED model is not designed for use with instream projects, soil 

restoration, watershed improvements or culvert removal/replacement. 

In-channel and streambank activities may result in disturbance to individual fish, both within the 

immediate work area and downstream. Increased turbidity during work may locally affect individual fish 

but would not be at a magnitude where serious harm or mortality would be expected to occur. Timing 

restrictions for in-channel work would result in avoidance of spawning fish or occupied redds. 

3.6.3.2 Indicator 1–Sediment/Substrate Condition Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects Sediment/Substrate Condition Analysis 

A review by Belt et al. (1992) of studies in Idaho and elsewhere concluded that non-channelized sediment 

flow rarely travels more than 300 feet and that 200–300 foot riparian “filter strips” are generally effective 

at protecting streams from non-channelized sediment flow. In a review of past studies, Broderson (1973) 

noted that a stream buffer width of 200 feet had been found to control overland flows of sediment under 

the most extreme conditions. 

Channelized flow can travel in excess of 1,000 feet (Belt et al., 1992). RHCAs would help, but not 

eliminate the risk of channelized sediment reaching streams. Field verification has taken place during 

2004 and 2005 to delineate perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, seeps, springs, and bogs to 

ensure all appropriate areas are included and protected in designated and mapped RHCAs. Field 

verification also documented and verified the occurrence of two additional American River tributary 

streams as being fish bearing: Baboon Creek and Maggie Creek (Craig Johnson, 2005 reconnaissance 

stream survey and field notes). 

Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) 

The disturbed WEPP soil model (Elliot et al., 2000) is a tool to allow users to describe numerous forest 

and rangeland erosion conditions. The model disclosures for the WEPP model can be reviewed in 

Appendix H. Disturbed WEPP allows summary outputs, and presents the probability of a given level of 

erosion occurring the year following a given disturbance. Disturbed WEPP is designed to predict runoff 

and sediment yield from: 

x Young and old disturbed forests 

x Skid trails and harvested forests 

x Prescribed and wildfires 

Values for disturbed WEPP modeling of the proposed projects, such as slope, and percent cover for 

different activities, were either collected in the field during 2004 and 2005, or are estimates based on 

knowledge of the area. The accuracy of WEPP-predicted runoff or erosion rate may be plus or minus 50 

percent. The primary purpose of using the WEPP model was to provide additional analysis information 

for the evaluation of the effectiveness of RHCA buffers in reducing sediment delivery to stream channels. 

Using a minimum 100 foot RHCA, WEPP modeling predicts no probability of sediment delivery to a 

channel based on a 2-year climatic period for timber harvest, skid trails, and low severity prescribed 

burning (see Table 3.6.9 below). Based on a 30 year climatic period, the probability of sediment delivery 

from timber harvest and skid trails is 10% and 23% for prescribed burning. WEPP modeling indicates the 

minimum 100-foot RHCA would be able to filter sediment and yield a low risk of harvest-associated 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

158

sediment affecting RMOs for the project area subwatersheds. Most RHCA buffers in the project would 

exceed the 100 foot minimum. 

Table 3.6.9 WEPP Modeled Sediment Delivery for Action Alternatives (Based on Minimum 100 Foot 

Buffer to Intermittent Stream Channel) 

Based on 30 Year Climate Period Based on 2 Year Climate Period 

Activity Sediment

Leaving Profile 

(Tons/Acre)

Probability of 

Sediment

Delivery 

First Year 

Sediment

Leaving Profile 

(Tons/Acre)

Probability of 

Sediment

Delivery 

First Year 

Skid Trails 0.102 10% 0% 0% 

Timber Harvest 0.067 10% 0% 0% 

Prescribed Burn 

(Low Severity) 0.169 23% 0% 0% 

Deposited Sediment Analysis and FISHED 

Model results are reasonable estimates and not absolute numbers with high statistical precision. The 

capability of the FISHSED model in analyzing and displaying change at the levels shown in these tables 

is somewhat limited. In this case, data from FISHSED are most useful in comparing the relative effects 

among alternatives. The model also reflects short-term changes only and does not reflect long-term 

benefits in sediment reduction as predicted by NEZSED. The results must be used in combination with 

sound professional judgment. Disclosures for FISHED and NEZSED models can be found in 

Appendix H. 

All modeling was conducted for age 0+ steelhead trout. The data shown for Alternative A is the existing 

condition. The analysis of effects on fish habitat from increased sediment is based on the Watershed 

analysis of sediment in Section 3.4 (Watershed) above. Table 3.6.10 displays the existing and predicted 

changes in cobble embeddedness for each action alternative. Tables 3.6.11 and 3.6.12 display the 

FISHSED-predicted impacts to summer and winter rearing habitat. Modeled activities include road 

construction, road reconstruction, timber harvest, fuel treatments, and road decommissioning. It does not 

include site treatments for watershed, stream, and riparian restoration. This is a reflection of the model’s 

limitations, not the amount of actual on the ground improvements. 

The FISHSED model uses predicted peak sediment yields from NEZSED to calculate potential changes in 

cobble embeddedness, embryo survival, summer rearing capacity, and winter rearing capacity (Stowell et 

al. 1983). The specific fish response curves have drawn heavily upon the work of Bjornn (1969), Klamt 

(1976), McCuddin (1977), and Bjornn et al. (1977). These studies were conducted primarily in the 

laboratory and may constitute only a partial simulation of natural conditions. The model calculates shortterm changes only and does not have the capability to provide estimates in substrate response to long-term 

declines in sediment yield. 

Tables 3.6.10, 3.6.11, and 3.6.12 below display the existing condition of Eastside Project area streams and 

South Fork Clearwater River, and changes predicted by FISHSED. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

159

Table 3.6.10 Comparison of Predicted Cobble Embeddedness (CE) by Alternative

Predicted Percent (%) CE Stream/Channel Type Alt A (Legacy2

) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River/C1 40 (42) 43 42 42 

35 (2006) 34 (2006) 34 (2006) Lower American River/C1

 31 (33) 34 (2007) 34 (2007) 34 (2007) 

East Fork American River/C1 44 (46) 46 46 46 

Whitaker Creek/B 56 (59) 61 59 61 

Queen Creek/B 42 (45) 47 45 46 

Box Sing Creek/B 44 (46) 48 48 48 

Kirks Fork/B 45 (45) 46 46 46 

Elk Creek/C 64 (67) 67 67 67 

Little Elk Creek/C 56 (60) 60 60 60 

South Fork Clearwater River/C1 30 (33) 33 33 33 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 2 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base). Displayed for alternative 

comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) effects and 

Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes attributed to 

existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project action. 

Table 3.6.11 Comparison of Summer Rearing Capacity (SRC) by Alternative 

Predicted Percent (%) SRC Stream/Channel Type Alt A (Legacy2

) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River/C1 89 (88) 88 88 88 

Lower American River/C 92 (2006) 92 (2006) 93 (2006) 1 94 (93) 

93 (2007) 93 (2007) 93 (2007) 

East Fork American River/C1 87 (86) 86 86 86 

Whitaker Creek/B 79 (77) 75 (2007) 77 (2007) 75 (2007) 

Queen Creek/B 88 (86) 85 (2007) 86 (2007) 86 (2007) 

Box Sing Creek/B 87 (86) 84 84 84 

Kirks Fork/B 87 (86) 86 86 86 

Elk Creek/C1 72 (70) 70 70 70 

Little Elk Creek/C 79 (76)) 76 76 76 

South Fork Clearwater River/C1 94 (93) 93 93 93 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 2 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base). Displayed for alternative 

comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) effects and 

Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes attributed to 

existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project action.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

160

Table 3.6.12 Comparison of Winter Rearing Capacity (WRC) by Alternative

Predicted Percent (%) WRC Stream/Channel Type Alt A (Legacy2

) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River/C1 35 (34) 33 33 33 

41 (2006) 41 (2006) 41 (2006) Lower American River/C1

 45 (42) 42 (2007) 42 (2007) 42 (2007) 

East Fork American River/C1 32(30) 30 30 30 

Whitaker Creek/B 23 (22) 20 (2007) 22 (2007) 20 (2007) 

Queen Creek/B 34 (31) 29 (2007) 31 (2007) 31 (2007) 

Box Sing Creek/B 32 (30) 29 29 29 

Kirks Fork/B 31 (31) 31 31 31 

Elk Creek/C1 19 (18) 18 18 18 

Little Elk Creek/C 23 (21) 21 21 21 

South Fork Clearwater River/C1 46 (43) 42 42 42 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 2 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base). Displayed for alternative 

comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) effects and 

Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes attributed to 

existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project action. 

The results of FISHSED show predicted increases in cobble embeddedness and correspondingly, no 

change or slight decreases in summer and winter rearing capacity for most fish-bearing streams under all 

action alternatives. As stated by Stowell et al. (1983), FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the 

effects of “substantial” changes in habitat quality greater than 10 to 20 percent and to document the 

relative differences among alternatives. Stowell et al. (1983) also stated that sound biological judgment 

should be used when comparing the relative differences among alternatives. 

Of the above results, predicted changes in cobble embeddedness in Lower American and Queen Creek 

(Alternative B) exceed this 10 percent threshold; for all the others, the predicted changes in cobble 

embeddedness are less than 10 percent. 

Predicted changes in winter rearing capacity exceed 10 percent in Whitaker Creek (Alternatives B and D) 

and Queen Creek (Alternative B). Percent change in cobble embeddedness, summer rearing capacity, and 

winter rearing capacity are presented below in Table 3.6.13. 

Table 3.6.13 Percent Change in Cobble Embeddedness, Summer Rearing Capacity, and Winter Rearing 

Capacity, Based on FISHSED Results 

Percent Change 

Cobble Embeddedness2

(Legacy3)

Percent Change 

Summer Rearing 

Capacity2

(Legacy3)

Percent Change 

Winter Rearing 

Capacity2

(Legacy3)

Subwatershed 

Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt B Alt C Alt D

Middle American River +7.50

(+5.00)

+5.00

(+5.00)

+5.00

(+5.00)

-1.12

(-1.12)

-1.12

(-1.12)

-1.12

(-1.12)

-5.71

(-2.81)

-5.71

(-2.81)

-5.71

(-2.81)

Lower American River +12.90

(+6.45)

+9.67

(+6.45)

+9.67

(+6.45)

-2.13

(-1.07)

-2.13

(-1.07)

-1.07

(-1.07)

-8.89

(-6.67)

-8.89

(-6.67)

-8.89

(-6.67)

East Fork American R. +4.54

(+4.54)

+4.54

(+4.54)

+4.54

(+4.54)

-1.15

(-1.12)

-1.15

(-1.15)

-1.15

(-1.15)

-6.25

(-6.25)

-6.25

(-6.25)

-6.25

(-6.25)
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

161

Percent Change 

Cobble Embeddedness2

(Legacy3)

Percent Change 

Summer Rearing 

Capacity2

(Legacy3)

Percent Change 

Winter Rearing 

Capacity2

(Legacy3)

Subwatershed 

Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt B Alt C Alt D

Whitaker Creek +8.92

(+5.36)

+5.36

(+5.36)

+8.92

(+5.36)

-5.06

(-2.53)

-3.80

(-2.53)

-5.06

(-2.53)

-13.04

(-4.35)

-4.35

(-4.35)

-13.04

(-4.35)

Queen Creek +11.90

(+7.14)

+9.52

(+7.14)

+9.52

(+7.14)

-3.41

(-2.27)

-2.27

(-2.27)

-2.27

(-2.27)

-14.70

(-8.82)

-8.82

(-8.82)

-8.82

(-8.82)

Box Sing Creek +9.09

(+4.54)

+9.09

(+4.54)

+9.09

(+4.54)

-3.44

(-1.15)

-3.44

(-1.15)

-3.44

(-1.15)

-9.37

(-6.25)

-9.37

(-6.25)

-9.37

(-6.25)

Kirks Fork +2.17

(+2.17)

+2.17

(+2.17)

+2.17

(+2.17)

-1.15

(-1.15)

-1.15

(-1.15)

-1.15

(-1.15)

-0.00

(-0.00)

-0.00

(-0.00)

-0.00

(-0.00)

Elk Creek +4.69

(+4.69)

+4.69

(+4.69)

+4.69

(+4.69)

-2.78

(-2.78)

-2.78

(-2.78)

-2.78

(-2.78)

-5.86

(-5.86)

-5.86

(-5.86)

-5.86

(-5.86)

Little Elk Creek +7.14

(+7.14)

+7.14

(+7.14)

+7.14

(+7.14)

-3.80

(-3.80)

-3.80

(-3.80)

-3.80

(-3.80)

-8.89

(-8.89)

-8.89

(-8.89)

-8.89

(-8.89)

South Fork Clearwater 

R.

+10.00

(+10.00) 

+10.00

(+10.00)

+10.00

(+10.00)

-1.06

(-1.06)

-1.06

(-1.06)

-1.06

(-1.06)

-6.52

(-6.52)

6.52)

(-6.52)

-6.52

(-6.52) 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 2 Percent changes based on FISHSED results from legacy/existing sediment yield over base and Eastside Project. 3 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base) only. Displayed for 

alternative comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) 

effects and Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes 

attributed to existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project 

action.

With the exception of three subwatersheds, predicted increases in deposited sediment is not at a 

magnitude where measurable changes would be expected to occur, and differences between the action 

alternatives, as modeled, are all within the margin of error for the model. Erosion control measures, 

project design features, and effectiveness of buffers are expected to minimize or prevent erosion and 

sediment from reaching stream channels. As stated above, the proper use of NEZSED and FISHSED is to 

assess the effects of “substantial” changes in habitat quality greater than 10 percent and to document the 

differences among alternatives. Most subwatersheds have FISHSED modeled increases in cobble 

embeddedness, and subsequent decreases to summer and winter rearing capacity primarily attributed to 

legacy sediment effects and not from the Eastside Project. There is a difference between Alternative A 

and the action alternatives, reflecting the short-term spike from the actions. 

Specific only to restoration actions identified for improvement of watershed, water quality, and fish 

habitat conditions, Alternative C would have the highest long-term beneficial effects. Although most of 

the restoration actions were not specifically modeled for sediment production, short-term pulses would 

occur, followed by long-term reductions. See Appendix I, for a summary by alternatives of overall short 

term and long term effects from vegetation treatments and restoration projects. 

Winter rearing is a limiting factor for fish production within the analysis area. Sediment analysis 

conducted specifically in regards to winter rearing habitat and comparison of alternatives, has identified 

the largest potential changes from sediment by action alternatives occurring in Lower American River, 

Middle American, Whitaker Creek, Queen Creek, and Box Sing Creeks. Alternative C would have the 

least sediment effects in these watersheds and Alternative B the most. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

162

The basic model assumption behind FISHSED is that an inverse relationship exists between the amount 

of fine sediments in spawning and rearing habitats and fish survival and abundance. In general, when 

sediment yields are increased over natural rates in Idaho batholith watersheds, especially on a sustained 

basis, fish biomass decreases. Fine sediment is known to degrade salmonid spawning and rearing habitat 

(Chapman and McCleod, 1987; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991), as suggested by the FISHSED model. 

Specifically, high sediment levels can impair habitat for spawning and rearing by: 

1. Trapping fry in redds when they are attempting to emerge; 

2. Depleting intergravel oxygen levels in redds, smothering eggs contained within; 

3. Limiting aquatic invertebrate populations used a food source; 

4. Filling and thereby reducing the number of large pools which serve as primary feeding and 

resting areas for juvenile salmonids; and 

5. Filling spaces between rocks that serve as over wintering refuge for juvenile salmonids (NOAANMFS, USFWS, USDA-FS, and USDI-BLM. 1998). 

It is expected that changes in substrate condition from (modeled) increased sediment yield are of an 

amount that only discountable or negligible effects on fish would occur. However, recent findings suggest 

that there is no threshold below which increased fine-sediment delivery will be harmless (Suttle et al., 

2004). That study also found that sediment reduction could produce immediate benefits for salmonid 

restoration. When combining the modeled activities with the improvements, increased short-term spikes 

in sediment is likely; however, long-term reduction from chronic sources, such as roads and fords are 

expected.

An important concept in assessing effects on fish habitat from increases in surface sediment erosion for 

this project is that both the FISHSED and NEZSED models represent peak sediment yields, which in this 

case are temporary. The final result of the project would be reduced road density and improvement in 

various existing baseline conditions, including a long term reduction in sediment yield and delivery to 

salmonid habitat. The consequence of long-term improvement in watershed condition is a short-term 

increase, or spike, in surface sediment yield, which must occur in order for the long-term goal of 

improvement to occur. 

Short-term risks of increased sediment yields have been considered in the context of long-term 

improvement in watershed and stream habitat condition. 

Sediment Effects Analysis and Modeling of Aquatic Habitat Effects 

As displayed in Tables 3.6.10–3.6.12 above, all action alternatives have identified varying levels of 

modeled sediment yield, corresponding effects to cobble embeddedness, and related effects to fish 

summer rearing and winter rearing habitat. Short-term modeled increases in sediment yield may be of a 

magnitude where changes in cobble embeddedness may result in a modeled slight decrease in summer or 

winter rearing capacity. When interpreting these results, it is important to note that peak sediment yields 

modeled by FISHSED include sediment yield from both existing (legacy) sources and sources proposed 

under the action alternatives. With the exception of three subwatersheds, sediment yield from legacy 

sources comprises the majority of the peak, and contributions from alternatives when considered alone 

would probably not affect the above streams or have measured instream increases. 

As discussed above, increases in sediment yield could occur from road construction, vegetation 

treatments, road reconditioning, and road decommissioning, all of which have been included in the 

sediment model NEZSED. In addition, increases in sediment could occur from stream crossing upgrades 

and riparian restoration projects. Temporary increases in suspended sediment (i.e., turbidity) are likely 

from stream crossing restoration, riparian restoration projects, culvert installations, and construction of 

the Queen Creek re-connect channel. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

163

Since mainstem American River and some of the tributaries already exhibit high levels of deposited 

sediment, the question becomes not so much how much sediment is yielded to the stream but what 

happens to it once it gets there. Sediment transport within a stream is affected by gradient and flushing 

flows. Fish bearing streams within the analysis area are comprised of both low gradients and/or small 

watersheds with relatively low peak average flows. Lower gradient stream reaches are particularly 

susceptible to sediment deposition and long-term storage. 

Of the streams within the analysis area which may be affected by the project, Middle American River, 

Lower American River, East Fork American River, Little Elk Creek, and Elk Creek all have a substantial 

portion of their length with a gradient less than 2 percent. Conversely, Whitaker Creek, Queen Creek, Box 

Sing Creek, and Kirks Fork have substantial portions of their lengths that are greater than 4 percent. With 

regard to sediment deposition and transport, the Rosgen stream classification system suggests that A 

channels are relatively high in sediment transport capacity, followed by B channels, and C, E, and F 

channels (Rosgen, 1996). A and B channels in the American River watershed are generally found in lower 

order headwater reaches. The mainstem South Fork Clearwater River is a low gradient C channel in the 

river reach immediately below the confluence of American and Red Rivers. 

Overall, all action alternatives are very similar, and the differences of peak year high sediment yield 

predictions is generally between 0 (no difference for all alternatives) to 4 percent. The subwatersheds with 

the greatest differences between one or more alternatives include Lower American, Whitaker, Box Sing 

and Queen Creek. For all action alternatives, subwatershed peak year increases above existing conditions 

range from 0.1 to 27 percent. Subwatersheds with the highest range of alternative increases include 

Whitaker Creek (31 to 58 percent), Box Sing Creek (21 to 47 percent), Queen Creek (37 to 59 percent) 

and Lower American (15 to 22 percent). 

Subwatersheds with low to moderate peak year high increases include: Middle American River (12 to 17 

percent), Lower Elk Creek (16 to 18 percent), Kirks Fork (5 to 7 percent), East Fork American River 

(11.8 to 12.2 percent), and Little Elk Creek (23.8 to 23.9 percent). 

Maximum modeled sediment yields for Whitaker Creek, Queen Creek, and Box Sing Creek range from 

34 to 59 percent. Compared to other American River subwatersheds, these subwatersheds are very small, 

and sensitivity to sediment modeling is compounded. The general threshold at which FISHSED model 

assumes measurable deposition in B channels is peak sediment yields that exceed 30 percent over natural. 

No-treatment buffers and project design features to minimize or prevent erosion and sediment delivery are 

expected to result in negligible amounts of sediment reaching stream channels in these watersheds. 

Maximum modeled sediment yields for Little Elk Creek and Lower American River range from 22 to 24 

percent. The general threshold at which FISHSED model assumes measurable deposition in C channels is 

at peak sediment yields that exceed 20 percent over natural. The majority of sediment in these watersheds 

is from legacy sediment and not from the Eastside Project. 

The maximum predicted increase over existing from project implementation for Little Elk Creek is 0.1 

percent for all alternatives. All peak sediment yields modeled for Little Elk Creek are attributed to legacy 

sediment and increases from action alternative implementation would be discountable. 

The maximum predicted increase over existing for Lower American River ranges between 1 and 7 

percent for all action alternatives. The majority of predicted peak sediment yield for Lower American 

River is attributed to legacy effects and lower amounts are attributable to the action alternatives. 

However, the FISHSED model assumption is that measurable effects would occur to fish habitat in the 

Lower American River subwatershed. Restoration measures to reduce chronic sources of sediment (e.g., 

roads, fords, dredge mined areas) along with no-treatment buffers (timber harvest, prescribed burning), 

and project design features to minimize or prevent erosion and sediment delivery are expected to result in 

negligible sediment reaching American River. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

164

Maximum modeled sediment yields for Middle American River, East Fork American River, and Lower 

Elk Creek range from 12 to 18 percent. Based on the FISHSED model assumptions for C channels, 

measurable deposition would probably not be detectable because modeled sediment yields do not exceed 

20 percent over natural. 

Kirks Fork modeled maximum sediment yield would not exceed 10 percent and based on FISHSED 

model assumptions for B channels, measurable deposition would probably not be detectable because 

modeled sediment yields do not exceed 30 percent over natural. This subwatershed does not approach 

threshold levels and effects to fish habitat would be negligible. 

In summary, there are predicted short-term spike sediment yield increases and long-term chronic sediment 

yield decreases associated with the project. These changes in sediment yield should be reflected in 

substrate conditions, but over longer periods of time. Accurate predictions for recovery rates for deposited 

sediment (i.e., surface fines, cobble embeddedness, fines by depth) is very difficult, and in addition to 

land uses is also dependent on variables such as channel morphology, geologic parent material, stream 

channel characteristics, climate, and natural disturbance events. The BLM has been monitoring deposited 

sediment in the American River watershed since the 1980s. Monitoring is conducted at the same site 

because of high instream variability. Additional substrate measurements and observations at sites are 

made to assist with data interpretation. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, the existing substrate condition would probably improve very slowly 

over time. Because of historic dredge mining and associated legacy effects to riparian habitats and stream 

channels, natural recovery would be negligible in some stream reaches without active restoration taking 

place. Restoration improvements in the watershed may occur as funding became available and substrate 

conditions in streams would likely be stable to slightly improving. The risk of more severe wildfire would 

increase over time in the absence of vegetation treatments. With severe wildfire, there are risks associated 

with pulses of sediment delivered rapidly to streams, which could adversely affect habitat already 

impaired by past human activities. 

Benefits of Alternative A include no further ground-disturbing activities, which would result in no 

additional human-caused spikes of sediment. This alternative would not address the need for active 

stream, watershed and soils restoration. However, the BLM has an ongoing watershed and fisheries 

restoration program which would continue to address restoration various actions as funding becomes 

available.

Common to all Action Alternatives–Alternatives B, C, and D 

Timber Harvest and Associated Roads–Effects on Sediment Delivery 

Established RHCAs widths are expected to be very effective at protecting streams from non-channelized 

sediment. RHCAs may not totally protect streams from sediment production that is carried in channelized 

flow. However, this would be unexpected for the Eastside Project because only one small segment of 

temporary road (Alternative D) crossing an intermittent stream channel, no other temporary roads or skid 

trails associated with timber harvest cross any stream channels. Negligible or discountable amounts of 

sediment would be expected to reach channels. 

Refer to previous Tables 3.6.10, 3.6.11, 3.6.12, and 3.6.13 for a summary of action alternatives modeled 

erosion/sediment effects to cobble embeddedness and summer and winter rearing habitats. 

One helicopter landing would be located within the American River RHCA; the landing would be located 

200–300 feet from American River and occurs in an area that does not have drainage slope that would 

deliver erosion or sediment to American River. Access to the landing would include the use of 0.07 mile 

of existing road and the landing area would be less than one acre in size. The landing occurs in a meadow 

area and no tree harvest would occur. After timber harvest is completed, landing restoration actions would 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

165

be implemented to reduce adverse effects to soils and vegetation, which include ripping (reduce soil 

compaction), seeding, and weed control measures. No short or long-term adverse water temperature or 

sediment effects to American River are expected to occur from use of this landing. 

No timber harvest is proposed within streamside and wetland RHCAs or in landslide prone RHCAs. No 

short-term or long-term increase in risk of mass wasting and landslide type disturbance is expected to 

occur from Eastside Project actions. Eastside Project action alternative actions which affect erosion and 

sediment processes have the ability to directly or indirectly affect water quality and fish habitat in the 

short-term and long-term. For additional project related short-term and long-term effects to these 

processes refer to Appendix H, Tables H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis and 

Summary. 

Alternative B 

A short-term spike from restoration and timber harvest/fuel treatments would occur. A long-term 

reduction of baseline sediment yield from chronic sediment sources would result from restoration 

activities and aid in recovery of watershed and aquatic conditions. 

Primary restoration benefits and reduction in sediment would occur in the mainstem American River (i.e., 

Middle American River and Lower American River). Restoration actions include decommissioning roads, 

re-location of roads out of the riparian area, stream ford crossing obliterations, reduction of road related 

sediment by converting roads to ATV trails, and riparian restoration. 

Winter rearing is a limiting factor for fish production within the analysis area. Sediment analysis 

conducted specifically in regards to winter rearing habitat and comparison of alternatives has predicted 

Alternative B as having the largest modeled negative changes to winter rearing habitat from increased 

sediment. These predicted changes would occur in Whitaker Creek and Queen Creek. Predicted habitat 

changes in all other watersheds would be less than 10% and, according to the FISHSED model protocols, 

would be undetectable. The reconnection channel of Queen Creek to American River would allow access 

to additional habitat and the channel would be designed to provide additional winter rearing habitat. 

This alternative has the highest amount of new temporary roads (15.1 miles) identified for timber harvest, 

the majority of the roads are located on ridge tops or upper slopes. This alternative has the highest amount 

of timber harvest and fuel treatments proposed and totals 1,293 acres. No temporary road construction 

would occur in any RHCAs. 

For additional project related short-term and long-term effects from erosion and sediment processes 

specific to Alternative B actions refer to Appendix H, Tables H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend 

Analysis and Summary. 

Alternative C 

This alternative has the highest amount of watershed restoration actions identified. Under Alternative C, 

the percent over base sediment would have the least short-term peak associated with the implementation 

of timber harvest activities and sediment risks to winter rearing habitat. 

Winter rearing is a limiting factor for fish production within the analysis area. Sediment analysis 

conducted specifically in regards to winter rearing habitat and comparison of alternatives, has predicted 

Alternative C as having the smallest modeled negative changes to winter rearing habitat from increased 

sediment. Predicted habitat changes in all watersheds would be less than 10% and, according to the 

FISHSED model protocols, would be undetectable. 

Various soil restoration treatments, fish passage improvements, and native vegetation restoration would 

result in improvement to watershed conditions. An additional restoration action that is included in this 

alternative is the decommissioning and restoration of 0.89 mile of road paralleling American River and a 

stream ford located at stream mile 12.8. The reduced baseline sediment yield resulting from road 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

166

decommissioning and other improvement activities would aid in recovery of the watersheds, and it is 

expected that fish habitat conditions would improve over time. 

This alternative has the least amount of temporary roads (10.5 miles) identified for timber harvest, the 

majority of the roads are located on ridge tops or upper slopes. This alternative has the second highest 

amount of timber harvest proposed and totals 1,284, which is only 10 acres less than alternative B. 

A new access road for the American River subdivision includes the construction of 0.56 mile of 

permanent road and the construction of a new vehicle bridge. Approximately 0.12 mile of the new road 

would be constructed within the RHCA. Erosion and sediment measures would be implemented to reduce 

adverse water quality effects to American River. Several trees would be cut within the riparian area; 

however, no adverse water temperature effects are anticipated to occur from this action and short-term 

and long-term sediment effects are expected to be negligible. 

For additional project related short-term and long-term effects from erosion and sediment processes 

specific to Alternative C actions refer to Appendix H, Tables H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend 

Analysis and Summary. 

Alternative D 

Winter rearing is a limiting factor for fish production within the analysis area. Under Alternative D, the 

percent over base sediment would be similar to Alternative B in regards to short-term peak associated 

with the implementation of timber harvest activities and sediment risks to winter rearing habitat in the 

Whitaker Creek watershed. Predicted habitat changes in all other watersheds would be less than 10% and, 

according to the FISHSED model protocols, would be undetectable. Various soil restoration treatments, 

fish passage improvements, and native vegetation restoration, would support improvement of watershed 

condition. The reduced baseline sediment yield resulting from road decommissioning and other 

improvement activities would aid in recovery of the watersheds, and it is expected that fish habitat 

conditions would improve over time. 

This alternative has the second highest amount of temporary roads (10.7 miles) identified for timber 

harvest, the majority of the roads are located on ridge tops or upper slopes. This alternative has the lowest 

amount of timber harvest proposed and totals 1,171 acres. 

A new access road for the American River subdivision includes the construction of 0.56 mile of 

permanent road and the construction of a new vehicle bridge. Approximately 0.12 mile of the new road 

would be constructed within the RHCA. Erosion and sediment measures would be implemented to reduce 

adverse water quality effects to American River. Several trees would be cut within the riparian area. 

Short-term and long-term sediment effects are expected to be negligible. 

For project related short-term and long-term effects from erosion and sediment processes specific to 

Alternative D actions refer to Appendix H, Tables H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis 

and Summary. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Sediment/Substrate Condition 

There are no known irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with the sediment/substrate condition 

indicator.

Cumulative Effects–Sediment/Substrate Condition

The cumulative effects analysis area for sediment and substrate is the American River watershed and the 

upper South Fork Clearwater River to just downstream of the mouth of Crooked River. 

As previously described, the current condition of the American River watershed reflects past events that 

have elevated base sediment yields above natural levels. In its pre-development condition, deposited 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

167

sediment in American River, tributaries, and the South Fork Clearwater River was probably substantially 

less than the current condition. 

Activities contributing to the change from historic to existing condition of the deposited sediment 

indicator are generally associated with road construction, continued existences of roads and high road 

density on the landscape, roads in riparian areas, in-channel dredge mining and placer mining in and 

adjacent to stream channels, timber harvest that emphasized tractor yarding, grazing of domestic 

livestock, and rural and urban development. 

There are a number of on-going and proposed activities in the American River watershed involving BLM, 

NPNF, and private lands. A list of these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Past events and activities 

occurring within the analysis area, and affecting American River, tributaries, and the South Fork 

Clearwater River have been discussed throughout this document. The existing condition of the watershed 

and aquatic habitats reflect the past disturbance history. 

Cumulative sediment effects in the American River watershed analysis area and the South Fork 

Clearwater River have been quantified through the NEZSED model, which included sediment from 

timber harvest, road construction, road reconstruction, road decommissioning, and prescribed fire. Refer 

to Section 3.4 (Watershed) for specific and additional cumulative sediment analysis information. Road to 

trail conversions, riparian restoration, fish passage projects, and instream fish habitat improvements were 

not included in the model. Specific projects that were modeled for the Eastside Project include NPNF 

American and Crooked River Project, timber harvest and road construction on private lands, and road 

decommissioning. The results of cumulative effects sediment modeling follow through to FISHSED, 

which was used to address cumulative sediment effects to cobble embeddedness, summer rearing 

capacity, and winter rearing capacity. 

Table 3.6.14 Comparison of Predicted Cobble Embeddedness (CE) by Alternative, Including Effects of 

NPNF American and Crooked Project & Recent Timber Harvest on Private Lands 

Predicted Percent (%) CE 

Stream/Composite/Channel Type Alt A 

(Legacy2) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River/C1 40 (42) 43 43 43 

35 (2006) 35 (2006) 35 (2006) Lower American River/C1

 31 (33) 35(2007) 34(2007) 34(2007) 

East Fork American River/C1 44 (46) 47 47 47 

61 (2006) 61 (2006) 61 (2006) Whitaker Creek/B 56 (59) 61 (2007) 59 (2007) 61 (2007) 

Queen Creek/B 42 (45) 47 (2006) 47 (2006) 47 (2006) 

47 (2007) 46 (2007) 46 (2007) 

Box Sing Creek/B 44 (46) 48 48 48 

Kirks Fork/B 45 (45) 46 46 46 

Elk Creek/C1 64 (67) 67 67 67 

Little Elk Creek/C 56 (60) 60 60 60 

South Fork Clearwater River/C1 30 (33) 33 33 33 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 2 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base). Displayed for alternative 

comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) effects and 

Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes attributed to 

existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project action. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

168

Table 3.6.15 Comparison of Summer Rearing Capacity (SRC) by Alternative, Including Effects of NPNF 

American and Crooked River Project and Recent Timber Harvest on Private Lands

Predicted Percent (%) SRC 

Stream/Composite/Channel Type Alt A 

(Legacy2) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River/C1 89 (88) 88 88 88 

 92 (2006) 92 (2006) 92 (2006) Lower American River/C1

 94 (93) 93(2007) 93(2007) 93(2007) 

East Fork American River/C1 87 (88) 85 85 85 

75 (2006) 75 (2006) 75 (2006) 

Whitaker Creek/B 79 (77) 75 (2007) 76 (2007) 75 (2007) 

85 (2006) 85 (2006) 85 (2006) 

Queen Creek/B 88 (86) 85 (2007) 86 (2007) 86 (2007) 

Box Sing Creek/B 87 (86) 70 70 70 

Kirks Fork/B 87 (86) 86 86 86 

Elk Creek/C1 72 (70) 70 70 70 

Little Elk Creek/C 79 (76) 76 76 76 

South Fork Clearwater River/C1 94 (93) 93 93 93 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 2 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base). Displayed for alternative 

comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) effects and 

Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes attributed to 

existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project action. 

Table 3.6.16 Comparison of Winter Rearing Capacity (WRC) by Alt., Including Effects of NPNF 

American and Crooked River Project and Recent Timber Harvest on Private Lands 

Predicted Percent (%) WRC 

Stream/Composite/Channel Type Alt A 

(Legacy2) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Middle American River/C1 35 (34) 33 33 33 

40 (2006) 41 (2006) 41 (2006) Lower American River/C1

 45 (42) 42(2007) 42(2007) 42(2007) 

East Fork American River/C1 32 (34) 30 30 30 

20 (2006) 20 (2006) 20 (2006) Whitaker Creek/B 23 (22) 20 (2007) 21 (2007) 20 (2007) 

29 (2006) 29 (2006) 29 (2006) Queen Creek/B 34 (31) 29 (2007) 31 (2007) 30 (2007) 

Box Sing Creek/B 32 (30) 18 18 18 

Kirks Fork/B 31 (31) 31 31 31 

Elk Creek/C1 19 (18) 18 18 18 

Little Elk Creek/C 23 (21) 21 21 21 

South Fork Clearwater River/C1 46 (43) 42 42 42 1 Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds. Includes upstream sediment contributing 

subwatersheds and routed downstream sediment. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

169

2 Identifies modeled FISHSED effects from legacy/existing sediment (percent over base). Displayed for alternative 

comparison purposes so that legacy and existing NEZSED modeled sediment (percent over base) effects and 

Eastside Project action alternative effects can be identified. These are the FISHSED predicted changes attributed to 

existing levels of sediment over base (Alternative A), with no increases attributed to Eastside Project action. 

As indicated in the tables above, addition of cumulative effects from FISHSED modeling is similar to 

cobble embeddedness levels predicted for the Eastside Project only. The reason for this is staggered 

NPNF and BLM entries for road construction and timber harvest within specific subwatersheds that 

potentially may yield elevated modeled sediment yields (i.e., Whitaker Creek and Queen Creek). The 

staggered entry would reduce potential sediment spikes that may occur if all FS and BLM soil disturbing 

actions occurred in the same year. In addition, a considerable number of sediment sources cannot be 

modeled in NEZSED and are therefore not reflected in the above results of FISHSED. Sediment sources 

such as past and active mining activity, grazing, trails, instream fish habitat restoration, and sediment 

sources from mass wasting are not included in NEZSED calculations. However, by using actual data for 

the cobble embeddedness measures, the legacy impact of these activities is included in the summer and 

winter rearing habitat analysis. Of these, past mining activity and private land grazing (in some 

subwatersheds), and urban/rural development have contributed to sediment loading in the watershed. The 

BLM is currently cooperating with Framing Our Community on several projects that would occur in the 

foreseeable future and would reduce sediment production on BLM and private lands. These actions 

include additional fencing of the stream corridor along Elk Creek to prevent livestock grazing and 

decommissioning of road segments on private and BLM lands. 

One specific BLM planned (2007–2008) restoration action (USDI-BLM, 2006) that would directly affect 

this indicator includes the Telephone Creek road to ATV trail conversion and channel re-connect project. 

The Telephone Creek road (0.9 mile) which occurs in the stream bottom has been identified as a chronic 

source of sediment to Telephone Creek and American River (USDI-BLM, 2006). 

In summary, American River and tributaries are subject to cumulative sediment effects due to past 

impacts in the watershed and the existing degraded condition. Additional sediment, regardless of the 

source, could further impact deposited sediment and other associated habitat elements. This could 

adversely affect listed and BLM sensitive fish in the project area. Sediment impacts are expected to 

decline, and fish habitat condition is expected to improve in the long-term, resulting in higher habitat 

condition than currently exists. Of the alternatives, Alternative B presents the greatest risk in terms of 

cumulative sediment risks and Alternative C presents the least risk. Alternative A, while presenting no 

short-term risks, would also not result in long-term improvement in watershed condition or the deposited 

sediment indicator. The action alternatives (Alternative C and D) only include one long-term new chronic 

sediment source (negligible effects) for the American River stream channel/riparian area, which is the 

new vehicle bridge and new permanent road. It is acknowledged that ongoing BLM and NPNF restoration 

actions would continue, which would result in long-term benefits to watershed and aquatic habitats. 

3.6.3.3 Indicator 2–Large Woody Debris Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects–Large Woody Debris Analysis 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

No instream improvement work is planned under this Alternative to improve LWD. BLM has an ongoing 

restoration program which would continue, and dependent on funding, future restoration actions could 

continue to take place, and actions that install LWD would result in beneficial effects to treated stream 

reaches. With increased dead and dying lodgepole pine or other trees having potential to fall into streams, 

it is expected that LWD conditions would continue to improve with time within the analysis area. 

The risk of a severe wildfire would increase over time in the absence of vegetation treatments. With 

severe wildfire, there are risks associated with impacts to riparian trees, which would affect LWD in the 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

170

short and long-term. Generally, with stand replacing fires, fire-killed trees would provide an abundance of 

LWD as trees fall into the stream. 

Alternatives B, C, and D

Research indicates that with the established RHCA buffers, harvest activities would be expected to have 

negligible effects on large woody debris recruitment. Because no timber harvest would take place within 

any RHCAs under all action alternatives, harvest activities would be expected to present a negligible risk 

of retarding attainment of temperature or LWD RMOs or causing adverse impacts to this management 

indicator.

No instream improvement work to install LWD is proposed with this project. PACFISH guidance would 

be applied to streamside, landslide prone and wetland RHCAs. No actions that would adversely impact 

this indicator are proposed. Decommissioning roads in riparian habitats and riparian restoration actions 

would result in long-term improvements for large woody debris recruitment. Alternative C has the highest 

level of riparian restoration actions, followed by Alternatives B and D. 

Eastside Project action alternative actions which affect riparian condition and LWD processes have the 

ability to directly or indirectly to affect instream cover conditions and pool quality and quantity. For 

additional project related short-term and long-term effects to these processes refer to Appendix H, Tables 

H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis and Summary. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Large Woody Debris

There are no known irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with the large woody debris indicator. 

Cumulative Effects–Large Woody Debris 

The cumulative effects analysis area for large woody debris is the American River watershed and the 

upper South Fork Clearwater River to just downstream of the mouth of Crooked River. 

Similar to deposited sediment, the existing condition of this indicator reflects a long history of human 

development in this watershed. Riparian encroachment by roads has affected streamside conditions in the 

American River watershed, including large woody debris. The presence of streamside roads generally 

results in the permanent removal of large woody debris, sometimes all the debris, that otherwise could be 

recruited into streams. Riparian areas throughout the watershed have been affected by past road 

streamside road construction, dredge mining activities, domestic livestock grazing, and timber harvest. 

Rural home construction and development has encroached on riparian habitats, particularly within the Elk 

City township (e.g., American River subdivision). The RHCA road density for the entire American River 

watershed is 1.9 miles per square mile, it expected that this density would be higher within the Elk City 

township for roads occurring streamside or within riparian areas, because many roads parallel streams and 

provide private land access. The continued existence of streamside roads generally translates into reduced 

ability of stream to recruit wood. 

Significant lengths and areas of American River, Buffalo Gulch, and Little Elk Creek, and other streams 

were subjected to flood plain and in-channel placer and dredge mining that generally eliminated most or 

all of the large woody debris. Dredge mining additionally resulted in dredge piles that are primarily 

composed of cobble/gravel material. Soils in dredge and placer-mined areas have been removed, and 

sterile tailing piles remain in localized areas. Soil and riparian vegetation (e.g., trees) recovery has been 

very slow and some of these areas still are relatively devoid of vegetation (e.g., riparian vegetation, trees, 

shrubs). The conditions created by historic mining activities continue to affect riparian and floodplain 

processes, including growth and recruitment of large woody debris. 

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D are unlikely to contribute to reduction of LWD, 

when considered cumulatively with past contributors to the degraded condition. With the exception of a 

new public access road and vehicle bridge (American River) (Alternatives C and D); and a temporary 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

171

road constructed for timber harvest (intermittent non-fish bearing stream) (Alternative D); no additional 

streamside roads would be constructed adjacent to or cross any streams. No tree harvest would occur 

within any RHCAs and no LWD would be removed from channels. Implementation of restoration 

actions, specifically streamside road decommissioning and riparian restoration is expected to contribute to 

improvement of LWD over time. In addition, increased natural LWD recruitment is expected to continue, 

even in the absence of restoration. Dead and dying lodgepole pines that occur within riparian areas are 

expected to be a primary LWD source along some stream channels. 

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands. Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at the beginning of 

Chapter 3 could affect the large woody debris indicator include NPNF American and Crooked River 

Project, proposed BLM restoration actions, private land restoration actions, private land timber harvest 

and road construction, and firewood cutting. Specific BLM planned restoration actions (USDI-BLM, 

2006) that would directly affect this indicator includes the installation of LWD, in addition to construction 

of pool habitats and installation of habitat rocks in 3.4 miles of American River (foreseeable future 2007–

2009). The BLM implemented a similar project in 2.5 miles of American River during 1992. Pre- and 

post-project monitoring of this restoration project documented that sub-optimal LWD levels of 1–2 pieces 

occurred in dredge mined reaches and was improved to over 15 to 20 pieces per 100 meters and supported 

meeting LWD objectives for American River. 

3.6.3.4 Indicator 3–Pool Habitat Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects–Pool Habitat Analysis 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This alternative would not implement specific watershed improvement projects or construction of pool 

habitats. Chronic sources of erosion/sediment such as stream fords, roads, and historic dredge mined areas 

would continue to contribute sediment to stream channels and subsequent pool filling. BLM has an 

ongoing restoration program which would continue and, dependent on funding, future restoration actions 

would continue to take place, and actions that construct pools, install LWD, or reduce erosion would 

result in beneficial effects to pool quality and quantity within treated reaches and watersheds. 

In addition, increased natural LWD recruitment is expected to continue, even in the absence of 

restoration. Along some stream reaches, dead and dying lodgepole pine occurring in riparian areas and 

streamside are expected to be a primary LWD source. LWD recruitment would support creation of 

additional pools and improve instream cover. Existing non-point sediment sources would slowly recover 

over time and pool habitat would slowly improve. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

No instream improvement work for pool construction is planned in American River or tributaries, except 

the Queen Creek reconnect. The small reconnection channel would be designed to provide some pool 

structure, as well as improved riparian vegetation and LWD. Short-term increases in sediment would 

occur but no measurable effects to pool habitats are expected to occur in American River. A limited 

amount of new permanent roads and a new vehicle bridge (Alternatives C and D) is planned to occur 

within RHCAs under the action alternatives, consequently negligible sediment effects or impacts to 

riparian habitats is expected from these actions. However, watershed, watershed improvement projects 

and road decommissioning would reduce sediment sources and would likely improve pool habitat over 

time with the reduction of chronic sediment sources attributed to roads, fords, and historic dredge mined 

areas. Actual pool quality and quantity would improve in the long-term with restoration actions that 

improve riparian habitats and large woody debris recruitment to stream channels. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

172

Alternative C restoration actions have greatest potential to improve riparian habitats, LWD recruitment, 

and reduce sediment to streams, which would improve pool quality and quantity in the long-term and is 

followed by Alternatives B and D. 

Eastside Project action alternative actions which could affect riparian condition, erosion, sediment, and 

LWD processes have the ability to directly or indirectly to affect pool quality and quantity. For additional 

project related short-term and long-term effects to these processes refer to Appendix H, Tables H.3 and 

H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis and Summary. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Pool Habitat

There are no known irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with the large pool habitat indicator. 

Cumulative Effects–Pool Habitat 

The cumulative effects analysis area for pool habitat debris is the American River watershed. 

The quantity and quality of pools and the effects from historic events have been previously discussed. 

Accelerated sediment yield has resulted in reduction of pool volume. Streamside land uses such as road 

construction, in-channel/riparian mining, and riparian development that removed existing LWD, reduced 

LWD recruitment potential. LWD is a primary factor for pool creation in many streams. 

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D are unlikely to contribute to reductions in pools 

and pool volume, as discussed previously, even when considered cumulatively with past contributors to 

the degraded condition. With the exception of a new public access road and vehicle bridge (American 

River) (Alternatives C and D); and a temporary road constructed for timber harvest (intermittent non-fish 

bearing stream) (Alternative D); no additional streamside roads would be constructed adjacent to or cross 

any streams. No tree harvest would occur within any RHCAs. Implementation of restoration actions, 

specifically streamside road decommissioning and riparian restoration is expected to contribute to 

improvement of pool habitat over time. In addition, increased natural LWD recruitment is expected to 

continue, even in the absence of restoration. 

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands. Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at the beginning of 

Chapter 3 that could affect the pool habitat indicator (quality and quantify) include NPNF American and 

Crooked River Project, proposed BLM restoration actions, private land restoration actions, private land 

timber harvest and road construction, and firewood cutting. Specific BLM planned restoration actions 

(USDI-BLM, 2006) that would have direct affect on this indicator includes the construction of pool 

habitat (construction of upstream rock “v” check dams) and installation of LWD and habitat rocks in 3.4 

miles of American River (foreseeable future 2007–2008). The BLM implemented a similar project in 2.5 

miles of American River during 1992. Pre- and post-project monitoring of this restoration project 

documented that sub-optimal pool:riffle ratio of 20:80 was improved to desired objectives of 35:65–50:50 

ratios. In addition, the installation of LWD in pool habitats created high quality instream cover for the 

recently constructed pools. Consequently, this foreseeable future action is predicted to improve quality 

and quantity of pools within treated reaches in Lower and Middle American River. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

173

3.6.3.5 Indicator 4–Water Quality Analysis (Toxics and Temperature) 

Direct and Indirect–Water Quality Analysis (Toxics and Temperature) 

Toxics–Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Historic dredge mining resulted in some accumulation of heavy metals and introduction of mercury, since 

it was often used as an amalgam in the gold mining process. The risks of historic mining related 

hazardous material impacting water quality or aquatic resources would not change from existing 

conditions because no disturbance to historic mined areas is proposed. 

Under this alternative, no use of herbicides, fuels, or any fire suppression chemicals is proposed above 

current levels. The risk of these materials entering streams would remain unchanged from the existing 

condition. All herbicide application would be in accord with BLM’s multi-year program submittal and 

completion of Section 7 consultation. Application of herbicides within riparian areas and RHCAs would 

be ground based and risks would be at low levels to aquatic organisms and non-target vegetation. 

Toxics–Alternatives B, C, and D 

Toxic materials used under the action alternatives include fossil fuel derivatives, including diesel fuel, 

hydraulic fuel, various petroleum-based lubricants, and gasoline. 

The two factors determining the degree of risk from toxic materials are the toxicity of the chemical and 

the likelihood that non-target organisms would be exposed to toxic doses (Norris et al., 1991). Toxicity 

alone does not make a chemical hazardous; exposure to a toxic dose must also occur. Chemicals may 

enter water by one or more of the following routes: direct application, drift, and mobilization in 

ephemeral stream channels, overland flow, and leaching (Norris et al., 1991). 

In addition, fueling and storage of fuels is addressed with specific Eastside Project design measures. 

Transport of fuels is regulated through project design measures that minimize the risk of accidents or 

accidental introduction of these materials to streams. Therefore, the risk of fuel delivery to streams is 

considered extremely unlikely to occur. 

Historic dredge mining of the American River stream bottom resulted in some accumulation of heavy 

metals and introduction of mercury, since it was often used as an amalgam in the gold mining process. 

There is some potential to liberate mercury during the implementation of restoration projects that involve 

disturbance of historic mined areas, stream channels, substrate materials, and streambanks. The potential 

to release mercury in harmful amounts is considered to be slight because of historic leaching beyond the 

depths of disturbance and/or mobilization during the dredge mining process. It is expected that depth of 

restoration disturbance and remaining buffer material would reduce or eliminate the potential of 

intercepting adverse amounts of heavy metals during excavation which may reside at the bedrock level. 

The Eastside Project design measures identified for equipment fueling and maintenance would minimize 

the risks associated with accidents, spills, or introduction of fuels to fish bearing waters. 

Stream Temperatures–Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Stream temperatures within the analysis area would remain unchanged over the short-term. Some 

improvement may occur over time as vegetation recovers in areas where shade has been reduced from 

past activities or where dredge mining has resulted in over-widened, shallow streams. Road encroachment 

in riparian areas has also reduced shrub and trees shading potential along some stream reaches. Historic 

dredge mining along some stream reaches has severely altered and disturbed the streambottoms, 

floodplains, riparian areas, and stream channels. Some of these mined areas contain dredged materials 

that are still relatively devoid of shrubs and trees. These dredge materials may contain gravel and cobble 

materials that are lacking in soils which promote vegetation growth. 

Lack of vegetation treatments may contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in 

more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could affect water temperature. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

174

Effects would be dependent on amount of stand replacing fire that occurred within riparian habitats and 

changes resulting to shading. 

Stream Temperatures–Alternative B, C, and D 

Since harvest of timber within streamside RHCAs is not proposed under any of these alternatives, the risk 

of adverse effect on stream temperature is discountable, or extremely unlikely to occur. Riparian 

restoration actions and decommissioning of roads within RHCAs and riparian areas result in improved 

shading and riparian conditions in the long-term. 

A new access road for the American River subdivision includes the construction of 0.56 mile of 

permanent road and the construction of a new vehicle bridge for Alternatives C and D. Approximately 

0.12 mile of the new road would be constructed within the RHCA. Several trees would be cut within the 

riparian area; however, short-term and long-term riparian condition, stream shading, and water 

temperature effects are expected to be discountable. 

Alternatives B and C include the relocating and decommissioning of an existing road (0.53 mile) which 

parallels American River within the riparian area, to a toeslope area. This action would include the 

construction of 0.57 mile of new road in the toeslope area, a portion of this new road would utilize an old 

existing road prism (0.22 mile). Moving the road out of the stream bottom area and implementation of 

riparian restoration actions would improve riparian habitat conditions and shading along this stream reach 

in the long-term. A small portion of the new road construction would occur in the American River 

RHCA. Tree cutting for the new road would be more than one tree distance in length from American 

River, consequently no tree shading or water temperature effects are expected to occur to American River 

from this action. 

Alternative D includes the construction of approximately 300 feet of new temporary road within the 

American River RHCA. This road would also cross a small intermittent stream that drains into dredge 

ponds. Tree cutting for the temporary road would be more than one tree distance in length from American 

River, consequently no tree shading or water temperature effects are expected to occur to American River 

from this action. 

Alternative C restoration actions have greatest potential to improve riparian habitats, shading, and water 

temperatures in the long-term, and is followed by Alternative B and D. 

The restoration activities should moderate current stream temperature levels, and possibly decrease 

stream temperature in the long-term with growth of streamside trees and shrubs, and subsequent increased 

shading. For additional project related short-term and long-term effects to riparian shading, riparian 

condition, and water temperature processes specific to the action alternatives, refer to Appendix H, Tables 

H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis and Summary. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Water Quality

There are no known irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with the water quality indicator. 

Cumulative Effects–Water Quality 

The cumulative effects analysis area for toxics is the American River watershed. The American River 

watershed and the upper South Fork Clearwater River to just downstream of the mouth of Crooked River 

are the cumulative effects analysis area for water temperature. 

The two factors determining the degree of risk from toxic materials are the toxicity of the chemical and 

the likelihood that non-target organisms would be exposed to toxic doses (Norris et al., 1991). Toxicity 

alone does not make a chemical hazardous; exposure to a toxic dose must also occur. Chemicals may 

enter water by one or more of the following routes: direct application, drift, and mobilization in 

ephemeral stream channels, overland flow, and leaching (Norris et al., 1991). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

175

Toxics

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands. Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at the beginning of 

Chapter 3 that could affect water quality and toxics include NPNF American and Crooked River Project, 

herbicide application on private and public lands, proposed BLM restoration actions, private land 

restoration actions, private land timber harvest and road construction, and hauling or storage of fuels. 

Risks do occur for an accidental hazardous material spill or toxic materials reaching live waters, 

consequently streamside uses of toxic material in close proximity to riparian areas and streams have 

higher risks. Safe guard measures generally are used when using large quantities of hazardous or toxic 

materials. Various restoration, road construction, and mining operations that take place on historic mined 

areas have the potential to liberate mercury. Overall, risks from such actions are considered low because 

of probable leaching of such toxic material below expected disturbance depth. 

The potential for the introduction of toxic materials reaching aquatic habitats has been previously 

discussed. In summary they include: mining operations, herbicide application, use and storage of fuels 

and petroleum products, and fire suppression chemicals. Historic dredge mining of the American River 

stream bottom and other streams within the analysis area has resulted in some accumulation of heavy 

metals and introduction of mercury, since it was often used as an amalgam in the gold mining process. 

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D are unlikely to contribute to increased risks to 

water quality from toxic materials, even when considered cumulatively with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable actions. There is some potential to liberate mercury during the implementation of restoration 

projects that involve disturbance of historic mined areas, stream channels, substrate materials, and 

streambanks. The potential to release mercury in harmful amounts is considered to be slight because of 

historic leaching beyond the depths of disturbance and/or mobilization during the dredge mining process. 

In addition, fueling and storage of fuels is addressed with specific Eastside Project design measures. 

Transport of fuels is regulated through project design measures that minimize the risk of accidents or 

accidental introduction of these materials to streams. Therefore, the risk of fuel delivery to streams is 

considered extremely unlikely to occur. 

Water Temperature 

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands. Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at the beginning of 

Chapter 3 could affect riparian conditions and improved shading of streams within the analysis area 

include NPNF American and Crooked River Project, proposed BLM restoration actions, private land 

restoration actions, private land timber harvest and road construction, and firewood cutting. 

The existing condition of this indicator reflects a long history of human development in this watershed. 

Encroachment by roads has affected streamside/riparian conditions in the American River watershed, 

including shading and water temperatures. The presence of streamside roads generally results in the 

permanent removal of riparian vegetation and associated stream shading. Riparian areas throughout the 

watershed have been affect by past streamside road construction, dredge mining activities, domestic 

livestock grazing, and timber harvest. Rural home construction and development has encroached on 

riparian habitats, particularly within the Elk City township (e.g., American River subdivision). 

Significant lengths and areas of American River, Buffalo Gulch, and Little Elk Creek, and other streams 

were subjected to in-channel placer and dredge mining that degraded riparian areas and stream channels. 

Soils in dredge and placer-mined areas have been removed, and sterile tailing piles remain in some areas. 

Soil and riparian vegetation (e.g., trees) recovery has been very slow and some of these areas still are 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

176

relatively devoid of vegetation (e.g., riparian vegetation, trees, shrubs). The conditions continue to affect 

riparian and floodplain processes, including riparian vegetation establishment, growth, and shading to 

streams. 

Domestic livestock grazing continues to occur within the watershed on private, NPNF, and BLM lands. 

Private land grazing is prevalent in the large meadows associated with Elk Creek, Big Elk Creek, and 

Little Elk Creek. Grazing on BLM and NPNF lands within the watershed has been conducted at levels to 

minimize or reduce effects to riparian vegetation and listed fish. Some private land grazing still occurs at 

levels that result in localized adverse impacts to riparian vegetation and streambanks, which have direct 

and indirect effects on water temperature (e.g., Elk Creek). 

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D are not expected to adversely affect water 

temperature within the analysis area, when considered cumulatively. With the exception of a new public 

access road and vehicle bridge (American River) (Alternatives C and D); and a temporary road 

constructed for timber harvest (intermittent non-fish bearing stream) (Alternative D); no additional 

streamside roads would be constructed adjacent to or cross any streams. No tree harvest would occur 

within any RHCAs. Implementation of restoration actions, specifically streamside road decommissioning 

and riparian restoration is expected to contribute to improved riparian conditions, stream shading, and 

improvements to water temperature. In addition, natural recovery to riparian areas and improved shading 

would also occur. 

3.6.3.6 Indicator 5–Water Yield Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects–Water Yield 

Section 3.4 (Watershed) discusses changes in ECA for affected watersheds in the project area. Alternative 

A displays the existing condition for each watershed. None of the alternatives propose increases in water 

yield that are expected to result in channel degradation or long-term impacts to fish habitat. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under this alternative, ECA and any changes in water yield from past activities would continue to 

recover, except for areas affected by land uses that result in soil compaction, such as past tractor logging, 

dozer piling, and log landings. These areas are affected by low soil infiltration rates and may not recover 

in the absence of soil and other watershed restoration efforts. In addition, existing roads would continue to 

contribute towards ECA, and recovery, if any, would occur extremely slowly in the absence of road 

decommissioning and soil restoration. Lack of vegetation treatments may contribute to continued 

accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, 

and location, could result in significant water yield changes. Significant water yield changes could result 

in adverse effects on habitat not fully recovered from past impacts. 

The benefits of this alternative, with respect to ECA and water yield, include no short-term changes in 

ECA and thus, no potential short-term changes in water yield and habitat condition. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

A complete ECA analysis is included in Section 3.4 (Watershed). ECA would increase as a result of 

implementation of these alternatives. Road decommissioning and soil restoration contribute to a reduction 

in compaction, thus improving infiltration and reducing surface runoff. This effect would be most 

pronounced in Alternative C and least in Alternative D. The BO for Land and Resource Management 

Plans set 15 percent ECA as a threshold which triggers a watershed assessment in priority watersheds 

such as American River. Within the American River watershed, ECA would increase from 9 to 10 percent 

under all action alternatives. Whitaker Creek and Queen Creek, which support an isolated population of 

westslope cutthroat trout and no listed steelhead or bull trout, exceed 15 percent under all action 

alternatives, all other subwatersheds would be below this threshold. Implementation of action alternatives 

would increase ECA for Whitaker Creek from 10 percent to 16 or 17 percent; and for Queen Creek, ECA 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

177

would increase from 13 to 18 percent. Stream channel evaluation conducted during 2004 found that 

Whitaker and Queen Creek channels are stable and resilient, and capable of withstanding predicted 

increases in water yield. Unstable streambanks in Whitaker Creek and Queen Creek are one to three 

percent. Field investigations of all fish bearing stream segments within the project area during 2004 and 

2005 documented a channel stability rating of high-fair to good for the stream channels. The exception 

was lower Elk Creek. However, within this drainage a very small amount of vegetation treatments are 

proposed and discountable effects to ECA and no adverse effects to channel stability are expected from 

the Eastside Project. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Water Yield 

There are no know irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with the water yield indicator. 

Cumulative Effects–Water Yield 

The cumulative effects analysis area for water yield is the American River watershed and the upper South 

Fork Clearwater River to just downstream of the mouth of Crooked River. 

Timber harvest, road construction, fires, mining, and development activities have the ability to affect 

ECA conditions in the American River watershed. Water yield refers to stream flow quantity and timing 

and is a function of water/soil/vegetation interactions. Changes in amount or distribution of vegetation 

can affect water yield by changing rates of interception and infiltration, evapotranspiration, and alter 

shading. These factors affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow packs and how rainfall is 

processed, which have an effect on the timing and total amount of water yield that flows off the 

landscape. Determining the ECA, which represents the extent of forest canopy opening from fire, harvest, 

and roads, can assess changes in amount and distribution of vegetation. Compacted soils and road systems 

(watershed networks) can also have an effect on the timing and amount of runoff. Increased runoff and 

peak flow may be associated with stream downcutting, bank instability, and deposition of sediment in 

low-gradient stream reaches and can cause alteration of riparian function and lower the quality of fish 

habitat.

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D would increase ECA, when considered 

cumulatively with past activities. ECA cumulative analysis and discussion including existing conditions 

and expected ECA effects from the Eastside Project and American and Crooked River Project are also 

found in Section 3.4 (Watershed). Implementation of the action alternatives B, C, and D, when combined 

with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would increase ECA by an additional 0to 10% 

in watersheds that could be affected by the Eastside Project. With the exception of three watersheds, ECA 

would still be below 15%. The three watersheds that would be above or at 15% include: Whitaker Creek 

(10 to 20%), Queen Creek (13 to 23%), and Box Sing Creek (6 to 15%). ECA increases are more apparent 

in these watersheds because of the small size of the watersheds. A stream reach inventory and channel 

stability evaluation was conducted in Whitaker, Queen, Box Sing Creeks, and several representative small 

first order streams within these watersheds during the 2004 and 2005 field season, using protocols 

detailed by Pkankuch (1975). These procedures were developed to systemize measurements and 

evaluations of the resistive capacity of mountain stream channels to the detachment of bed and bank 

materials. The evaluation provides information about the capacity of streams to adjust and recover from 

potential changes in flow and/or increases in sediment production. These surveys documented overall 

channel stability ratings of high fair to good and predicted increases in water yield are not expected to 

result in adverse impacts to the channels. 

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands. Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at the beginning of 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

178

Chapter 3 could affect ECA include NPNF American and Crooked River Project, private land timber 

harvest and road construction, restoration projects, and road decommissioning projects on NPNF, BLM, 

and private lands. 

3.6.3.7 Indicator 6–Habitat Connectivity, Fish Passage, and Ford Use Fish Disturbance 

Analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects–Habitat Connectivity, Fish Passage, and Ford Use Fish Disturbance 

Analysis

The Eastside Project offers opportunities for increasing connectivity of fish populations. Drainages with 

fish blockages within the immediate project area include Queen, Whitaker, Telephone, Baboon and 

Maggie Creeks in American River. Dredge mining and alteration of the stream channels at the mouths of 

these watersheds has blocked fish access between these streams and the mainstem American River. The 

East Fork American River barrier culvert was replaced with a 20 foot wide bridge in 2006. Improvement 

of Queen Creek fish passage has been identified and is included with the restoration activities associated 

with the Eastside Project. Increasing connectivity allows individual fish to migrate in and out of 

tributaries to seek cool water. Increased connectivity also promotes genetic exchange between 

populations thus potentially increasing diversity. All stream crossings proposed would be designed to 

prevent channel encroachment and to handle the capacity of a 100 year flood event. 

Other projects include decommissioning and restoration of several existing ford crossings in streams 

providing habitat for federally listed fish. Decommissioning or armoring the fords would reduce instream 

fish disturbance (particularly for spawning and incubation), reduce chronic sources of sediment, and 

reduce increased turbidity when vehicles cross the stream. 

Table 3.6.17 Miles of Stream with Improved Fish Access, Decommissioning of Stream Fords, and 

Stream Ford Restoration

Type of Stream With Improved Fish 

Passage and Available Habitat (Miles) 

Alternative Fish

Bearing

Streams

Perennial

Non-Fish

Bearing

Intermittent

Non-Fish

Bearing

Decommissioning

Stream Ford 

Crossing and 

Restoration 

Stabilization

and Armoring 

of Stream 

Ford Crossing

A 0 0 0 0 0 

B 1.4 0 0 2 1 

C 1.4 0 0 3 0 

D 1.4 0 0 3 0 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The “no action” alternative would not include any fish passage improvement projects. The BLM has 

implemented a variety of restoration projects in the analysis area, and this would be expected to continue. 

Future stream restoration actions would be dependent on acquisition of funding for projects. 

The existing human-caused physical barrier for Queen Creek fish passage would continue to restrict fish 

use of 1.4 miles of historical stream habitat for spawning and rearing. Keeping Queen Creek isolated from 

American River would insure that no risks associated with hybridization with non-native cutthroat trout 

or rainbow trout or competition with nonnative fish, such as brook trout would occur. 

The BLM has an ongoing restoration program which has been replacing culverts which impede fish 

passage. The East Fork American River barrier culvert was replaced with a 20 foot wide bridge in 2006. 

The Telephone Creek watershed is proposed to be have a re-connect channel to American River 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

179

constructed (2007–2008). Additional stream passage work would continue to occur over an extended 

period and would be dependent on future funding. 

Alternative B, C, and D 

Queen Creek Channel Re-Connect 

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide fish passage to 1.4 miles of stream in Queen Creek by 

constructing approximately 100 feet of new channel to connect the stream to American River. The newly 

constructed stream channel would cross the American River road and it is proposed to install a seven-foot 

wide culvert that is embedded approximately 35–50%. Culvert capacity would allow for 100 year flow 

events. As needed, suitable sized substrate (e.g., 3–6 inch) material would be placed throughout the length 

of the culvert. The new stream channel would simulate a natural channel, and streambank restoration 

would include riparian seedings and plantings with native species. 

Within the upper South Fork of the Clearwater River subbasin, westslope cutthroat trout have co-evolved 

with steelhead trout and resident rainbow/redband populations of O. mykiss. Westslope cutthroat trout 

occur in the Queen Creek watershed. Westslope cutthroat trout do hybridize with rainbow trout and other 

non-native cutthroat trout subspecies. Many remnant genetically pure cutthroat trout populations are 

located above barriers that protect them from non-native species. 

Re-connecting Queen Creek with American River would result in potential increased use of the watershed 

by steelhead trout, and potentially westslope cutthroat trout hybridization. The potential for natural 

introgression with either native redband or steelhead trout was not considered a risk where these species 

co-evolved with westslope cutthroat trout (Shepard et al., 2003). Box Sing Creek is located 0.9 mile 

downstream from Queen Creek and had a dredge mined caused blockage similar to Queen Creek. In 1992 

the BLM constructed a new channel to connect the stream to American River, monitoring of this 

watershed during 2005 at stream miles 0.1 and 0.8 did not visually document any cutthroat trout/rainbow 

trout hybridization. Monitoring conducted during 2004 and 2005 in the Buffalo Gulch watershed, which 

is also an American River tributary, supported the conclusion identified by the NPNF above for the South 

Fork of the Clearwater River subbasin, rainbow trout and cutthroat trout occurred in the lower reaches; 

however, the upper reaches were completely dominated by cutthroat trout. 

Brook trout, a nonnative species can compete with cutthroat trout for food and space. If brook trout 

became dominate in the stream they could replace westslope cutthroat. 

The dredge mined caused blockage at the mouth of Queen Creek does not function as a full barrier every 

year. There may be periodic fish access during flood events. However, during most years fish access 

would be restricted. 

Although potential for hybridization would occur between rainbow/steelhead and cutthroat trout, this 

should result in low risks to westslope cutthroat trout genetics. Competition between brook trout and 

westslope cutthroat is also expected also have low risks, and should not reduce the viability of cutthroat 

trout in the watershed. Increasing connectivity to Queen Creek would allow individual fish to migrate in 

and out of tributaries to seek cool water. Increased connectivity also promotes genetic exchange between 

populations, potentially increasing diversity. 

Decommissioning of Stream Fords and Stream Ford Stabilization 

American River Ford (River Mile 6.3) and Kirks Fork Ford (Stream Mouth) Rehabilitation 

Alternatives B, C and D identify the decommissioning and restoration of fords located at river mile 6.3 of 

American River, and at the mouth of Kirks Fork. These components are interrelated with a road to ATV 

trail conversion project for a primitive road that parallels American River for approximately 1.6 miles. 

Decommissioning the fords would reduce two chronic sources of sediment and turbidity from the native 

surface stream crossings and associated vehicle use. Closing the fords would also eliminate risks 

associated with vehicle use and fish using the stream at the ford crossing for rearing, spawning, 

incubation, or passage. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

180

Upper American River Ford (River Mile 12.8) Restoration Actions 

Alternative B would improve and stabilize a severely rutting road segment (400 feet) crossing a meadow 

and a stream ford located at river mile 12.8 of American for vehicle passage. Restoration would include 

streambank stabilization and “armoring” the ford. This would reduce turbidity and streambank erosion. 

The “armoring” would also restrict fish from using the ford for rearing or spawning. These actions would 

reduce a chronic sediment source attributed to a native surface stream ford and road crossing a meadow 

adjacent to American River. The conflict of vehicle use and fish using the ford for spawning or rearing 

would be eliminated. 

Alternative C identifies that the American River ford crossing at river mile 12.8 would be 

decommissioned and rehabilitated. Associated with this action would be the decommissioning of 0.89 

mile of primitive road which parallels American River. This action would reduce sediment from the ford 

crossing and eliminate risks associated with vehicle disturbance or harm to fish utilizing the ford for 

spawning, rearing, or passage. 

Alternative D identifies that the American River ford crossing at river mile 12.8 would be 

decommissioned and rehabilitated. Associated with this action would be the conversion of 0.89 mile of 

primitive road which parallels American River to an ATV trail, decommissioning of approximately 500 

feet of road through a meadow area, and constructing approximately 0.5 mile of new ATV trail along the 

east side of American River, which would connect with Forest Service road 443. This action would 

reduce sediment from the ford crossing and eliminate risks associated with vehicle disturbance or harm to 

fish utilizing the ford for spawning, rearing, or passage. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Habitat Connectivity, Fish Passage, and Ford Use Fish 

Disturbance

There are no know irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with habitat connectivity, fish passage, 

and ford use fish disturbance indicator. 

Cumulative Effects–Habitat Connectivity, Fish Passage, and Ford Use Fish Disturbance

The cumulative effects analysis area for sediment and substrate is the American River watershed and the 

upper South Fork Clearwater River to just downstream of the mouth of Crooked River. 

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands that may affect aquatic habitat connectivity and reduce impacts to native fish at ford 

crossing areas. Some of these projects occur within the American River watershed and/or immediate 

project area. A list of these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Projects and other activities displayed at 

the beginning of Chapter 3 would affect aquatic habitat connectivity and fish disturbance at fords include 

NPNF American and Crooked River Project, private land timber harvest and road construction, road 

decommissioning projects on NPNF, BLM, and private lands, and culvert replacement projects for 

improved fish passage. With increased emphasis on maintaining or improving fish passage, it can be 

expected that no future actions on BLM or NPNF would result in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat 

connectivity and most would result in improvement in the long-term. Road crossings and aquatic habitat 

connectivity involving the Idaho Transportation Department (Highway 14), county roads, and private 

roads would be expected to provide for improved fish passage when an existing or new road crossing in a 

fish bearing stream was being constructed, maintained, or upgraded in the long-term, particularly when 

authorization for such projects would require appropriate Federal (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

through application of either Nationwide or site-specific permits) or State Permits (Idaho Stream Channel 

Protection Act). 

As discussed previously, some stream crossing structures (roads and culverts) limit or prevent seasonal 

upstream movement by fish and other aquatic biota. Juvenile salmonids living in rivers may seek refuge 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

181

in tributary streams during high flow events. Dredge mining of stream bottom areas has altered tributary 

stream channels and in some instances has created blockage for fish passage as no stream channel exists. 

These blockages typically occur near the mouth areas of small tributary streams to American River within 

the analysis area. Dredge mining has also altered floodplains and riparian habitats and had degraded or 

eliminated side channels or high flow channels along some low gradient stream channels. Stream fords, 

have altered the stream channel in areas at the crossing. Vehicle use may disturb and displace fish using 

the crossing area, or cause mortality or injury to fish using the area. 

Table 3.6.18 summarizes BLM past and foreseeable future fish passage enhancement projects in the upper 

South Fork Clearwater River subbasin. 

Table 3.6.18 BLM Past and Foreseeable Future Fish Passage Projects in the Upper South Fork 

Clearwater River

Stream Fish Passage Projects Year

Box Sing Creek 

(American River Tributary–RM 8.5) 

Constructed re-connect channel (mouth) through 

dredge tailings (mouth). Facilitate access to 2.4 miles 

of stream. 

1992 

Box Sing Creek 

(American River Tributary–RM 8.5) 

Replaced barrier culvert (SM 0.1) with 6 ft. open arch 

culvert. Facilitate access to 2.4 miles of stream. 2002 

Little Campbell Creek 

(Big Campbell Creek Trib.–SM 0.15) 

(Red River Tributary 0.7) 

Replaced barrier culvert (SM 0.6) with partially 

embedded 6 ft. culvert. Facilitate access to one mile of 

stream. 

2004 

Little Campbell Creek 

(Big Campbell Creek Trib.–SM 0.15) 

(Red River Tributary–RM 0.7) 

Removed barrier culvert (SM 0.35), rocked ford 

crossing, and closed road to public vehicle use. 

Facilitate access to one mile of stream. 

2004 

Buffalo Gulch 

(American River Tributary–RM 1.3) 

Replaced barrier culvert (SM 0.8) with 8 ft. partially 

embedded culvert. Facilitate access to 5 miles of 

stream. 

2005 

Buffalo Gulch 

(American River Tributary–RM 1.3) 

Replaced barrier culvert (SM 2.1) with 7 ft. partially 

embedded culvert. Facilitate access to 5 miles of 

stream. 

2005 

Buffalo Gulch 

(American River Tributary–RM 1.3) 

Replaced barrier culvert (SM 4.5) with 6 ft. partially 

embedded culvert. Facilitate access to 5 miles of 

stream. 

2005 

East Fork American River 

(American River Tributary–RM 10.6) 

Replaced barrier culvert (mouth) with 20 foot bridge. 

Facilitate access to 13 miles of stream 2006 

Telephone Creek 

(American River Tributary–RM10.5) 

Proposed to construct feet of re-connect channel and 

install 6 ft. partially embedded culvert at American 

River road crossing (mouth). Proposed to armor and 

stabilize two ford crossings for road to ATV trail 

conversion project. Facilitate access to 0.7 mile of 

stream. 

2007 

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D would improve aquatic habitat connectivity and 

reduce potential disturbance and mortality to fish utilizing stream fords, when considered cumulatively 

with past activities. Implementation of the action alternatives B, C, and D would increase accessible 

native fish habitat by 1.4 miles and eliminate or reduce fish disturbance at three ford crossings. No 

activities proposed by the action alternatives would impair or adversely impact aquatic habitat 

connectivity or result in long term instream disturbances at stream crossings (i.e., stream fords). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

182

3.6.3.8 Indicator 7–Riparian Areas/Stream Channels Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects–Riparian Areas/Stream Channel Analysis 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Riparian habitats within the analysis area would remain unchanged over the short-term. Some 

improvement may occur over time as riparian habitats and vegetation succession continues. Riparian 

habitat has been impacted by past land uses, particularly where dredge mining has impacted stream 

bottom areas. Road encroachment in riparian areas has also impacted riparian habitats along some stream 

reaches. Historic dredge mining along some stream reaches has severely altered and disturbed the stream 

bottoms, floodplains, riparian areas, and stream channels. Some of these mined areas contain dredged 

materials that are still relatively devoid of shrubs and trees. These dredge materials may contain gravel 

and cobble materials that are lacking in soils which promote vegetation growth. Other ongoing land uses 

would continue to have varying levels of impacts to riparian habitats and includes livestock grazing, 

recreation, roads, and home construction. 

Lack of vegetation treatments may contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in 

more severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could affect riparian condition 

streambank stability, and water temperature. Effects would be dependent on amount of stand replacing 

fire that occurred. 

Alternative B, C, and D 

Since harvest of timber within streamside RHCAs is not proposed under any of these alternatives, the risk 

of adverse effect on riparian habitat is discountable, or extremely unlikely to occur. Riparian restoration 

actions and decommissioning of roads within riparian areas would improve conditions in the long-term. 

Re-contouring of stream banks altered by historic dredge mining would improve floodplains and enhance 

vegetation growth along 1.2 miles of American River, and is expected to improve these areas from a 

riparian rating of “functional at risk” to “proper functioning condition” in the long-term. 

Decommissioning and restoration of roads within RHCAs/riparian areas would total 2.55 miles for 

Alternative B, 3.70 miles for Alternative C, and 3.57 miles for Alternative D. Implementation of these 

actions would improve infiltration, riparian conditions, filter sediment, and provide for improved 

streamside vegetation and shading. Increased additional riparian habitat attributed to road 

decommissioning and restoration for Alternative B, C, and D would be expected to increase by 3.7 acres, 

5.4 acres, and 5.2 acres. 

A new access road for the American River subdivision includes the construction of 0.56 mile of 

permanent road and the construction of a new vehicle bridge for Alternatives C and D. Approximately 

0.12 mile of the new road would be constructed within the RHCA. Several trees would be cut within the 

riparian area; however, short-term and long-term riparian condition, stream shading, and water 

temperature effects are expected to be negligible. 

Alternatives B and C include the relocating of an existing 0.46 mile of road which parallels American 

River to a toeslope area. This action would include the major reconstruction of 0.22 mile of existing road 

and construction of 0.35 mile of new road. Moving the road out of the stream bottom area and 

implementation of riparian restoration actions would improve riparian habitat conditions and shading 

along this stream reach in the long-term. A small portion of the new road construction would occur in the 

American River RHCA. Tree cutting for the new road would be more than one tree distance in length 

from American River, consequently no tree shading or water temperature effects are expected to occur to 

American River from this action. 

Alternative D includes the construction of approximately 300 feet of new temporary road within the 

American River RHCA. This road would also cross a small intermittent stream that drains into dredge 

ponds. Tree cutting along the route road would be more than one tree distance in length from American 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

183

River, consequently no tree shading or water temperature effects are expected to occur to American River 

from this action. 

Alternative C restoration actions have the greatest potential to improve riparian conditions in the longterm, and these are followed by Alternative B and D. 

The restoration activities should moderate current stream temperature levels, and possibly decrease 

stream temperature in the long-term with growth of streamside trees and shrubs, and subsequent increased 

shading. For additional project related short-term and long-term effects to riparian shading, riparian 

condition, and water temperature processes specific to the action alternatives, refer to Appendix H, Tables 

H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis and Summary. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects–Riparian Areas/Stream Channel 

There are no know irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with the riparian areas/stream channel 

indicator.

Cumulative Effects–Riparian Areas/Stream Channel 

The cumulative effects analysis area for riparian habitats and stream channels is the American River 

watershed.

There are a number of past, recent, on-going, and proposed activities in the American River watershed 

and upper South Fork Clearwater River involving BLM, NPNF, State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

private lands. Some of the proposed restoration projects occur within the immediate project area. A list of 

these projects is provided in Table 3.0.1. Some of the projects and other activities displayed at the 

beginning of Chapter 3 would affect the riparian habitat and stream channel indicator, and include the 

NPNF American and Crooked River Project, proposed BLM restoration actions, private land restoration 

actions, private land timber harvest and road construction, firewood cutting, and urban and rural 

development. Private land road construction, timber harvest, and urban/rural development activities which 

may happen in the future is unquantifiable, but it is expected that additional riparian development would 

occur.

The existing condition of this indicator reflects a long history of human development in this watershed. 

Dredge mining activities within stream bottom areas and road encroachment into riparian habitats have 

been the primary land use which has affected riparian habitats. In addition, riparian areas throughout the 

watershed have been affected to varying levels by domestic livestock grazing, timber harvest, and urban 

and rural development. Rural home construction and development has encroached on riparian habitats, 

particularly within the Elk City township (e.g., American River subdivision). 

Some stream reaches of American River, Buffalo Gulch, and Little Elk Creek, and other streams were 

subjected to in-channel and flood plain placer and dredge mining. Dredge mining resulted in sterile 

dredge piles that are primarily composed of cobble/gravel material. Soil and riparian vegetation (e.g., 

trees) recovery has been very slow and some of these areas still are relatively devoid of vegetation (e.g., 

riparian vegetation, trees, shrubs). Riparian vegetation may be lacking in these areas and the riparian plant 

communities are in an early to mid seral stage. The conditions caused by these historic mining activities 

continue to affect stream channel morphology and riparian and floodplain processes, including riparian 

vegetation growth, composition, and seral stage. 

Domestic livestock grazing occurs within the watershed on private, NPNF, and BLM lands. Private land 

grazing is prevalent in the large meadows associated with Elk Creek, Big Elk Creek, and Little Elk Creek. 

Grazing on BLM and NPNF lands within the watershed has been conducted at levels to minimize or 

reduce effects to riparian vegetation or listed fish. Some private land grazing occurs at levels that impact 

riparian vegetation and stream banks (e.g., Elk Creek). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

184

Effects from implementation of Alternatives B, C, and D would not contribute to long-term adverse 

impacts to riparian habitats, when considered cumulatively with past contributors to the degraded 

condition. With the exception of a new public access road and vehicle bridge (Alternatives C and D), and 

a temporary road constructed for timber harvest (intermittent non-fish bearing stream) (Alternative D), no 

additional streamside roads would be constructed. No tree harvest would occur within any RHCAs. 

Implementation of restoration actions, specifically streamside road decommissioning and riparian 

restoration would improve riparian habitats over time. In addition, some natural improvements in riparian 

habitats are expected to continue, even in the absence of restoration. 

Specific BLM planned restoration actions (USDI-BLM, 2006) that would directly affect this indicator 

includes the Telephone Creek road to trail conversion project (0.9) mile and channel re-connect project 

(250 feet). This project would implement restoration of road encroachment within riparian areas, 

construct approximately 250 feet of new stream channel through dredge tailing areas, and improve 

riparian vegetation (seedings and plantings) along the new channel. 

The Elk Creek stream reach which flows across BLM lands has been fenced off from livestock grazing 

(0.4 miles); this riparian restoration effort has improved bank stability and riparian conditions from poor 

to good within this reach. The BLM is coordinating with Framing Our Community regarding the 

construction of riparian fences and restoration efforts along an additional one mile of Elk Creek flowing 

across private lands. 

3.6.3.9 South Fork Clearwater River Analysis of Effects 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Of the indicators discussed in this section, sediment and temperature are the most relevant in terms of 

direct and indirect effects to the South Fork Clearwater River. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, the existing substrate condition in the South Fork Clearwater River 

would probably improve very slowly over time. Because of historic dredge mining and associated legacy 

effects to riparian habitats and stream channels, natural recovery would be negligible in some stream 

reaches without active restoration. Restoration improvements in the watershed may occur as funding 

becomes available. 

Benefits of Alternative A include no further ground-disturbing activities, which would result in no 

additional human-caused spikes of sediment. This alternative would not address the need for active 

stream, watershed and soils restoration. However, the BLM has an ongoing watershed and fisheries 

restoration program which would continue to address restoration various actions as funding becomes 

available.

Stream temperatures would remain unchanged over the short-term. Some improvement may occur over 

time as vegetation recovers in areas where shade has been reduced from past activities or where dredge 

mining has resulted in over-widened, shallow streams. Highway 14 and other road encroachment in 

riparian areas has reduced shrub and trees shading potential along some river reaches. Historic dredge 

mining along some stream reaches has severely altered and disturbed the streambottoms, floodplains, 

riparian areas, and stream channels. Some of these mined areas contain dredged materials that are still 

relatively devoid of shrubs and trees. These dredge materials may contain gravel and cobble materials that 

are lacking in soils which promote vegetation growth. 

Lack of vegetation treatments may contribute to continued accumulation of fuels, potentially resulting in 

severe wildfires, which, depending on size, severity, and location, could affect sediment yield and water 

temperature. With severe wildfire, there are risks associated with pulses of sediment delivered rapidly to 

streams, which could adversely affect habitat already impaired by past human activities. Effects would be 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

185

dependent on amount of stand replacing fire that occurred within riparian habitats and changes resulting 

to sediment yield and shading. 

Alternative B, C, and D 

For specific direct or indirect effects expected from the Eastside Project, refer to indicator analysis 

conducted for the indicators and the American River watershed above. 

No timber harvest is proposed within streamside and wetland RHCAs or in landslide prone RHCAs. No 

short-term or long-term increase in risk of mass wasting and landslide type disturbance is expected to 

occur from Eastside Project actions. Eastside Project action alternative actions which affect erosion and 

sediment processes have the ability to directly or indirectly affect water quality and fish habitat in the 

short-term and long-term. Predicted increases in deposited sediment would not be at a magnitude where 

measurable changes would be expected to occur in the South Fork Clearwater River (see Tables 3.6.10–

3.6.13 above), and differences between the action alternatives, as modeled, are all within the margin of 

error for the model. 

A short-term spike of sediment from restoration and timber harvest/fuel treatments would occur. A longterm reduction of baseline sediment yield from chronic sediment sources would result from restoration 

activities and aid in recovery of watershed and aquatic conditions. 

Since harvest of timber within streamside RHCAs is not proposed under any of these alternatives, the risk 

of adverse effect on stream temperature is discountable, or extremely unlikely to occur. Riparian 

restoration actions and decommissioning of roads within RHCAs and riparian areas would result in 

improved shading and riparian conditions in the long-term. 

Alternative C restoration actions have greatest potential to improve riparian habitats, shading, and water 

temperatures in the long-term, and is followed by Alternatives B and D. 

The restoration activities should moderate current stream temperature levels, and possibly decrease 

stream temperature in the long-term with growth of streamside trees and shrubs, and subsequent increased 

shading. For additional project related short-term and long-term effects to these processes refer to 

Appendix H, Tables H.3 and H.4, American River Aquatic Trend Analysis and Summary. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects

There are no known irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with fisheries or aquatic indicators for 

any of the alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include past, present, reasonably foreseeable actions within the analysis area (see 

Table 3.0.1). The cumulative effects area for fisheries resources includes subwatersheds within American 

River watershed and the upper South Fork Clearwater River, downstream to below Crooked River (RM 

58.4). Findings for aquatic resources in American River and the South Fork Clearwater River include 

substantial physical changes since the initiation of human disturbances in the 19th century. 

Both American River and the South Fork Clearwater River are subject to cumulative effects, with 

sediment and temperature impacts being prevalent. Aquatic restoration projects have been implemented 

overtime in the American River and the upper South Fork Clearwater River. 

Specific activities include but are not limited to mainstem river dams, in-channel mining in the mainstem 

rivers and tributaries, timber harvest throughout the subbasin, road construction and encroachment on 

streams, domestic livestock grazing, home construction and private land development, agriculture and 

cultivation, fire suppression, and many others. It is generally accepted that water quality and habitat in the 

South Fork Clearwater River is in a degraded condition, both from sediment and temperature impacts 

(USDA-FS, 1998a; USDA-FS, 1999a). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

186

Table 3.0.1 lists the aforementioned activities and the possible effects of these actions are described 

below. Section 3.4 (Watershed) highlights the natural (fire) and management activities that have affected 

the project area. The detailed discussions of sediment yield and water temperature highlights these 

elements and how they have changed overtime. Both elements have adversely affected fish populations 

and aquatic habitats in the South Fork Clearwater River 

As described in this section, dredge mining and hydraulic mining caused significant erosion in the 

tributaries, and accelerated sediment deposition in the mainstem river. Fish passage in the South Fork 

Clearwater River has been impacted by mainstem dams since the early days of settlement. The first dam 

reported in the South Fork Clearwater River was the Dewey Mine Dam in place by about 1895. This dam 

was reported to be 6 to 8 feet high and located about 3.3 miles above the Harpster Bridge. The dam was in 

place for a few years with no documentation of fish passage conditions. Lower in the South Fork, near the 

town of Kooskia was the site of the Kooskia Flower Mill Dam. This dam was in place from 1910 into the 

1930s. The dam was estimated to be about 6 feet high. The Washington Water Power Dam was reportedly 

built in 1911 (Siddall, 1992). This dam was a total barrier to fish migration although a fish ladder was 

constructed in 1935 but was washed out in 1949. This dam was reported to be 33 or 56 feet high 

depending on the source. It was removed on August 3, 1963. The existing salmon and steelhead 

populations are a result of fish stocking, and likely supplemented by straying adults from the Clearwater 

River.

Current land uses occurring on private lands include livestock grazing, timber harvest, agriculture, 

residence construction, road construction, sewage treatment, and water withdrawals for domestic use and 

irrigation. It is estimated that increases in general land uses would occur in the next decade. Additional 

information on private land activities is found in the South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment 

(USDA-FS, 1999a). 

Given all the above information, the South Fork Clearwater River is at high risk for cumulative impacts, 

especially from additional sediment and increased water temperature. The Eastside Project is designed to 

improve overall fish habitat by reducing non-point sediment sources and improving instream fish habitat. 

Sediment increases from road and harvest activities will however, increase sediment in the short-term. In 

general, the level of activity on federal lands is currently substantially less than in recent decades, and 

many federal actions contain watershed improvements as part of the project. Proposed mining activities 

may contribute to the conditions in the subbasin, but mitigation for these projects is expected to reduce 

some of these impacts. Proposed timber sales on BLM and National Forest lands are subject to similar 

mitigation and upward trend requirements as the Eastside Project, and although spikes of sediment may 

occur, in general, stream habitat is expected to improve at least locally. 

Actions associated with the Eastside Project area may contribute cumulatively to sediment in the South 

Fork Clearwater River downstream from the mouth of American River. As discussed in the Watershed 

Cumulative Effects section, these effects would be short-term only, and improvements in watershed 

condition over time would contribute to improved conditions in the river. 

Cumulative sediment effects to the South Fork Clearwater River from the Eastside Project, American and 

Crooked River Project, and other projects in the upper subbasin would occur. Sediment produced in 

American River would be routed downstream into the South Fork Clearwater River. The difference 

between alternatives (including Alternative A) is relatively inconsequential (less than one percent), when 

considered in relation to the total sediment yield to the upper South Fork Clearwater River. Currently, 

routed sediment delivery to upper South Fork cumulative assessment reach is approximately 6% over 

base. Therefore, measurable cumulative increases in deposited sediment in the upper South Fork 

Clearwater River are not expected from implementation of any of the action alternatives when coupled to 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Short-term sediment yield attributed to the Eastside 

Project and American and Crooked River project action alternatives is primarily short term increases in 

sediment yields, while the focus of restoration projects is the reduction of chronic sediment sources (i.e., 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

187

decommissioning of roads, riparian restoration of mined areas) and long-term reduction of erosion 

sources.

Specific BLM planned restoration actions identified for the South Fork Clearwater River include the 

South Fork Clearwater River Restoration Project (USDI-BLM, 2005Bb). This project includes reduction 

of sediment, reconnecting a small perennial (non-fish bearing stream), riparian restoration, 

decommissioning small segments of road and a primitive campsite adjacent to the river, and maintenance 

of side channel habitats for juvenile rearing habitat. This project is anticipated to take place in the 

foreseeable future (2007–2008). 

Over the long-term, sediment yield is expected to decrease, especially with the implementation of 

watershed improvement projects, and in the absence of additional disturbance, sediment yields in 

tributary streams to the upper South Fork Clearwater River would also decrease. Consequently, decreases 

would occur in the South Fork Clearwater River. 

Past, present and future riparian restoration actions will provide long-term improvement to shade 

conditions for the South Fork and some of its tributaries. These actions should provide a long-term trend 

to improved temperature conditions. 

The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL (see Section 3.4 Watershed) for sediment and water temperature 

will govern activities on State and private lands as well as Federal lands. Under this guidance, aquatic 

conditions should continue to improve in the South Fork Clearwater River. 

3.6.3.10 Consistency with the Management Framework Plan and Environmental Law 

The MFP direction and regulatory framework relevant to fisheries is presented in Section 3.6.1.2 and 

Table 3.6.1. It includes a description of general guidelines for activities in BLM fisheries/water quality 

prescription watersheds, a summary of relevant direction from PACFISH (1995), and direction associated 

with the ESA for listed fish species potentially affected by actions in the American River area. All 

alternatives are in conformance with the BLM MFP and compliance with environmental law. The project 

design incorporates measures to minimize effects to ESA listed and BLM sensitive fish. 

Upward Trend Of Below Objective Watersheds–All Action Alternatives 

In addition to Eastside Project restoration actions, upward trend can also be supported by other ongoing 

and planned BLM management actions. 

The MFP supplement (USDI-BLM, 1985; USDI-BLM, 1989) for fisheries/water quality objectives for 

prescription watersheds provides direction that timber harvest in subwatersheds that do not meet their 

fisheries/water quality objectives would occur only where concurrent watershed improvement efforts 

result in a positive upward trend in habitat condition. Most prescription watersheds in the analysis area 

were included in this category (see Table 3.6.1). 

Direct watershed improvement actions, which range from road obliteration, road decommissioning, 

riparian restoration, conversion of roads to ATV trails, and non-point sediment stabilization, are included 

with all action alternatives (Appendix I). Large-scale vegetation treatments, which include timber harvest, 

are designed in part to reduce fuel accumulations and improve stand condition within the analysis area. 

The combined vegetation treatments and watershed restoration activities will result in a short-term 

increase in sediment but a long-term improvement in watershed condition. 

Long-term declines in surface sediment yield are displayed in figures and tables included in Section 3.4 

(Watershed). These figures and tables display a long-term improvement in baseline sediment yield 

conditions expected as a result of the action alternatives. The action alternative restoration actions are 

very similar, with Alternative C offering slightly more improvement versus the least short-term risk, and 

are followed by Alternatives B and D. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

188

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects 

There are no known irreversible or irretrievable effects associated with fisheries or aquatic resources for 

any of the alternatives. 

3.6.3.11 Conclusions 

Existing Condition 

Fish habitat in the analysis area is generally in poor to fair condition, with a few streams rated as high-fair 

to good. Past bucket line dredging of the mainstem American River, Little Elk Creek, and upper South 

Fork Clearwater River, have left these systems with a reduced carrying capacity for fish. Dredging 

activity has also impacted the mouth areas and lower reaches of tributary streams to American River. 

Water temperatures are elevated due to the vegetative canopy that was removed by roads and dredging. 

Many of the streams in the analysis area are below objectives (see Table 3.6.1). Habitat elements of most 

concern include high levels of deposited sediment, lack of LWD, low number of high quality pools, high 

summer stream temperatures, and an overall simplification of habitat leading to reduced carrying 

capacity. 

Road/stream crossings in the project area have culverts that block or impede upstream fish migration. 

Dredge mining has altered the mouth area and lower reach of several tributary streams, causing fish 

passage blockages. Dredge mining of some stream bottom areas has altered stream channel morphology 

and reduced amount of side channels and high flow channels within floodplains. 

Migratory steelhead trout, bull trout, spring chinook salmon, and westslope, while located in the project 

and analysis area streams, are at very low densities and the American River is a designated priority 

watershed (USDA-FS, 1998a). Resident rainbow/redband trout occur within the American River 

watershed. Pacific lamprey have been documented in the South Fork Clearwater River, and American 

River provides potential habitat for the species. Current habitat conditions may be limiting growth, 

reproduction, and survival of these species in the tributaries as well as in the mainstem rivers. 

Non-native brook trout exist in many streams in the analysis area, and may compete with or displace 

native species as well as hybridize with bull trout. 

Environmental Consequences 

If Alternative A is implemented, watersheds and some stream reaches would remain in a poor to fair 

condition and recover slowly over time. 

Under the action alternatives, a limited short-term increase in sediment production is expected from 

vegetation treatments, road construction/reconstruction, temporary road construction, road 

decommissioning, new road and bridge construction, riparian restoration projects, Queen Creek reconnect channel construction, ford obliteration and restoration, and road to ATV trail conversion projects. 

This short-term increase in sediment yield is not at a level where changes in stream substrate (cobble 

embeddedness) are expected to occur. 

Under the action alternatives, vegetation treatments, including timber harvest, may result in lower risk of 

large, stand-replacing fires. Such fires could adversely affect watershed condition and fish habitat. Shortterm increases in sediment yield under the action alternatives are partly due to watershed improvement 

activities, which are expected to result in long-term improvement in habitat condition. 

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA), a predictor of changes in water yield, would increase slightly under all 

action alternatives. This increase is not likely to result in adverse changes in fish habitat. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

189

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C offers the most rapid improvement in watershed condition, with 

the least short-term risks. Alternative B offers a lesser rate of improvement, and is followed by 

Alternative D. 

Fish in the project area, including steelhead trout, bull trout, spring chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, 

redband trout and westslope cutthroat trout, may be adversely affected by potential short-term changes in 

habitat condition and spike sediment yields. However, these species are also expected to benefit from 

long-term improvement in habitat condition with reductions of chronic sediment yields, improved riparian 

habitats and improvements to water temperature, improved active and potential LWD, more accessible 

habitat, reduced disturbance from vehicle use of fords, and improved channel conditions with 

recontouring of streambanks. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

190

3.7 Wildlife _________________________________________ 

3.7.1 Introduction

3.7.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

Species were evaluated in relation to available habitat quality and quantity for the proposed Eastside 

Project. The scope of this analysis and extent of cumulative effects varies depending on each species 

relative home range size and critical habitat niche(s). For most wildlife species, effects analyses will be 

limited to the American River watershed. For certain species, the amount (acres) of potentially suitable 

habitat that would be modified will be the primary indicator for analysis and will be carried throughout 

the alternatives. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be addressed predominantly within the 

American River watershed, and where applicable extend beyond the watershed. 

3.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

BLM Management Framework Plan and North Idaho Timber Management EIS 

The Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan (MFP) (USDI-BLM, 1981a) and North Idaho Timber 

Management EIS (NITMEIS) (USDI-BLM, 1981b) provide principle policy and guidance which is 

relevant to wildlife and forest management. The MFP and NITMEIS documents goals, standards and 

guidelines for wildlife species. Following are some pertinent excerpts in regards to the Eastside Project 

proposal.

x Practice snag management to maintain adequate habitat for snag dependent species. 

x Active raptor nests would be protected by non-disturbance zone. 

x Appropriate vehicle use restrictions will be established to protect known high resource values. 

x Protect and/or restore habitat for moose. 

x Identifies riparian buffers for wildlife cover and travel. 

x Avoid adverse actions to federally listed species. 

x Guidance for closure of temporary roads. 

x Maintenance of adequate hiding/security cover for deer and elk. 

x Provides guidance for coordinating logging and elk habitat requirements. 

x Riparian and aquatic restoration priorities for American River drainage. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Endangered Species Act 

Analysis and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species 

data in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is based on direction contained in the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The above Acts and 

BLM regulations require federal land managers to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable 

non-native wildlife species and to assure that federally listed (threatened and endangered) species 

populations are allowed to recover. 

Threatened Species: Threatened or endangered status provides a species and its habitat special 

protections from adverse impacts from federally authorized or funded projects. It is the responsibility of 

the BLM to design activities that contribute to the recovery of listed species in accordance with recovery 

plans developed as directed by the ESA (50 CFR part 402). Section 9 of the ESA requires threatened and 

endangered species be protected from “harm” and “harassment” wherever they occur, regardless of 

recovery boundaries. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list #SL 06-0328 (dated 3/1/2006), 

federally listed wildlife species include gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a threatened experimental/nonessential 

species. The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and bald eagle (Haliateetus leucocephalus) are listed as 

threatened species. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

191

Sensitive Species: In accordance with national policy (BLM Manual 6840), the Idaho BLM Special 

Status Species List (2003) provide management direction and prioritization for BLM sensitive species and 

conservation management needs. An associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed 

by the State Director and Idaho Department of Fish and Game Director that designates BLM sensitive 

species (those species of concern but not federally listed or candidates for listing). Consistent with 

national policy, all BLM offices are to use this list to help them “...ensure, to the best of their abilities, 

that critical habits and populations of sensitive species occurring on lands administered by the BLM will 

be managed and/or conserved to minimize the need for listing these animals as threatened or endangered 

by either Federal or State governments in the future.” 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Laws: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and Executive Order 

13186 (E.O.) titled "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” provides specific 

direction that environmental analysis of Federal actions are to evaluate the effects of actions and agency 

plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. 

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” The BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) signed a 

MOU complementing the Executive Order. 

The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the FWS identify “...all 

migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates 

for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” Carrying out this mandate, the FWS published 

“Birds of Conservation Concern 2002” and recommends that its lists be consulted in accordance with 

Executive Order 13186. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act covers many ground-nesting and shrub-nesting birds. Some migratory 

birds are covered by state hunting regulations; others are protected by non-game status by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. 

3.7.1.3 Desired Future Conditions and Analysis Methods 

Historical Range of Variability

Ecosystems are not static and their conditions vary over time and space. The Historical Range of 

Variability (HRV) describes the dynamic nature of ecosystems. The historic range of conditions found in 

a given setting is used to understand the likely range of conditions found under natural disturbance 

regimes. HRV refers to the range of composition, structure, pattern and function of landscape elements 

like streams and aquatic communities, and terrestrial plant and animal communities in recent time (the 

last 2000 years) of relative climatic stability. It is considered to include the era prior to European 

settlement, but concurrent with Native American occupation. This concept is based on the assumption that 

if elements are sustained or restored to within their historic range of variability, viable populations will 

more likely be maintained and rates of extinction will not exceed natural rates. Actual information on 

historic conditions is inferred from more recent (1500s–early 1900s) information and available research 

data.

The wildlife analysis uses information at four scales: South Fork Clearwater Sub-basin 4th Code HUC 

(752,000 acres), American River watershed 5th Code HUC (58,612 acres), immediate project area, and 

treatment area. Each species listed in Table 3.7.4 that occurs in the American River watershed is 

discussed. Analysis of each species includes available habitat and population information. Species habitat 

analysis includes a summary of important habitat requirements and available habitat quality and quantity. 

Population information includes sighting information from local BLM and FS reports and Idaho 

Conservation Data Center reports and available survey information. The wildlife resource direct and 

indirect effects project analysis area is the American River watershed (7.79% of the South Fork 

Clearwater River Sub-basin). Table 3.7.1 displays proposed actions by alternatives at two scales. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

192

Table 3.7.1 Size of Alternative Treatment Acres at Two Scales (South Fork Clearwater River and 

American River Watershed)

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Acres Treated 0 1,293 1,284 1,171 

Percent of South Fork Clearwater River 0 0.17 0.17 0.16 

Percent of American River Watershed 0 2.21 2.19 2.00 

The extent of historical habitat for various wildlife species chosen for analysis in the South Fork 

Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) was calculated by identifying acres of potential habitat for 

each Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) and Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) (geographic areas that 

provide structure for describing where conditions occur and a sense of place). The American River is 

identified as an ERU for the subbasin. Since not all acres would have supported certain wildlife species or 

would have possessed the preferred vegetation and structure, the midpoint of the HRV for various wildlife 

habitat components was multiplied by the number of potential acres within the subbasin. The end product 

was then termed “historical acres.” Habitat for some wildlife species has increased, while habitat for some 

species has decreased due to fire exclusion. While the quantity of habitat may have increased, habitat 

quality could have decreased due to snag losses from firewood cutting, and loss of habitat heterogeneity 

from fire suppression, loss of large diameter trees due to timber harvest, and high road densities have 

direct and indirect effects on wildlife security and disturbance. 

To characterize the historical (pre-settlement condition) and current condition of wildlife habitat, 

Vegetation Response Units (VRUs) were used. The components used to develop the VRU classification 

system are habitat type groups (potential vegetation), landform, and pre-settlement disturbance processes 

(like fire and disease regimes). VRUs are broad ecological land units that display unique patterns of 

habitat type and terrain with similar patterns of disturbance and succession processes. Patterns of plant 

community composition, age class structure, and patch size would tend to fall within certain ranges for 

each VRU. VRUs were used in this assessment to estimate resource capabilities, ecological integrity, and 

responses to natural and human-caused disturbance. Table 3.7.2 summarizes the VRUs found in the 

American River watershed (USDA-FS, 1998a). 

Table 3.7.2 American River (ERU)–Vegetation Response Units1

Vegetation Response Units

1 3 6 7 8 9 10 

974 74 36340 10077 674 392 10100 1

Source–South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment Volume 1–page 93 (USDA-FS, 1998a) 

VRU 6 (cold basins, grand fir and subalpine fir) is the most prevalent VRU in the watershed (USDA-FS, 

1998a). This VRU is common at mid elevations. Grand fir and subalpine fir habitat type are dominant. 

Lodgepole pine was the dominant seral species. Western larch, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce were 

important. 

VRU 10 (uplands, alder, grand fir and subalpine fir habitat types) and VRU 7 (moist uplands, grand fir 

and Pacific yew) comprise similar amounts of the watershed (USDA-FS, 1998a). 

The Eastside Project is in VRU 6, which comprises 36,340 acres and 62 percent of the American River 

watershed. Table 3.7.3 summarizes natural/historic disturbance regimes by size class for this VRU and 

existing conditions. The BLM utilized the NPNF data set for tree size class data within the American 

River watershed that used a large tree class of greater than 15 inch dbh. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

193

Table 3.7.3 VRU 6 Natural/Historic and Existing Conditions in the American River Drainage

Size Class 

Natural/Historic

Disturbance 

Regimes1

Available Size Class Data 

Used For Analysis 

Alt A 

Current Acres 

(%)2

Non-Forest 5–10% Non-Forest & Shrub Dominated 3,005 (8.6%) 

Seedling/Sapling 

(<5 inch dbh) 10–30% Seedling/Sapling (<5 inch dbh) 10 (<0.5%) 

Pole (5–9 inch dbh) and Small Tree (5–9.9 inch dbh) 4,178 (12%) 

Small Tree (9–14 inch dbh) 

30–45% 

Medium Trees (10–14.9 inch dbh) 11,988 (34.4%) 

Medium Tree (14–21 inch 

dbh) 20–40% 

Large Tree (>21 inch dbh) 5–20% 

Large (15+ inch dbh) 15,659 (44.9%) 

1

Source–South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment Volume 1–page 96 (USDA-FS, 1998a) 2

Source–NPNF GIS analysis data.

Analysis of effects for most species used comparisons of resultant effects of each alternative and any past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on the most limiting habitat factors, habitat 

components, or species sensitivities known relative to the analysis area or larger landscapes as 

appropriate. Where appropriate, wildlife information related to the amount of existing habitat potentially 

available for certain sensitive and other species of interest was modeled using the Region 1 Vegetation 

Mapping project (R1-VMP) to describe abundance and distribution of wildlife habitat for the American 

River drainage (USDA-FS, 2005a). This product provided a consistent and continuous geospatial 

database for existing vegetation and associated attributes covering the Eastside Project area, in 

conjunction with the American and Crooked River project (USDA-FS, 2005a). Vegetation composition 

(habitat type and forest cover type), structural stages (tree size classes and canopy cover), acres, and 

distribution were all considered in defining the existing condition. These same criteria were used to 

determine the effects of the different alternatives on species habitat. 

Where appropriate, the BLM utilized the Nez Perce National Forest 2000–2002 Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) survey to determine the abundance and distribution of certain wildlife habitat, old growth 

and snag habitats at the watershed (5th Hydrologic Unit Code–HUC) and subbasin (4th HUC) level. The 

FIA survey is a general purpose, national inventory that is designed for strategic assessments and 

produces statistical reports and analytical information on status and trends in forest vegetation across the 

nation (Czaplewski et al., 2003). FIA data were used to describe existing conditions for the following 

species and habitats: Northern goshawk, Williamson’s sapsucker, olive-sided flycatcher, fisher, black 

backed woodpecker, old growth, early seral, and snags. Criteria used for data queries are located in the 

project file. 

In addition, this EIS incorporates the effects on BLM terrestrial sensitive species (i.e., Biological 

Evaluation). Refer to Table 3.7.4 below for a summary of environmental consequences and conclusions 

for this analysis. 

Elk Habitat: Outputs from the habitat suitability index model for north Idaho (Leege, 1984) were used to 

analyze summer elk habitats. The analysis area does not occur in primary elk winter range. 

Lynx: The analysis for Canadian lynx followed conservation measures and habitat criteria direction from 

the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al., 2000). Analysis of 

effects to lynx and/or their habitat is conducted for lynx analysis units (LAUs) as directed by the LCAS. 

The LAU for the Eastside Project area includes BLM lands located in the east side of the Elk City 

township and NPNF lands located east and north east of the township (#3020306).
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

194

Old Growth: The BLM conducted stand exams within the project area to determine if individual stands 

met old growth criteria and no old growth stands were identified in harvest units. In addition, cumulative 

assessment was conducted at the watershed level by the NPNF for the American and Crooked River 

project (2005) which is summarized as follows. NPNF Stand exam data was queried for stands meeting 

criteria from the North Idaho Zone Old Growth methodology, as well as Forest Plan definitions. Stands 

meeting all criteria for existing old growth were reviewed using ARC/GIS system to ensure they have not 

been harvested or thinned in a manner that may have compromised their habitat effectiveness. Stands that 

met all criteria for replacement old growth were similarly verified. Unsampled stands were reviewed 

using the “Large Tree 2002” ARC/GIS screen (stands with large trees in 1935 and not since harvested or 

burned), and compared against known old growth stands using tree size, canopy, and common canopy 

texture as a guide before being considered old growth. These were also verified to be present on the 

landscape using the ARC/GIS tool along with aerial photos. 

3.7.1.4 Alternative Comparison and Effects Determinations 

Table 3.7.4 displays a brief summary of effects determination for federally listed species, BLM sensitive 

species, and other species of interest and habitat associations. 

Table 3.7.4 Wildlife Species Effects Determinations for Federally Listed Species, BLM Sensitive 

Species, Other Management Indicators (Species and Habitat Associations) and Alternative Comparisons

Primary

Status

Species

and Status 

Guild/

Priority 

Habitat

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Canada Lynx 

(Threatened) 

Early-seral 

Security 

No Effect May affect, but not likely to adversely 

affect

Gray Wolf 

(Experimental

Population) 

Early-seral 

Security 

No Effect Not likely to jeopardize continued 

existence of the species 

Threatened

and

Endangered

Species

Bald Eagle 

(Threatened) 

Early-seral 

Riparian

No Effect May affect, but not likely to adversely 

affect

Northern

goshawk

Late-seral/

Old growth 

No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar, Alt. B impacts most habitat, Alt. D 

least.

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

Late-seral No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar, Alt. B impacts most habitat, Alt. D 

least.

BLM

Sensitive

Species

Olive-sided

flycatcher 

Early-seral No impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar, all Alts. beneficial. Alt. B improves 

most habitat, Alt. D improves least amount 

of habitat. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

195

Primary

Status

Species

and Status 

Guild/

Priority 

Habitat

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Fisher Late-seral/ 

old growth 

security 

No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar, Alt. B impacts most habitat, Alt. D 

least.

Wolverine Security No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species 

Western toad Aquatic 

Riparian

No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar. Alt. C most beneficial for riparian 

restoration , followed by B. 

Common 

gartersnake

Riparian No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar. Alt. C most beneficial for riparian 

restoration, followed by B. 

Idaho giant 

salamander 

Aquatic

Riparian

No Impact May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely result in a trend toward 

federal listing or reduced viability for the 

population or species. Alternatives very 

similar. Alt. C most beneficial for riparian 

restoration, followed by B. 

Elk Early seral 

Security 

Low-mod. 

summer 

habitat

effectiveness;

no forage 

improvement 

Creation of more forage areas. Short term 

disturbance during project implementation. 

Decommissioning roads beneficial. Timber 

harvest related road construction, 

temporary roads would be obliterated after 

project. Varies slightly by alternative, 

Alternative B and C most beneficial, 

followed by Alt. D. 

Other

Management 

Indicators

Shiras Moose Late-seral/ 

Grand fir/ 

Pacific yew 

Riparian

No

measurable 

impacts 

Loss of some mature, dense canopy grand 

fir habitats. No loss of important moose 

winter range. Riparian habitat restoration 

and decommissioning roads in riparian 

areas beneficial. Varies slightly by 

alternative, Alternative C most beneficial 

for riparian restoration. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

196

Primary

Status

Species

and Status 

Guild/

Priority 

Habitat

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

(BLM Watch 

List)

Fire/insect

disturbance

No

measurable 

impacts, no 

direct loss of 

nesting or 

foraging

habitat

Losses of nesting and foraging habitat. 

Alternatives very similar. Alt. D impacts 

least acres, Alt. B impacts most acres. 

Neotropical

Migratory 

Birds

Old growth 

(Priority) 

Riparian

habitats

No

measurable 

impacts, no 

direct loss of 

nesting

habitat

Old growth maintained; low nesting habitat 

loss. Some loss of mature-dense canopy 

mixed conifer stands, negligible effects at 

the watershed level. Varies slightly by 

alternative. Alternatives very similar. 

Old growth 

habitat

Late-seral/

Old growth

Low

improvement 

for old 

growth

Old growth maintained, treatments would 

reduce fire threats. Some loss of maturedense canopy mixed conifer stands, 

negligible effects at the watershed level. 

Varies slightly by alternative. , Alt. B 

impacts most “large tree” stands, Alt. D 

least.

Fragmentation 

and

Connectivity 

Late-seral 

Riparian

Disturbance

Regimes 

Existing

trends and 

condition

continue

Treatment caused “openings” in mixedconifer and lodgepole stands. Mobile, 

wide-ranging species slight effects; small, 

less-mobile species, may affect more. 

Decommissioning roads and moving roads 

out of riparian areas beneficial. Fuel 

treatments would reduce threats of more 

severe fires in treated stands. Alternatives 

very similar, Alt. C most beneficial with 

road decommissioning, and Alt. D modifies 

least acres. 

Snags and 

Large Down 

Wood

Late-seral/

Disturbance

Regimes 

Existing

trends and 

condition

continue

Loss of snags and large down wood in 

treatment areas, negligible effects at the 

watershed level because of dead and dying 

lodgepole. Following snag guidelines 

would reduce potential for adverse effects. 

Alternatives very similar, Alt. B most 

impacts and Alt. D least. 

Riparian

Habitats

Late-seral/

Mid-seral

Low

improvement 

for riparian; 

successional 

trends

continue

Riparian restoration in all alternatives 

supports upward trends within dredge 

mined areas. Decommissioning roads in 

riparian areas beneficial. Alternatives very 

similar. Alt. C most beneficial for riparian 

restoration, followed by B. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

197

3.7.2 Existing Habitat Conditions 

3.7.2.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this section is to present existing wildlife species’ habitat conditions and to document the 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable activities on wildlife 

species and their habitats. 

American River wildlife species composition and abundance are primarily influenced by climate, 

landscape, and disturbance regimes. Disturbance events, primarily fire, insects, and disease pathogens, 

initiate plant community vegetative succession. Vegetative transitions support a varying abundance and 

diversity of wildlife habitat and species. Some species are adapted to early seral communities, others are 

best suited for late seral communities and old growth habitats, while others utilize a variety of habitats 

and are adapted to vegetative successional mosaics. American River watershed wildlife habitats are going 

through a large scale transition at this time due to the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the area. 

Landscapes undergo large and small natural disturbances creating patches that have different structures, 

and compositions. The amount, spatial arrangement, shape, and size of landscape patches determine 

wildlife species composition and abundance supported by the landscape. 

South Fork Clearwater River 

The following summary was taken from the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (SFLA) 

(USDI-FS, 1998A). 

“The South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin provides habitat for approximately 190 birds, 61 mammals, 8 

reptiles, and 6 amphibians (Groves et al., 1997)... Most however, are primarily associated with either the 

Camas Prairie or coniferous forest... The subbasin’s coniferous forest varies from warm, low-elevation 

ponderosa pine, to cold, high-elevation whitebark pine. Similar coniferous forest abuts the subbasin to the 

north, east, and south, although there are subtle differences that affect wildlife (USDI-FS, 1998A:99).” 

The SFLA concludes by recommending priority management themes by resource area, including wildlife 

and vegetation. Wildlife habitat themes were recommended for each of the 13 ecological reporting units 

(ERU), one of the ERUs was the American River watershed. The priority American River ERU wildlife 

habitat themes included: produce early seral habitat; conserve late seral habitat; and enhance wildlife 

security (USDI-FS, 1998A:140). The priority American River ERU vegetation theme was to restore 

vegetation pattern for Lower American River, specific to VRU 6 (USDI-FS, 1998A:139). 

American River Watershed 

The American River watershed is dominated by moderately warm, moderately dry grand fir (habitat 

group 3) and moderately warm, moist grand fir (habitat group 4). Key habitat features include riparian 

zones and streams, moist and wet shrublands and meadows, and moist old growth. Refer to Section 3.3 

(Vegetation) for more information about cover types, structure, and canopy cover in the American River 

watershed. Habitat groups 3 and 4 are characterized by moderately cool and relatively dry grand fir and 

moderately warm and moist grand fir habitats. Tree species characteristic of this habitat include grand fir, 

Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce and occasionally ponderosa pine and western larch. 

Understories range from beargrass and huckleberry to more diverse shrub and forb understories. These 

habitats are found at mid elevations on ridges or rolling hills in the south and east parts of the subbasins 

and on north slopes and lower slopes in areas that are too dry for western red cedar. 

Other common habitat groups found within the watershed include cool, moist subalpine fir (habitat 

group 7), cool, wet subalpine fir (habitat group 8), and cool, moderately dry subalpine fir (habitat 

group 9). These habitat groups are dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine 

with western larch and Douglas-fir less common. The cool and moist subalpine fir is common at upper 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

198

elevations on north aspects and moist lower slopes. The cool and wet subalpine fir is uncommon and 

occurs at upper elevations in riparian areas. Cool and moderately dry subalpine fir is very common on 

upper elevation ridges. 

Wildlife Use of Lodgepole Pine Habitat 

The dominant cover type occurring within the project area is lodgepole pine, of which the majority is dead 

or dying (for specifics, see Section 3.3 Vegetation). Lodgepole pine cover type dominance is 53% of the 

Eastside Project area and 15% of the American River watershed. 

Information in this section of the document was extracted from the Forest Service Fire Effects Information 

System in November 2004 (USDA-FS, 2003e) and from the Red Pines Final EIS (2005b). Mule deer, 

moose, and elk may browse lodgepole pine, generally when other food is scarce. Lodgepole pine forests 

provide summer range for big game animals and habitat for a variety of non-game birds. Small mammals 

including snowshoe hares, pocket gophers, voles, porcupines, and squirrels feed on the cambium of 

lodgepole pine, as do porcupines and black bears. Downed lodgepole pine provides drumming sites for 

ruffed grouse. 

Lodgepole pine seeds are an important food source for red crossbills year-round. Blue grouse and spruce 

grouse also eat seeds as well as needles of lodgepole pine. In late summer and fall, seeds are important for 

small mammals, especially red squirrels, which are lodgepole pine's most significant seed predator. 

In Washington, densely stocked lodgepole pine stands are preferred foraging habitat for Canada lynx due 

to abundant populations of snowshoe hares. Mountain pine beetle larvae harbored by lodgepole pine are 

an important food source for woodpeckers. 

Lodgepole pine stands provide cover for big game animals, upland game birds, small non-game birds, and 

small mammals. Cover value for big game animals changes over time, reflecting the growth and structural 

development of lodgepole pine stands. Lodgepole pine is used for roosting cover by ruffed grouse and 

provides nesting sites for a variety of birds including the northern goshawk. 

Wildlife Habitat and Communities in Post-Epidemic Lodgepole Pine Forests in Northern Utah 

Stone (1995) studied “The Impacts of a Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic on Wildlife Habitat and 

Communities in Post-Epidemic Stands of a Lodgepole Pine Forest in Northern Utah.” The 1995 Stone 

dissertation is lengthy. Included here is a brief summary of findings. 

“The abundance and diversity of wildlife species are generally enhanced following epidemic 

levels of this insect pest. Exceptions to this pattern are red squirrels, pine grosbeaks and 

Audubon’s warblers...Goshawks were also most abundant in undisturbed stands... 

The most important aspect of forest habitat changes following the epidemic...was the increase in 

understory biomass as canopy foliage was reduced. Understory plant species diversity and 

structural heterogeneity also contributed significantly to explaining the variability in species’ 

abundances in affected stands...The abundances of most species of birds and mammals were 

highest when understory plant biomass, species diversity, and heterogeneity had high values. 

Grazing herbivores appeared to be among the animals most benefited by mountain pine beetle 

epidemics in these lodgepole pine stands.” 

The resulting species diversity of understory plants, insects, birds, and mammals over the continuum of 

beetle-caused tree mortality generally suggests that species richness is highest when disturbance is 

intermediate in frequency or intensity. However, species diversity of the insect community and the small 

mammal community appeared to remain high or decrease only slightly in the most severely-disturbed 

stands. The study did not address colonization rates of new species, extinction rates of species, or 

competitive interactions between species. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

199

Additionally, the cause of the increased diversity at moderate levels of beetle-caused tree mortality could 

not be determined. However, a high degree of association does exist between the diversity and abundance 

of avian and mammalian species and the habitat variables that indicate resource (principally food and 

cover) abundance, diversity, and heterogeneity. 

The study concludes that the bark beetle epidemic was an intermediate type of disturbance in the northern 

Utah forest. The intensity of disturbance in these situations was identified as the primary factor of the 

disturbance regime in creating environmental heterogeneity or patchiness in the landscape. The American 

River was at 50–60% lodgepole pine mortality in 2003 (USDA-FS, 2005a), placing the American River 

environment in a moderate to high mortality category according to Stone (1995). 

Past Events Affecting Existing Wildlife Habitat Conditions 

The American River landscape has changed over the last 120 years in response to vegetative succession, 

insect and disease activity, timber harvest, road building, human-caused fire and fire exclusion, grazing, 

mining, and the introduction of non-native species. Motorized and non-motorized recreation use of forest 

habitats has altered wildlife habitat and use patterns as well. Fires, timber harvest, and fire exclusion have 

resulted in areas of lodgepole pine dominance. Harvest activities, as well as human-caused and natural 

wildfires, have removed larch and ponderosa pine overstories occurring at low and mid-elevations, 

leaving smaller size class lodgepole and mixed conifer understories. 

Forest tree size classes and timber stand structure have changed from historic conditions; the most 

conspicuous change has been in early seral habitats and mature forest of medium and large trees. 

American River climate, geology, management history, species composition and fire history support 

smaller trees with lodgepole pine dominating in areas. Relatively simple one- and two-story stands have 

transitioned into complex multi-story stands in some places. Natural variation in structure within and 

between stands has declined. Past timber harvest units are simple, small to medium patches, without 

snags or residual large fire-resistant trees. Natural timber stands often had snag and residual large tree 

components and varied widely in size and shape. Low and mid elevation mature forest habitats have been 

fragmented by timber harvest and roads. The late 19th to early 20th century wildfires plus the 1950s–1990s 

timber harvests have left many areas low in large legacy trees, snags, and down wood. The recent 

lodgepole pine mortality has created dense patches of small-medium (9–14 inches dbh) snags; however 

they have lower utility to wildlife than other preferred tree species for snags. The preferred snags in the 

American River watershed are large (>21 inches dbh) ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir. 

Lodgepole Pine Mortality 

Lodgepole pine areas and mixed conifer forest (much of which has a lodgepole pine component) were 

established after wildfires in the late 1800s. These habitats have grown to small and medium tree size. 

Currently, the American River watershed is exhibiting widespread lodgepole pine mortality from a 

mountain pine beetle epidemic. More information can be found in Section 3.3 (Vegetation) of this 

document. Beetle epidemics predictably interact with fire, drought, and other climatic events to shape 

vegetative successional trends and structure plant communities. The current mortality is expected in 

lodgepole systems, also expected is large, stand-replacing fire. In the absence of wildfire, canopy cover 

will continue to decline and will continue affecting species use based on canopy cover conditions. Some 

species are negatively affected (i.e., fisher) and some are positively affected (i.e., elk). 

Timber Harvest 

Within the American River watershed, approximately 15 percent (8,820 acres) has undergone some sort 

of timber harvest (USDA-FS, 2005a). Past timber harvest left few live and dead medium and large trees 

in harvested areas compared to what would be left in an area maintained by wildfire disturbances. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

200

Access Management/Recreation Development/Urban Area 

Highway 14 parallels American River along the lower reach and provides the main access to Elk City. 

There are about 269 road miles in the American River watershed. Motorized use is restricted on 

approximately 55 percent of these roads, some of which are not passable due to vegetative growth. 

Groomed snowmobile routes overlap many of the watershed’s roads and trails. Snowmobiles use nongroomed areas incidentally. Motorized use is increasing and use of motorized vehicles is not limited to 

roads and trails. Road restriction violations and off road and trail use of motorized vehicles has increased, 

increasing potential wildlife disturbance. 

The effects on wildlife from roads, trails and recreational facilities (i.e., campgrounds) are generally 

negative. Roads and trails result in increased human access, habitat fragmentation, direct habitat 

alteration, disturbance, and in some cases direct mortality due to vehicle collisions. Roads and trails 

increase human access to once secure areas. Roads and trails increase human-animal encounters, 

increasing trapping, hunting, and poaching pressures. Access restrictions mitigate many of these effects. 

Habitat alterations (sometimes permanent) are associated with motorized and non-motorized recreation, 

development of campgrounds and facilities, and establishment of dispersed camping areas, among other 

activities. Motorized and non-motorized trails perpetuate human use within the American River 

watershed and continue to be places where human-animal encounters are probable. High human use areas 

(campgrounds, roads and trails) may be avoided by some species. 

Mining

Mining has occurred throughout the watershed, with intensive mining activity occurring in the Elk City 

township. A minimum of 307 acres has been affected by dredge mining. American River, Little and Big 

Elk Creeks, and Buffalo Gulch have been most affected (USDA-FS, 1998a). 

Noxious Weed 

Weeds displace valuable forage plants and affect herbaceous communities important to wildlife. There is 

risk that current infestations will spread or new invasive species will enter the watershed. Invasive plants 

can expand following human-caused or natural disturbances and colonize degraded as well as intact 

habitats. Refer to Section 3.3.5 (Weeds) for more information.

3.7.3 Indicator 1–Threatened or Endangered Species 

Listed species that may occur within the project area include gray wolf (experimental non-essential), 

Canada lynx (threatened), and bald eagle (threatened). 

Gray Wolf 

Existing Condition 

Wolves were reintroduced into north central Idaho beginning in 1995. Within Central Idaho, total 

confirmed wolf packs now easily exceed 15 (http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/wolf/annualreports.htm). 

The Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2005 Annual Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2006) 

stated that an estimated 512 wolves occupy the state of Idaho. The report also identified that Idaho had 59 

resident packs (40 packs reproduced and 36 packs qualified as breeding pairs). Based on local sightings, 

sign and formal monitoring results, wolves are abundant, widely distributed within the upper South Fork 

of the Clearwater River subbasin, and increasing numbers of reports suggest local populations of wolves 

continue growing. Relative to the Eastside Project proposal, only one wolf den exists in the general 

analysis area. The nearest Eastside Project harvest unit is approximately 2–3 miles from the den site. 

Denning and rearing take place in early spring/summer, proximity of the harvest unit and related activities 

are not expected to interfere with denning or rearing at this location. In addition, the “no land-use 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

201

restrictions may be employed” provision of the Wolf Reintroduction Final Rule (Federal Register, Nov. 

22, 1994) is now applicable to wolves throughout the Cottonwood Field Office management area. 

There are currently a total of at least 40 active packs in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area. The Wolf 

Reintroduction Final Rule (Federal Register Nov. 22, 1994) stated that, “when six or more breeding pairs 

are established in an experimental population area, no land-use restriction may be employed outside of 

national parks or national wildlife refuges, unless wolf populations fail to maintain positive growth rates 

toward population recovery levels for 2 consecutive years.” Currently, wolf populations locally are 

increasing.

Environmental Effects 

Human activities can reduce habitat quality and availability for wolves and their prey. Various lands uses 

have altered the American River landscape. The presence of roads and motorized trails is likely the most 

significant landscape alteration related to quality wolf habitat. Wolf habitat is directly related to available 

prey and human-induced mortality. Wolf habitat was assessed based on Elk Habitat Effectiveness and big 

game security area effects discussed in the Elk section. Comparing gray wolf home range size with the 

scale of the proposed actions indicates the actions may not be large enough to make meaningful changes 

in the American River landscape compared to ongoing changes resulting from the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic. Wolves can withstand high levels of habitat variability in their relatively large home ranges. As 

evidenced by the increasing wolf populations in the upper South Fork of the Clearwater River, wolves can 

and will survive in highly managed settings where human presence is common. Human attitudes and 

tolerance for wolves are key factors in wolf recovery. 

Based on available information, the analysis criteria for wolves and their habitat for this project is relative 

impact on ungulate prey (elk) and elk habitat effectiveness. Watershed restoration actions and postharvest slash treatments are not expected to negatively impact wolves, elk or their habitats considerably 

regardless of alternative. Fire use would help cycle plant nutrients back to the soil increasing vigor and 

nutritive quality of post-burn forage plants. Noxious weeds that could infest burned and harvested sites 

would negatively impact elk foraging areas by displacing desirable plants, but this would not be expected 

to be sufficiently extensive or widespread to be of major significance under any alternatives. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative A would have few direct effects on wolves, but moderately high levels of motorized access in 

American River would continue to limit elk habitat effectiveness and quality prey habitat in the short 

term. Indirectly, as dead lodgepole trees begin to fall and eventually increase fuel buildup, the indirect 

effect of no action in some areas may eventually begin to discourage elk and deer prey from using the 

units because of difficulty of travel and the appearance of these habitats as “entrapment” areas. In the 

longer term, the “no action” alternative would increase the probability that untreated sites would add 

cumulatively to overall fuel loads increasing the total acres with high fuel loading. As a result of fuel 

continuity, more extensive and severe fires may become more likely which may have adverse affects on 

elk hiding cover (Refer to the fire effect analysis for more details). Stand-replacing fires would result in 

an increase of early seral habitats and improved forage production for prey species such as elk, deer, and 

moose. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The action alternatives would directly provide modest reductions in motorized access in the American 

River analysis area. Alternative B harvests the most acreage and Alternative C reduces motorized access 

to the highest levels. Overall, all three action alternatives are very similar, with a difference of only 122 

acres between Alternative B with the most acres (1,293) and Alternative D with the least acres (1,171) 

acres. A difference of only 1.0 mile exists between the highest net reduction for decommissioned roads in 

Alternative C (minus 1.9 miles) and the lowest net reduction in Alternative D (minus 0.9 mile). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

202

Timber harvest and burning in some stands would reduce available cover and connectivity in the short 

term. Thinned stands might enhance hiding cover quality over the long term. Under each alternative, 

certain aspects of he project such as road decommissioning would improve security for gray wolves. 

However, a slight short term reduction in elk habitat effectiveness would result from implementation of 

action alternatives. In these areas long term habitat improvement might increase the prey base for gray 

wolf. Because of disturbance and displacement, there could be a minor effect on the habitat use patterns 

of prey species, but their population levels or availability as prey would not be affected within the 

analysis area. Other prey populations, such as small mammals, would not be affected. Creating early seral 

communities would improve habitat for prey species such as elk, deer, and moose, where security and 

cover is provided in the long term. 

The temporary increase of human activity in the planning area associated with harvest and vegetative 

treatments could increase the possibility of human-wolf interactions. The construction and use of 

temporary roads and reconstructed roads could displace wolves and/or their prey. All current motorized 

access closure would be maintained as part of the proposed project. Temporary roads would be closed 

(when not being used for project implementation) to public motorized vehicle use, reducing potential 

human impacts. Road decommissioning would help reduce human intrusion long-term. 

Based on the nature and duration of the proposed project, the mortality risk for wolves would remain low. 

No known key wolf habitat areas, such as den sites, rendezvous sites, or whelping sites would be affected 

within or outside the project area. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

Cumulative effects will be addressed within the American River watershed.

Alternative A would have relatively little immediate cumulative effect on wolves or their habitats since 

no habitat-altering impacts would be directly added to the road density, timber harvesting, human 

disturbances, and other vegetative impacts imposed by past management. However, indirect effects of tree 

deaths and continued trend of fuel buildups, when added to existing cumulative effects would negatively 

affect wolf prey habitats particularly during post-wildfire recovery. An effects determination of “not 

likely to jeopardize the continue existence of the species or result in destruction or adverse modification 

of proposed critical habitat” is concluded. 

All action alternatives would have moderate immediate cumulative effects because harvest would be 

directly added to the road density, harvesting, human disturbances, and other vegetation impacts imposed 

by past management. Longer term cumulative effects may be less impactive than Alternative A because 

of modest fuel reduction and staged regeneration of harvested areas in the event of wildfires for the entire 

American River watershed. 

American River roads and trails increase human-wolf encounters. Human activities near active dens or 

rendezvous areas could have the greatest effect on reproducing wolves. Wolves often favor moist or wet 

meadows for homesites. These meadows are also valued for campsites and pack stock grazing. Current 

wolf population growth and pack formations in and around the upper South Fork Clearwater River 

indicate wolves can thrive even where human-wolf interactions occur regularly. Based on this, current 

actions do not appear to be preventing wolf recovery. 

Reducing the exposure of gray wolves and ungulate prey to humans is a factor in maintaining high quality 

big game habitat and reducing the risk of incidental wolf mortality. The project area contains established 

human activities and development including roads, timber harvest, home sites, grazing, and recreational 

opportunities. In addition, the American River watershed receives hunting pressure for deer, elk, and 

moose, which not only affect the wolf prey base, but increases the number of wolf-human interactions. 

The most important cumulative effect to gray wolf recovery in Idaho is incidental mortalities from 

shooting, trapping, and vehicle-caused mortality. This probability increases with increased road access. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

203

A minor amount of road decommissioning would take place under the proposed project, and exiting road 

access closures would remain in effect. Human access, available cover, and public attitudes largely 

determine mortality risk to wolves. 

Other projects such as the NPNF American and Crooked River Project and private land logging in the 

area could affect ungulates, small mammals and their habitats. If the end result of these activities is the 

restoration of more stable vegetative patterns and natural or prescribed fires processes, these actions could 

help restore declining forage availability, productivity, and nutritional quality of important to big game 

species. Alternatively, if these actions result in a more fragmented landscape with poor interspersions of 

foraging and hiding cover, big game populations could decline, reducing the suitability of the area for 

gray wolves. Administrative uses of closed roads for reforestation or road-related work may affect wolf 

use of the area. These and other activities such as routine road maintenance, watershed improvements, 

trail reconstruction, and measures to control weeds are foreseeable and scheduled to occur. Across the 

analysis area, recreation uses, including hunting, will continue. A Forest Service livestock allotment 

occurs north of the project area, and grazing occurs on private and BLM lands in the American River 

watershed. There have been confirmed reports of wolves within the Eastside Project area. No geographic 

or manufactured barriers exist within the analysis area that would preclude wolf movements to adjacent 

populations. 

The project proposal is consistent with the gray wolf management strategies identified in the South Fork 

Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDI-FS, 1998a), in that activities would help maintain 

ungulate populations and minimize risks of human-induced wolf mortality. It would be unlikely that 

individual wolves would be impacted by project activities, and cumulative effects on wolf populations are 

expected to be small to negligible at the project, watershed, and South Fork Clearwater Rive subbasin 

levels. The determination for the gray wolf would be “not likely to jeopardize the continue existence of 

the species or result in destruction nor averse modification of proposed critical habitat” is concluded for 

Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Canada Lynx 

Existing Condition 

Canada lynx have been federally listed as a threatened species since March 2000. Although lynx have 

sometimes been portrayed as a late-successional forest species, lynx appear to be more closely associated 

with a mosaic of late- and early-successional states (Koehler and Aubry, 1994:86–89). 

Suitable western mountain habitats for lynx are more fragmented and restricted in extent compared to 

Canada and Alaska habitats where high quality habitats are more prevalent. These habitat differences may 

be key to explaining why population strongholds are limited to Canada and Alaska boreal forests. 

Providing protected areas in optimal western mountains lynx habitat may be important for lynx 

persistence (Ruggiero et al., 1994) however, the American River watershed contains no large amounts of 

high quality or optimal boreal forest habitats. 

Lynx typically occupy Idaho habitats occurring above 4,000 feet elevation. Lynx utilize Engelmann 

spruce, subalpine fir, or lodgepole pine habitats providing a mosaic of forest age classes. Lynx require 

cover for stalking and security, and usually do not cross openings wider than 300 feet (Koehler and 

Brittell, 1990). Forests that are about six years or older in 20 to 25 acre patches provide lynx foraging 

habitat. Koehler (1990) found that lynx prey almost exclusively on snowshoe hares. Forest wildfires and 

timber harvesting created American River lynx foraging habitat. Fire exclusion has halted fire-created 

lynx forage development. However, the onset of fire suppression coincided with the beginnings of active 

timber management. A large amount of the harvest units have revegetated to the point they no longer 

provide optimal lynx habitat. The ongoing insect epidemic is creating more foraging opportunities as 

lodgepole habitats revert to young grass/forb and shrub and seedling communities. Forest fires, usually 

following an insect event, will create abundant foraging habitat, but opening sizes may limit lynx use. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

204

Lynx denning habitat is most often characterized as mature forests in moist or wet habitats. Denning sites 

can occur in a high density of logs, one to four feet above the ground (Koehler, 1990). Down logs and 

stumps are important for denning habitat because they provide cover for kittens. Timber stands used for 

denning are between one and five acres, and are connected by travel corridors through mature forest. 

Favored travel routes are forested areas along ridges and saddles. 

No formal surveys for actual lynx occupation within the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin or the 

analysis area have been completed to date, but confirmed reports and unconfirmed sightings of lynx 

presence have been documented within the Nez Perce National Forest boundary. No recent lynx sightings 

have been confirmed. Lynx analysis unit (LAU) delineations and mapping of lynx habitat has been 

completed for the entire Cottonwood FO management area. Designation of LAUs and mapping of 

suitable habitat was coordinated with the Nez Perce National Forest according to Canada Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al., 2000), which commonly referred to as LCAS. 

The Eastside Project contains no stands identified as providing suitable lynx habitats (refer to the updated 

lynx habitat map dated January, 2004). However, the project area does partially overlap into a LAU 

(#3020306) that may be indirectly or partially affected by some of the project actions. See Table 3.7.5 for 

existing habitat conditions. 

Table 3.7.5 The No Action (Alternative A) Habitat Conditions and Acreages Within LAU Associated 

With Eastside Project

LAU # % Denning % Foraging % Unsuitable Total Habitat 

Acres Drainage

3020306 18 81 <1 19764 American 

The South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment management theme for American River 

drainage recommend “producing early seral habitat” as very high priority, and identifies treatment 

objectives that include “creating forest openings by fire or timber harvest.” From the perspective of the 

landscape assessment, the goal to benefit lynx habitat would be to “create dense stands of deciduous 

brush and young conifers attractive to snowshoe hare” (USDA-FS, 1998a). 

Despite substantial past harvesting in the analysis area, advance regeneration of trees and cover in 

plantations has maintained habitat connectivity and travel corridors as defined for lynx in the analysis 

area. Habitat management for lynx primarily addresses maintenance or improvement of vegetation 

structure for lynx and their prey. 

Lynx are considered relatively tolerant of human presence and activities. Preliminary information 

(Ruediger et al., 2000:7–10) suggests that lynx may not avoid roads, except at high traffic volumes. 

Therefore, at this time, there is little compelling evidence to recommend management of road density to 

conserve lynx. 

Several important landscape vegetation limitations must be followed when conducting timber harvest and 

fuel reductions in designated lynx habitats in order to comply with standards and guidelines outlined in 

the LCAS. LAUs must maintain at least 10 percent denning habitat, unsuitable acres cannot exceed the 30 

percent maximum threshold of total lynx habitat within an LAU, and no more than 15 percent of the 

suitable lynx habitat can be converted to unsuitable habitat within a decade. 

The LAU that includes the project area currently has more than 10 percent denning habitat and is not near 

the 30 percent maximum unsuitable habitat threshold. For this reason, since denning habitat is relatively 

abundant, and unsuitable habitat acres (before planned harvest), are well below LCAS thresholds, there is 

ample opportunity for creation of lynx foraging habitat while staying within all LCAS guidelines. The 

analysis criteria for lynx and their habitats will be relative amounts of suitable condition lynx habitats that 

are converted to early seral foraging habitat condition while meeting all LCAS measures. The BLM 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

205

Eastside Project is not proposing to modify any suitable lynx habitat. Primary use of the area would be 

secondary foraging by lynx and connectivity within and between LAUs and suitable habitat. 

Environmental Effects 

The primary analysis criteria for lynx would be related to desirable acres of mature forest within 

designated habitats converted to early seral foraging habitat for lynx. None of the alternatives will affect 

designated lynx habitats. Maintenance of connectivity between suitable lynx habitats and between LAUs 

is the primary analysis criteria that will be evaluated. Noxious weeds, road decommissioning, watershed 

restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments using fire are not expected to impact lynx or their 

habitats directly, regardless of alternative, because no treatments are proposed for lynx habitat in the 

analysis area. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

No vegetation treatments would occur with this alternative, and the overall existing condition would 

remain unchanged, at least in the short-term. The “no action” alternative neither affects lynx directly, nor 

converts any acres to early seral habitat. This alternative will have relatively little if any indirect effect to 

lynx or their habitats. With no action, early seral structure would continue succeeding to older stages and 

fires risks will increase. Eighteen (18) percent denning habitat would be maintained in LAU 3020306, 

which is above the 10 percent required minimum identified in LCAS (Ruediger et al., 2000). 

At present most of the stands in the project area have a dead or dying overstory of lodgepole pine, with 

grand fir and spruce seedling regenerating in the understory. In some cases, these seedling and saplings 

have become dense enough and tall enough to provide habitat for snowshoe hares. With continued fire 

suppression and no vegetative treatments, seedling and sapling trees would eventually grow out of the 

reach of snowshoe hares, and self-pruning would reduce the amount of horizontal cover. The amount and 

distribution of available lynx foraging and snowshoe hare habitats would continue to decline. Open 

patches would decrease in size and in growth fills and matures in old openings. Stands with small to 

large-sized trees would continue to mature, providing potential denning and travel habitat for lynx. Given 

enough time, these stands could develop gaps and microsites that would provide suitable areas for hares 

and therefore potential foraging habitat for lynx, but overall, succession would result in the decline of the 

denning/foraging habitat mosaic important to lynx. The BLM project area does not involve mapped lynx 

habitat, consequently direct effects to lynx foraging habitat would be considered discountable; primary 

effects would occur to travel corridors within and between LAUs and indirect effects to lynx prey species. 

As the mountain pine beetle epidemic continues, areas that currently provide cover will become too open 

to serve that function. As numerous dead trees fall to the ground, downed logs, shading from snags, and 

lack of seed sources may delay the regeneration of new trees relative to harvested areas. New, early seral 

patches would develop in those areas in which seedlings are able to establish themselves, and eventually 

these sites would develop shrub and tree growth sufficient to provide habitat for hares. In mixed conifer 

stands with a lodgepole pine component, the loss of beetle-killed trees would create micro-openings and 

gaps in the canopy that, through time, could provide potential foraging habitat. Those trees that fall to the 

ground would provide potential denning sites. The BLM project area does not involve mapped lynx 

denning habitat; consequently direct effects to lynx denning habitat would be considered discountable; 

primarily may involve some travel or incidental use within the LAU. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

Because no BLM alternative will treat acres designated as lynx habitat, overall, no direct effects to 

foraging or denning habitat are expected to occur. Indirect effects are primarily related to treatments 

which may affect fragmentation or connectivity within or between LAUs or incidental foraging areas 

within the LAU. In all the action alternatives, treatments would not be implemented in RHCAs or in old 

growth. These stands would continue to provide potential travel habitat. Short term larger openings would 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

206

occur in stands that are dominated by lodgepole pine; however, effects to connectivity and travel for lynx 

are considered negligible. 

Timber harvest and silvicultural prescriptions would move treated stands into a regenerating condition in 

the long term, thus increasing the amount of potential travel habitat available in each LAU, and potential 

incidental foraging areas within the LAU. 

In mixed conifer stands, thinning treatments would retain large trees and improve growing conditions for 

those trees remaining after harvest. For stands with a relatively small lodgepole pine component, 

silvicultural prescriptions would be designed to maintain 30–50 percent canopy closure. Most large 

diameter logs would be left on site, and smaller diameter logs may be left in select areas in some units. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would slightly improve habitat security compared to Alternative A, by reducing 

motorized access within the analysis area. Alternative C would have the largest reduction of motorized 

access. 

Individual lynx may use the project area for travel or incidental foraging. The temporary increase in 

human activity as a result of project implementation would increase the possibility of human-lynx 

interactions and could disturb, displace, or disrupt individual lynx in the project area. Temporary roads 

would be closed (when not being used for project implementation) to public motorized vehicle use, 

reducing potential human impacts. All temporary roads used for project implementation would be 

decommissioned after treatments are completed. No long-term adverse harassment or potential for 

mortality is anticipated to result from project implementation. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Alternatives B, C, and D, harvest 0 acres of lynx denning habitat and 0 acres of lynx foraging habitat, 

consequently, no suitable habitat in LAU 3020306 would be converted to unsuitable. All alternatives 

would result in negligible impacts to connectivity within and between suitable lynx habitat and LAUs. 

Indirect affects to designated suitable denning or foraging lynx habitat within the LAU are considered 

discountable. Riparian restoration and road decommissioning would provide long term benefits to 

connectivity within and between suitable lynx habitat and LAUs. Alternative C has the highest amount of 

riparian restoration.

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis for lynx includes LAU 3020306 and connectivity within and to adjoining 

LAUs and suitable habitat. 

Fire, wind, insects, and disease have played an important, historic role in maintaining the mosaic of forest 

successional stages that provide habitat for both snowshoe hare and lynx. With the advent of fire 

suppression, vegetative mosaics and species composition have been altered and may have reduced the 

quality and quantity of habitat for snowshoe hares. Denning habitat is becoming more extensive at the 

expense of foraging habitat. Timber harvest in the analysis area, while keeping pace with a typical fire 

regime in terms of cumulative acres of stand regeneration (USDA-FS, 1998a), has altered the distribution 

of lynx habitat, and has left numerous small (<40 acres), uniformly shaped patches. Suitable denning and 

travel habitat has been harvested or thinned across national forest, BLM lands, and private lands, 

generally leaving low amounts of snags and large downed wood. Overmature stands that have much 

structural diversity and numerous gaps and microsites, such as typically occur in old growth forests, are 

less available in the project area because of past timber harvest that targeted older, larger trees. Initially, 

openings created in the forest have a negative impact on both hares and lynx, through the reduction in 

cover and browse species for hares. Eventually, these areas produce good foraging and hunting habitat 

after about 15 years. 

Road systems have increased human access and the potential for human-induced mortality from vehicles 

strikes or accidental shooting/trapping. Up until 1996, people were allowed to trap lynx in the project 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

207

area, potentially impacting population sizes or demographics. Firewood cutting along open roads has 

decreased downed logs important for lynx and their prey species. Groomed snowmobile routes overlap 

many of the watershed’s roads and trails, and there is at least some snowmobile use of non-groomed 

trails. Snowmobile tracks can allow other predators access into areas they ordinarily could not use 

because of deep snow, and these predators could compete with lynx for snowshoe hare or other prey. 

Private and public land timber harvest and road construction, fires suppression, livestock grazing, home 

development, and recreation activities are likely to continue. Cumulatively, these actions have and will 

continue to affect the distribution of lynx and lynx habitat across the landscape. Private and NPNF actions 

identified as occurring within the foreseeable future when considered with the Eastside Project would still 

not exceed established thresholds for foraging and denning. Table 3.7.6 below summarizes the NPNF 

selected alternative for the American and Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a), which would 

be within LCAS threshold guidance for denning and foraging habitats retained in suitable condition. 

Table 3.7.6 NPNF American and Crooked River Project Summary of Effects on LAU 3020306 

(American River)

LAU 3020306 Existing Conditions FEIS Selected Alternative 

Acres Denning Treated 0 47 

% Denning Retained 18% 17% 

Acres Foraging Treated 0 204 

Total % Converted to Early Seral 0 1.3% 

Total % Unsuitable in LAU <1% 2% 

The “no action” alternative would not add any measurable cumulative effects to lynx or their habitats 

since no habitat-altering impacts will be added to the road density, tree harvesting, human travel 

disturbances, and other vegetative impacts imposed by past and present management. The “no action” 

alternative would temporarily protect the integrity of forested land in the project area, but would 

contribute cumulatively to habitat imbalances for lynx in the long-term. This alternative meets all LCAS 

measures. The determination for lynx would be “no effect.”

The project area occurs within a designated LAU for lynx; however, no acres of designated lynx habitat 

are modified by action alternatives. The primary effects from the action alternatives are indirect effects 

that may affect connectivity within and between suitable lynx habitat and LAUs, travel corridors, and 

indirect effects to security, incidental foraging areas, and denning habitats. Given the current condition of 

the habitat due to past fire impacts, harvests, roading, human disturbance, motorized travel and other 

land-disturbing activities, these alternatives add few positive or negative effects cumulatively to the 

habitat conditions for lynx. 

All of the action alternatives would begin to address cumulative changes in patch and landscape mosaics 

by incrementally increasing the amount of early seral habitat in the project area while maintaining 

denning habitats, RHCAs, and old growth areas. The project would have few adverse effects at the project 

and watershed levels and might improve conditions for lynx through time. Across the range of the 

species, within the landscape level, and analysis area level, project effects would be expected to be 

negligible.

A determination of effect for lynx as a listed species would be “may affect, but not likely to adversely 

affect” for alternatives B, C, and D. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

208

Bald Eagle 

Existing Condition 

Primary bald eagle use within the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is for winter habitat. Within the 

analysis area, such winter use is primarily associated with the South Fork River corridor or incidental use 

of adjacent areas. Critical habitat niches for the bald eagle include nest sites, key communal or diurnal 

roost sites, or key foraging sites. None of the critical habitats are known to occur in the South Fork 

Clearwater River subbasin. Bald eagles primarily use the lower portions of the river corridor, primarily 

downstream from Mill Creek, due to the availability of ungulate carcasses and relatively ice-free river 

conditions during winter. If available, bald eagles will also use fish and waterfowl on wintering areas. 

Due to ice-up of the South fork Clearwater River at higher elevation in winter and lack of fish and 

waterfowl availability, relatively little or no use of the American River analysis area occurs by bald eagles 

during most winters. Sites most commonly used are approximately 30 miles downriver from the project 

area. However, during mild or “open” winters, bald eagles have been observed in the upper South Fork 

Clearwater River. 

Monitoring of bald eagle populations for over 20 years within North Central Idaho indicates populations 

that are slightly increasing. The mid to upper reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River would not be 

expected to be heavy use areas because of ice-up conditions, consequently annual mid-winter counts for 

these reaches have been relatively low, compared to trend routes at lower elevations. Mid-winter trend 

counts for the mid- to upper-South Fork Clearwater River (Mt. Idaho Grade to the confluence of Red and 

American Rivers confluence) have averaged 2.2 bald eagles for the past five years (2001–2005). 

Environmental Effects 

There are no lakes in the analysis area large enough to support bald eagles. There are no known 

concentrated feeding or roosting sites in the analysis area. Bald eagles are regularly seen perched along 

the South Fork Clearwater River during the winter season. Bald eagles principally utilize ungulate carrion 

during winter occupation of the major river corridors, where ice-up conditions exists, and lack of 

waterfowl or fish exists. Increasing and maintaining early seral habitat conditions on ungulate winter 

ranges is a high priority; however, very little winter range occurs within the project area. Based on winter 

use patterns of bald eagles along the South Fork Clearwater River, to be effective, big game winter range 

improvements which may benefit eagles need to take place at elevations well below and downstream 

from the analysis area. Improvement of water quality and fish habitat would result in some indirect effects 

to the South Fork Clearwater River fish habitat. There is relatively little direct relationship between 

planned activities in the American River watershed and bald eagles or their habitats. Noxious weeds, road 

decommissioning, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments using fire are not 

expected to impact bald eagles or their habitats considerably regardless of alternative, because of the 

limited potential direct or indirect impacts to bald eagle habitats and forage species. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This alternative will have no direct and few discountable indirect effects on bald eagles or their habitats. 

Indirect risks of high intensity, broad scale fires due to fuel-loading would remain and could indirectly 

impact downstream water quality and fish habitats. No restoration would be conducted for riparian and 

water quality improvements or improvement of big game forage. Ongoing restoration actions would 

continue for the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin, which is dependent on future funding. A 

determination of effect for bald eagles as a listed species would be “no effect” for Alternative A. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Action alternatives would have no direct impacts on bald eagles or their habitats. Downstream changes in 

water quality in the South Fork Clearwater River due to harvests, restoration actions, roads and other 

actions would have relatively minimal impact on bald eagle foraging habitats and forage species. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

209

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for sediment and substrate is the American River watershed and the 

upper South Fork Clearwater River to just downstream of the mouth of Crooked River. 

The indirect and cumulative effects of planned activities on water quality and fish habitats downstream 

from the analysis area are expected to impose only minor, limited or negligible cumulative impacts on 

foraging habitats (i.e., potential secondary winter food sources–anadromous fishes), but the magnitude of 

these impacts are considered very limited. 

Aquatic resources in the American River watershed and the South Fork Clearwater River have undergone 

substantial physical changes from human disturbances such as dredge mining, timber harvest, road 

construction, domestic livestock grazing, home construction and private land development, agriculture, 

fires, and fire suppression. It is generally accepted that water quality and habitat in the South Fork 

Clearwater River is in a degraded condition, both from sediment and temperature impacts (USDA-FS, 

1998a; IDEQ et al., 2004). These conditions have likely affected bald eagle numbers and winter use of the 

South Fork. 

Past timber harvest, fires, fire suppression, and mining activity have altered habitat characteristics in the 

analysis area by reducing the amount and distribution of large and medium trees, snags, and down wood, 

and by creating numerous, small patches across the landscape. These changes have affected bald eagle 

ungulate prey species. Prior to fire suppression and timber management, elk and deer populations were 

dependent upon natural disturbances to create openings that provided the early succession growth they 

favor for foraging. Elk population numbers in the project area and across Game Unit 15 (which includes 

the South Fork Clearwater River) are declining. Other projects may also modify ungulate habitat which 

could affect population numbers on big game winter ranges thus affecting overwintering bald eagles. 

The project proposal is consistent with the bald eagle management strategies identified in the South Fork 

Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) in that activities would encourage 

restoration of anadromous fisheries. It would be unlikely that individual bald eagles would be impacted 

by project activities, and bald eagle populations are expected to have negligible to discountable affects at 

the project, watershed, or subbasin levels. 

A determination of effect for bald eagles as a listed species would be, “may affect, but not likely to 

adversely affect” for Alternatives B, C, and D. 

3.7.4 Indicator 2–BLM Sensitive Species 

Northern Goshawk 

Existing Condition 

In Idaho, Northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) are typically found in montane coniferous forest, where 

they occupy relatively large home ranges of 1,988 to 9,638 acres in size (Patla et al., 1995). In northern 

Idaho and western Montana, goshawks nest in stands or groups of tees in the mature to over-mature age 

classes principally on the mid to lower third of slopes. Douglas-fir and Western larch are preferred nest 

tree species (Hayward and Escano, 1989). Goshawks prey on a variety of medium-sized forest birds and 

small mammals. Pole stage or larger stands open enough to permit unimpeded flight are suitable for 

feeding (Hayward et al., 1990). However, foraging habitat may be as closely tied to prey availability as to 

particular habitat composition or structure (Patla et al., 1995). 

Data from the SFLA is referenced to gain broader scale perspective on habitat availability within and 

around the project analysis area. Within the larger landscape of the South Fork Clearwater River 

subbasin, closed canopy old growth comprises some 24 percent of the subbasin coniferous forests, but 

historically this habitat would likely have accounted for only about 15 percent of the same area (USDAFS, 1998a:104). Within the American River ERU, age class distributions are currently more favorable to 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

210

goshawk habitats than historically. The current amount of goshawk habitat is more prevalent than it was 

historically. In American River ERU, there is currently 205 percent as much suitable habitat as 

historically (USDA-FS, 1998b). This can be attributable to increases in more shade tolerant tree species, 

like grand fir, due to fire suppression and forest succession (USDA-FS, 1998a:83). 

Current conditions of stands in the analysis area reflect more than 80 years of fire suppression. In the 

absence of fire, conifer densities have increased substantially over pre-settlement times. As a result, 

goshawk habitat is more prevalent in the analysis area now than historically. While overall habitat 

important to goshawk nesting is more prevalent now in the American River drainage, the distribution and 

connectivity of late seral and old growth stands is somewhat less effective due principally to past harvest 

and fire disturbance (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

To avoid attracting nest predators, goshawks tend to remain relatively inconspicuous prior to and during 

early phases of nesting. As a result, active nest sites are difficult and very costly in time and resources to 

locate. Locating all alternate nests within a given pair’s nesting territory may take five or more years of 

intensive, focused surveys, because each pair of goshawks typically alternate nest use from year to year to 

avoid chick predation by fishers, great-horned owls, and other predators. From two to as many as nine 

alternate nests may be used in each nesting territory by a given goshawk pair (Woodbridge and Detrich, 

1994).

Pre-project field surveys of timber stands, watershed conditions, and wildlife habitat surveys by several 

BLM crews of resource specialists during the goshawk nesting and survey season of 2004 did not 

document any goshawk occurrences. No goshawk nests are known to occur within the project area 

currently; however, the sighting of a goshawk pair was recorded during July 2003 pre-project NPNF field 

surveys conducted for the American and Crooked River Project (USDA-FS, 2005a). The pair of goshawk 

was sighted on adjacent NPNF lands in the American River north of the Eastside Project area. 

Goshawk sightings during June, July or August indicate the possibility of nest presence in the local 

vicinity. In the event active nests are discovered during project implementation within or immediately 

adjacent to planned harvest units, the nest trees and surrounding area of 10–15 acres would be removed 

from harvest. 

The Habitat Conservation Assessment (HCA) and Strategy (CS) for the Northern goshawk in Idaho (Patla 

et al., 1995:3) cites that goshawks tend to use stand clusters greater than 61 ha (150 acres) dramatically 

higher than clusters less than 20 ha (50 acres) in size. 

Regional differences exist over best management measures for goshawk habitats in various Forest Service 

regions, and are driven by responsible opposing viewpoints. Habitat management direction for the 

goshawk as such, has become region-specific in the western U.S. The USDA-FS, Southwest Region (R3) 

adopted goshawk nest site guidelines, which manage 2,428 ha (6,000-acre) areas around each nest site. 

Much of the Southwest data suggest that extensive harvesting and canopy density reduction in the home 

range beyond the nest stand can negatively change nesting and hunting habitat structure resulting in 

reduced hunting effectiveness of goshawks, altered prey availability, and increased competition or 

predation by other raptors which result in nest losses and local declines in goshawk populations. Major 

differences exist in forest types, habitat productivities, availability of productive riparian zones, goshawk 

prey sizes, and prey species abundance between the contrasting precipitation and climate of the two 

regions. Currently, no guidelines for goshawk nest and habitat protection similar to those for the Forest 

Service Southwestern Region have been adopted within the Forest Service’s Northern Region, Idaho 

Bureau of Land Management, or for the Eastside Project. Management recommendations proposed by 

Reynolds et al., (1992) were developed specifically for the southwestern United States. Thus, it would be 

inappropriate to apply these guidelines to the moister, intermountain west. Given that this project would 

not harvest old growth stands and that active or newly discovered goshawk nests would be protected, 

goshawks nests should be adequately protected. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

211

This becomes particularly important given the extent of the current mountain pine beetle infestation and 

quickly diminishing live canopy cover within the Eastside Project analysis area. Most lodgepole pine in 

the area over six inches in diameter is now dead or predicted to be dead/near death within a very few 

years. Most of the existing canopy will thus disappear across thousands of acres in the analysis area. 

Harvesting some lodgepole pine stands will likely cause little measurable harm to goshawk foraging 

habitats around any nests. Harvest activities would help reduce fuel levels which in turn may help reduce 

eventual fire intensities that can threaten important old growth or mature forest stands. 

Recent studies suggest that goshawks may not be as tied to old growth forests as previously understood. 

McGrath et al., (2003) indicate that old growth forest structures are not useful in predicting goshawk 

nesting habitat. In the northern Rockies, goshawks are often associated with mature forests, not 

necessarily old growth forests (Squires and Ruggerio, 1996; Clough, 2000). 

The habitat information gathered and reviewed by the FWS indicates that changes have occurred in the 

distribution, amount, and structural characteristics of mature forests throughout much of the western 

United States. The primary change has been the reduction of mature forest cover by logging, although 

other factors such as fire suppression and catastrophic fire have also been implicated. While timber 

management has been demonstrated to affect goshawks at least at local levels (Crocker-Bedford, 1990), 

forest management practices, such as the use of controlled fire and selective thinning also may make 

habitats more suitable to goshawks by opening up dense understory vegetation, creating snags, down logs, 

and woody debris, and creating other conditions conducive to goshawks and their prey (Reynolds et al., 

1992). The FWS found “no evidence that goshawk habitat is limiting the population, or that a significant 

curtailment of the species habitat or range is occurring. Goshawks remain widely distributed throughout 

their historic range in the western United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). 

For this analysis, goshawk nesting habitat was defined as mesic vegetation with large trees (greater than 

10 inches in diameter at breast height or dbh) with closed canopies (greater than 60 percent). Foraging 

habitat consists of pole-sized trees (greater than 5 inches dbh) or larger with moderate and high closed 

canopies (greater than or equal to 25 percent). The following table shows the acres and percentage of each 

habitat for the American River watershed. 

Table 3.7.7 Goshawk Habitat Acres within American River Watershed

Watershed

Nesting Habitat Acres 

(% Watershed) 

Foraging Habitat Acres 

(% Watershed) 

American River 17,107 (29%) 44,270 (76%) 

By assuming an average home range size of 5,000 acres per bird (Hayward et al., 1990), an analytical 

index was developed to compare the effects of each alternative. Under the existing condition, 44,200 

acres in American River could support about 9 goshawks. [Note: Because goshawks can forage in the 

stands they nest in, acres of nesting habitat are included in the foraging figures.] It is important to realize 

that this number is simply an analytical index and in no way attempts to measure actual densities or 

numbers of goshawks on the landscape. Goshawk home ranges can vary in size, and it is not known how 

much home range overlap might exist within or between goshawks or goshawk pairs. 

FIA indicate that, overall, goshawk habitat is widely distributed across the Forest (this includes nesting 

and foraging habitat) (USDA-FS, 2005a). The total potential goshawk habitat represents approximately 

38 percent of the forested lands forest-wide with a 90 percent confidence interval of 34 to 42 percent. 

Within the American River watershed, total goshawk habitat amounts to 69 percent of the forested lands. 

Table 3.7.8 displays the FIA data at three scales: Nez Perce National Forest; Subbasin (4th HUC); and 

watershed (5th HUC) (USDA-FS, 2005a). The amount and distribution of habitat is both a reflection of the 

capability and current condition of the landscape. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

212

Table 3.7.8 Inventory/Analysis Data for Goshawk Foraging and Nesting Habitat1

Nez Perce 

Forest

South Fork 

Clearwater River 

American River 

Watershed Goshawk Habitat Use 

CI

Low Mean 

CI

High

CI

Low Mean 

CI

High

CI

Low Mean 

CI

High

Goshawk Nesting Habitat 16 19 22 22 28 35 18 38 58 

Goshawk Foraging Habitat 34 38 42 45 52 60 50 69 88 1

Forest inventory and analysis data at three scale for percent goshawk foraging and nesting habitat, including 90 

percent confidence intervals (CI low and CI high) (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

Environmental Effects 

Timber harvesting at or very near goshawk nest sites can directly disturb or displace birds, potentially 

impacting nest success and future nesting. All existing old growth stands and RHCAs have been protected 

in the Eastside Project area. Most trees harvested would be lodgepole pine in intermediate size classes. 

Some larger trees (various species), in mixed conifer stands are planned for harvest in all action 

alternatives. Goshawk-preferred nest species (larch, Douglas-fir) would be favored for retention in stands 

where they occur and may contribute as potential future nest trees. 

All action alternatives of the Eastside Project implement general conservation strategies from the 

Goshawk Habitat Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy for Idaho (Patla et al. 1995).

Protection of nest sites and surrounding forest vegetative conditions is done principally through nest site 

mitigation. All action alternatives would provide protection for a 10–15 acre, no-harvest buffer around 

each active nest discovered. No additional mitigation is deemed necessary to maintain goshawk 

population viability in the project and analysis area, because suitable habitat is 205 percent of historical 

amounts in the American River watershed (USDA-FS, 1998b). 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

No direct effects to old growth stands, replacement old growth stands, or any mixed conifer stands will 

occur, thus existing old growth habitat patch sizes and connectivity will be maintained. Existing goshawk 

habitat would not be harvested under this alternative. In general, nesting habitat would increase and 

foraging habitat would decrease as forest succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand 

canopy closure. In predominantly lodgepole pine stands, additional trees would die as a result of the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic, and dead trees would eventually fall to the ground. This process would 

create openings and gaps that could be utilized as foraging habitat by goshawks. In lodgepole pine stands, 

the quality and amount of foraging habitat would be reduced if canopy cover is reduced substantially from 

dead and dying trees. High densities of downed logs, shading from snags, and lack of seed sources may 

delay the regeneration of new trees relative to harvested areas. 

Areas with infrequent and very infrequent fire return intervals would proceed as they do naturally. This 

includes fuel buildup as stands mature and decline from age and outside agents such as beetles. As a 

result of this buildup, lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent (refer to fire effects 

analysis for additional details). 

Fuel build-up resulting from fire suppression activities would continue, thereby increasing the likelihood 

of a stand-replacing fire. Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce nesting habitat across the project 

area. However, the size and severity of the disturbance could either eliminate or create the various 

elements of goshawk habitat. 

Alternative B, C, and D 

The action alternatives could directly impact patches of mature mixed conifer habitats, but would produce 

no direct effects to existing old growth stands, or patch sizes. Old growth habitat connectivity would 

remain consistent within historical patterns by retention of riparian corridors. Relatively moderate levels 

of harvest of mixed conifers will be harvested. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

213

Regeneration harvest and thinning can impact goshawks by removing suitable nesting habitat, although it 

can also create forest edges and in some cases smaller openings that goshawks could use for foraging. The 

proposed project design spreads potentially affected acres across the entire project area. As a result, most 

resident goshawks are likely to experience some habitat loss at a small or site-specific scale. Project 

activities near an active nest site could cause temporary avoidance or abandonment, depending on the 

length and intensity of activity. 

Proposed treatments would break up the fuel patterns, which in turn could reduce the likelihood of severe 

fire effects within the project area and effects to goshawk habitat. 

Table 3.7.9 shows the changes in goshawk habitat by alternative. Effects of the action alternatives would 

vary, with Alternative B and C being very similar. Alternative B would modify the greatest amount of 

nesting habitat. Alternative D would modify the least amount of nesting and foraging habitat. 

Table 3.7.9 Estimated Acres of Northern Goshawk Habitat Modified by Each Action Alternative 

(American River Watershed) 

American River Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D NPNF1

Acres (%) Nesting Habitat Treated 0 193 (1.6%) 182 (1.5%) 165 (1.5%) 384 (2.2%) 

Acres (%) Nesting Habitat Treated 

and

<60% Canopy Cover Maintained 

(Loss of Nesting Habitat) 

0 -155 (-0.9%) -144 (-0.8%) -127 (-0.7%) -384 (-2.2%)2

Acres (%) Foraging Habitat 

Treated 0 1,234 (2.9%) 1,223 (2.9%) 1,148 (2.6%) 995 (2.2%) 

Acres (%) Foraging Habitat 

Treated and <25% Canopy Cover 

Maintained, (Loss of Foraging 

Habitat)

0 -770 (-1.7%) -667 (-1.5%) -667 (-1.5%) -995 (-2.2%)2

1 Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) selected alternative for American and Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 

2005a). 

2 NPNF modified acres and loss of goshawk nesting or foraging habitat dependent on percent of canopy cover 

removed within each treatment stand. 

Nesting Habitat: Changes in potential nesting habitat acres are identified by alternative in Table 3.7.9. 

Silvicultural treatments that encourage the development of large trees (greater than 21 inches dbh) over 

the project area and canopy cover over 60% would benefit goshawk nesting habitat. However, any harvest 

activity that would reduce canopy closure of mature stands below 60 percent would reduce the potential 

for those stands to be used as nesting habitat. 

All alternatives would harvest less than 2 percent of potential nesting habitat (165–193 acres). Alternative 

D would modify the fewest acres of goshawk nesting habitat (less than one percent of the existing habitat 

in American River watershed), and Alternative B would modify the greatest acreage (less than 1.5 percent 

of existing habitat in American River watershed). No harvest activities would take place in old growth 

areas or RHCAs, so these stands would remain relatively intact and available for potential goshawk nest 

sites. Temporary roads would also reduce the amount of goshawk habitat. 

Foraging Habitat: Changes in potential foraging habitat acres are outlined by alternative in Table 3.7.9. 

Alternative D would modify the fewest acres of goshawk foraging habitat (less than 3 percent of the 

existing habitat). Alternatives B and C would treat slightly more foraging habitat. However, Alternative C 

and D would have similar losses of foraging habitat because of adverse reductions in canopy cover, and 

would be followed by Alternative B. Using the Forest Service analytical index (USDA-FS, 2005a), under 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

214

Alternatives B, C, and D, enough goshawk habitat would remain in the project area to support about 9 

goshawks, which is similar to current conditions in the American River watershed. 

Harvesting would create openings across the project area. Goshawks could potentially use these newly 

created edges and openings as hunting areas. However, should the proposed harvest activities create large 

openings, particularly if the new units are adjacent to other past harvest units, the amount of foraging area 

for goshawks could decrease. Timber removal may affect the distribution of some goshawk prey species. 

In mixed conifer stands, thinning understory trees such as dead, dying, and merchantable green lodgepole 

pine and other conifer species, would open up the lower layer of vegetation and create flyways through 

which goshawks could maneuver. Thinned stands could maintain or create more favorable conditions 

over time for goshawks as these stands develop structural diversity. Thinned, mixed conifer stands would 

be particularly useable if stands are managed for canopy closure values above 40 percent. Silvicultural 

prescriptions that retain many or all of the larger, wind-firm trees in Douglas-fir, and mixed xeric conifer 

stands, would maintain and improve these stands as potential goshawk foraging habitat. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for goshawk is the American River watershed. 

The “no action” alternative would not further contribute to harvest-related fragmentation and/or losses of 

existing or replacement old-growth habitat stands. As a result of widespread, cumulative fuels buildup, 

lethal, stand-replacing fires could become more prevalent with attendant risks to old growth habitats 

(refer to fire effects analysis for additional details). Due to a measure of uncertainty in estimating 

intensity of future fire risks to limited habitat conditions considered important for goshawk nesting, there 

could be impacts to goshawk habitat with this alternative. 

The Eastside Project action alternatives would result in habitat losses that add to cumulative losses of 

existing and potential future goshawk habitat related to previous harvests, roading, and post-disturbance 

harvest projects as well as reasonably foreseeable harvests on private and nearby Nez Perce National 

Forest lands in the analysis area. Implementation of the FS American and Crooked River Project selected 

Alternative D would modify an additional 384 acres of nesting habitat (2.2%) and 995 acres of foraging 

habitat (2.2%) within the American River watershed, which would result in additional cumulative losses 

to those identified for Eastside Project in see Table 3.7.9. The Eastside Project and FS American and 

Crooked River Project cumulatively may result in a loss of 2.9 to 3.2 percent of existing nesting habitat 

and 3.7 to 3.9 percent foraging habitat. As identified above, current conditions for suitable goshawk 

habitat are above historical levels. 

Eastside Project Alternative D would have the least cumulative effect (followed by C and B) and would 

contribute modestly to harvest-related fragmentation at the project level, adding to cumulative landscape 

fragmentation, increased openings, and human-disturbance risks. In untreated areas, the results would be 

the same as Alternative A. 

Timber harvest and road construction have reduced the amount and continuity of mature and old growth 

habitat across the analysis area. In addition, past actions frequently targeted medium and large trees and 

valuable ponderosa pine and western larch. These actions have left fewer appropriate stands and trees 

within stands that could be used by goshawks. At the same time, active fire suppression since the early 

1900s has allowed succession to continue in those stands that have not been harvested. Relatively simple 

one- and two-story stands have transitioned to more complex multi-story stands with increased canopy 

closure and individual trees have grown larger. Some of these stands may now qualify as suitable 

goshawk nesting habitat. Increased fuel loads from fire suppression and the current mountain pine beetle 

epidemic increase the chance of stand-replacing fires, which could remove some stands of older forest 

habitats from the landscape. Other private lands projects in or near the project area may also alter the 

amount, distribution, and connectivity of older, dense-canopied stands. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

215

Project activities would likely improve growing conditions for grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and seedling 

trees in harvest units, which may in turn improve habitat conditions for some goshawk prey. Similarly, 

other projects that open or remove canopy may create edges and clearings that provide foraging habitat 

for goshawks. New harvest units or silvicultural treatments that abut old units or treatment areas could 

create openings too large to be used by goshawks, thus decreasing the acres of suitable habitat. The 

mountain pine beetle epidemic is creating large openings in some areas within the American River 

watershed.

Although individual birds or pairs could be disturbed by project activities, none of the proposed 

alternatives should affect populations at the local or watershed level. Management practices proposed in 

the Eastside Project would result in negligible effects to Goshawk habitat at the watershed level. 

Goshawks are relatively common and widely distributed across the Nez Perce National Forest (USDAFS, 2005a). Based on population monitoring information, there are currently at least a dozen known 

goshawk nest territories (fourteen known nests) widely distributed throughout the Nez Perce National 

Forest (USDA-FS, 2005a). Based on formal population monitoring results, widely scattered incidental 

sightings, and inventoried habitat information, local goshawk population trends remain relatively stable 

on the Nez Perce National Forest (USDA-FS, 2004b). 

The sensitive species determination for goshawk would be “may impact individuals or habitat, but will 

not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or species” for 

alternatives B, C, and D. 

Williamson’s Sapsucker 

Existing Condition 

Williamson’s sapsucker habitat use in Idaho is found in montane coniferous forests, especially fir and 

lodgepole pine (Groves et al., 1997). While conducting 2004 field surveys for the Eastside Project, 

Williamson’s sapsucker were documented in the project area, and they occurred in mixed conifer and 

lodgepole stands (Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

Williamson’s sapsuckers are primary excavators creating nest and roost sites for themselves and other 

cavity-dependent species in forested habitats. They forage by pecking, gleaning, and feeding at sap wells 

during the breeding season (Crockett and Hadow, 1975; Jackman, 1975; Bull et al., 1986). Ants may 

comprise 86% of the birds’ food. They also eat white wood-boring larvae and moths of spruce budworms. 

In Colorado, upon first arriving on the breeding grounds, Williamson’s sapsuckers fed primarily on the 

sap and phloem of live conifers (Stallcup, 1968, Crockett, 1975). Crockett (1975) observed each pair 

establishing four to five sap trees during the breeding season, noting that sap trees were significantly 

smaller in height and diameter compared to what was available. 

They nest in cavities in standing snag/hollow trees; sometimes returning to the same tree, but not the 

same cavity, year after year (Groves et al., 1997). Williamson’s sapsuckers seem to be severely restricted 

to large diameter trees and snags for their nest requirements, except when nesting in aspen. Bevis (1994) 

reported the mean dbh of nest trees as 92 cm (n=4); three were in live western larch and one was in a 

Douglas-fir snag. In Oregon, Bull et al. (1986) observed Williamson’s sapsuckers nesting primarily in 

grand fir forest types, in large snags (mean dbh=70 cm). They nested in both dead (51%) and live tree 

(49%); mostly in western larch (62%). They are considered a poor excavator and the trees selected for 

nests had advanced heart rot (64% had broken tops) with most of the snags having died in the past three 

years. 

For this analysis, Williamson’s sapsucker nesting habitat was defined as forested stands with large trees 

(greater than 15 inches) and canopy cover greater than 60%. Foraging habitat consists of nesting habitat, 

plus pole-sized trees (greater than 5 inches dbh) or larger with canopy cover greater than 25 percent. The 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

216

following table shows the acres of each habitat and percentage of habitat within the American River 

watershed.

Table 3.7.10 Estimated Acres of Williamson’s Sapsucker Nesting and Foraging Habitat

Watershed

Nesting Habitat Acres 

(% Watershed) 

Foraging Habitat Acres 

(%Watershed) 

American River 17,107 (29%) 44,270 (76%) 

Environmental Effects 

No existing old growth stands would be harvested under any alternative. An abundance of dead and dying 

lodgepole pine is present throughout the analysis area as foraging habitat and this will not change 

substantially, regardless of any action alternative. Therefore, the analysis criteria for Williamson’s 

sapsucker is the degree to which each alternative maintains and protects mature mixed conifer stands 

preferred for future nesting habitat. The removal of dead, dying, and green trees would remove foraging 

and nesting sites and would constitute habitat losses. The net effects of harvest on Williamson’s sapsucker 

would be relatively minor within the context of each alternative because of the limited areas treated. 

Noxious weeds, road decommissioning, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments 

using fire are not expected to impact Williamson’s sapsucker or their habitats considerably regardless of 

alternative. An estimated 44–47 percent of total harvest acres would occur in mixed conifer stands for the 

action alternatives. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Existing Williamson’s sapsucker habitat would not be harvested under this alternative. No direct effects 

to old growth stands would occur, thus existing mature and old growth habitat patch sizes and 

connectivity would be maintained for nesting habitats. In general, nesting and foraging habitat would 

increase as forest succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand canopy closure. Indirect 

effects of the “no action” alternative may increase future risks to foraging habitat and some old growth or 

mature stands and a subsequent reduction of nesting habitat from more severe fires occurring with 

accumulation of fuels. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives can impact Williamson’s sapsuckers by removing suitable nesting habitat, as well 

as snags and down wood used for foraging. The proposed project design spreads potentially affected acres 

across most of the analysis area. As a result, most resident Williamson’s sapsuckers would be likely to 

experience some habitat loss at a small or site-specific scale. 

Table 3.7.11 Estimated Acres of Williamson’s Sapsucker Nesting and Foraging Habitat, by Alternative 

American River Watershed Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D NPNF1

Acres (%) nesting habitat treated 0 193 (1.1%) 182 (1.1%) 165 (0.9%) 384 (2.2%) 

Acres (%) nesting habitat treated 

resulting in canopy cover <50% 

(loss of nesting habitat) 

0 -155 (-0.9%) -144 (-0.8%) -127 (-0.7%) -384 (-2.2%)2

Acres (%) foraging habitat treated 0 1234 (2.5%) 1223 (2.5%) 1148 (2.3%) 995 (2.2%) 

Acres (%) foraging habitat treated 

resulting in canopy cover <25% 

(loss of foraging habitat) 

0 -770 (-1.6%) -667 (-1.4%) -667 (-1.4%) -995 (-2.2%)2

1 Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) selected alternative for American and Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 

2005a). 

2 NPNF modified acres and loss of Williamson’s sapsucker nesting or foraging habitat dependent on existing 

conditions and percent of canopy cover removed within each treatment stand. No specific analysis was conducted 

by NPNF for Williamson’s sapsucker. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

217

Changes in potential nesting habitat acres are identified by alternative in Table 3.7.11. Silvicultural 

treatments that encourage the development of large trees (greater than 21 inches dbh) over the project area 

would benefit Williamson’s sapsucker nesting habitat. However, any harvest activity that would reduce 

canopy closure below 50 percent would reduce the potential for those stands to be used as nesting habitat. 

The action alternatives would harvest approximately one percent of the nesting habitat at the watershed 

scale. Alternatives D would modify the fewest acres of Williamson’s sapsucker nesting habitat (less than 

one percent of the existing habitat in American River), and alternative B and C would modify the greatest 

acreage (less than one percent of existing habitat in American River). No harvest activities would take 

place in allocated old growth areas or RHCAs, so these stands would remain relatively intact and 

available for potential Williamson’s sapsucker nesting habitat. The disturbance from road work and the 

edge effects created by the roads would probably not be of sufficient magnitude to change the suitability 

of these stands for nesting Williamson’s sapsuckers. 

Changes in potential foraging habitat acres are identified by alternative in Table 3.7.11 above. 

Alternatives D would modify the fewest acres of Williamson’s sapsucker foraging habitat, and alternative 

B and C would modify the greatest acreage. All action alternatives would be expected to modify 

approximately 2.5 percent of the existing habitat in the American River watershed. 

In mixed conifer or other vegetation types where lodgepole pine is a component of the stand, thinning 

prescriptions that leave greater than 25 percent canopy closure with adequate snags and down wood, such 

treatments would continue to provide foraging suitable foraging habitat for Williamson’s sapsuckers. 

Thinned stands could maintain or create more favorable conditions over time for Williamson’s sapsuckers 

as these stands develop structural diversity. Silvicultural prescriptions that retain many or all of the larger 

(greater than 20 inches), wind-firm trees in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer stands, would maintain and 

improve these stands as potential Williamson’s sapsucker foraging and nesting habitat. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for Williamson’s sapsucker is the American River watershed. 

The “no action” alternative would allow stands to transition to higher fire hazard conditions which would 

be cumulative to effects from past fire exclusion, roading effects, loss of large diameter trees, and other 

human-caused impacts on habitat quality. Harvests planned for nearby private or NPNF lands would add 

cumulatively to habitat losses and prior impacts. This alternative would indirectly result in slightly greater 

cumulative risks of fire damage or losses to some individual stands of existing old growth and/or mature 

mixed conifer stands. 

Timber harvest and road construction have reduced the amount and continuity of mature and old growth 

habitat across the analysis area. In addition, past actions frequently targeted medium and large trees and 

valuable ponderosa pine and western larch snags. These actions have left fewer suitable stands, and trees 

within stands, that could be used by Williamson’s sapsuckers. Past harvest left few snags or legacy trees, 

and little down wood. As these older harvest units have begun to mature, they are devoid of the structures 

that could be utilized by Williamson’s sapsuckers. At the same time, active fire suppression since the 

early 1900s has allowed succession to continue in those stands that have not been harvested. Relatively 

simple one- and two-story stands have transitioned to more complex multi-story stands with increased 

canopy closure and individual trees have grown larger. Some of these stands now qualify as suitable 

Williamson’s sapsucker habitat. Increased fuel loads from fire suppression and the current mountain pine 

beetle epidemic increases the chance of stand-replacing fires that could potentially remove stands or acres 

of older forest habitats from the landscape. Fires would create additional snags, but it would take many 

years before a new forest would mature to levels where burnt stands could be used by Williamson’s 

sapsuckers. Other private and NPNF projects within the analysis area may also alter the amount, 

distribution, and connectivity of older, dense-canopied stands. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

218

Implementation of the NPNF American and Crooked River Project selected Alternative D would modify 

an additional 384 acres of nesting habitat (2.2%) and 995 acres of foraging habitat (2.2%) within the 

American River watershed, which would result in additional cumulative losses to those identified in Table 

3.7.11 above. The Eastside Project and FS American and Crooked River Project cumulatively may result 

in a loss of 2.9 to 3.1 percent of existing nesting habitat and 3.6 to 3.8 percent foraging habitat. 

The proposed project and other projects proposed in the area could open or remove additional forest 

canopy cover. When new units abut old harvest units and stands undergoing beetle kill, the number and/or 

size of the openings could be too large to be used by Williamson’s sapsuckers. The mountain pine beetle 

epidemic is creating many, large openings across the landscape. Within the American River watershed 

lodgepole pine dominant stand cover comprises approximately 15% (see Section 3.3 Vegetation). 

Although individual birds or pairs could be disturbed by project activities, none of the proposed 

alternatives should affect populations at the local or watershed level.

The sensitive species determination for Williamson’s sapsucker would be “may impact individuals or 

habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population 

or species” for alternatives B, C, and D. 

Olive-sided Flycatcher 

Existing Condition 

Olive-sided flycatchers are found in forests and woodlands (especially in burned-over areas with standing 

dead tress) such as subalpine coniferous forests, mixed forests, and borders of lakes and streams (Groves 

et al., 1997). They generally breed in montane and boreal forests in the mountain west of North America, 

as well as throughout the boreal forests of Canada (Kaufman, 1996). Olive-sided flycatchers are most 

often associated with forest openings, forest edges near natural (i.e., meadows, wetlands, canyons, rivers) 

or man-made openings, or open/semi-open stands with a low percentage of canopy closure (Kaufman 

1996; Altman, 1997). Hutto and Young (1999) found olive-sided flycatchers were more abundant in early 

post-fire habitats than in any other major cover type. They had similar occurrence in seed tree cover 

types, and were only slightly less common in clear-cut and shelterwood cover types. They occur more 

frequently in disturbed than in undisturbed forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. In Douglas-fir 

forests of west-central Idaho, olive-sided flycatchers were found to be more abundant in forest types 

created by logging methods such as diameter-cut and single tree selection that retained residual medium 

and large trees (moderate to high canopy height) and low canopy closure (Medin 1985; Medin and Booth 

1989). In northwestern Montana, Tobalske et al. (1991) found olive-sided flycatchers to be more 

abundant in logged (clear-cut and partial cut) than in unlogged forest. 

Olive-sided flycatchers have been classified as common in spruce and aspen forest types, uncommon in 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, pine-oak, and cedar-hemlock forest types, and rare in lodgepole pine and 

pinyon-juniper (Hejl et al., 1995). In the northern Rockies, Hutto (1995) found that among undisturbed 

types, olive-sided flycatchers occurred most often in spruce-fir, marsh-wetland, and mixed conifer types, 

with some occurrence in riparian shrub, cedar hemlock, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine 

types. Although olive-sided flycatchers are more common in disturbed, early successional types, they 

appear to require residual large snags and/or live trees for foraging and singing perches (Altman, 1997). 

For this analysis, olive-sided flycatcher nesting habitat was defined as forested stands with trees greater 

than 10 inches dbh and canopy cover 10–25%. Foraging habitat consists of shrublands, all 

seedling/sapling stands (early seral), and all other forest stands with a canopy cover less than 25%. The 

following table shows the acres of each habitat and percentage of habitat within the American River 

watershed.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

219

Table 3.7.12 Estimated Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Nesting and Foraging Habitat

Watershed

Nesting Habitat Acres 

(% Watershed) 

Foraging Habitat Acres 

(%Watershed) 

American River 5000 9000 

Environmental Effects 

Re-creation of landscape condition (patch size, openings, and amount of edge) within the range of natural 

variation should benefit olive-sided flycatchers (Montana Partners in Flight, 2000). This may involve the 

creation of more edge in areas and openings where fire suppression has reduced the heterogeneity of the 

forest, reduced the amount of edge, and increased the average patch size or it may involve finding ways to 

reduce “fragmentation” (i.e., increase average patch size, decrease the amount of edge) of forests in 

managed lands. 

All action alternatives should increase suitable habitat for olive-sided flycatcher with the implementation 

of forest management practices that approximate the structural conditions created by historic fire regimes, 

both at a stand and at the landscape scale. The action alternatives would benefit olive-sided flycatcher 

with project design that incorporates the following measures: 

x Logging methods that retain medium to large trees with relatively open canopy closure, as well as 

treatments that create forest edge will benefit olive-sided flycatchers. 

x Retention of forested edge habitat around riparian and wetland features will also benefit olivesided flycatcher habitat. 

x Reintroduction of fire may also benefit olive-sided flycatchers by creating post-fire habitats that 

were historically more common. 

x Retention of snags and large trees post harvest within regeneration methods such as seed tree 

harvests will benefit olive-sided flycatchers by retaining important foraging and singing perches. 

x Partial harvests which retain trees of varying heights to provide nesting sites as well as trees near 

or above the canopy height of the surrounding forest to provide flying space and height for 

foraging will benefit olive-sided flycatchers. 

x Post-harvest broadcast burning, especially when it fits with the desired silvicultural regime, will 

potentially create ecological conditions most similar to historical olive-sided flycatcher habitat. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The “no action” alternative would have no direct effect on olive-sided flycatcher or its habitat. This 

alternative would indirectly leave stands unharvested. This would maintain all predominantly lodgepole 

pine stands at risk for future wildfire impacts, which in turn could potentially become beneficial to olivesided flycatchers with the creation of post-fire habitats. 

As forest succession and fire suppression occur in overstocked stands, trees become more susceptible to 

attack from insects and disease. Infestations that kill trees and the resultant increase in early seral habitats 

or lower canopy cover (e.g., 5–25%) would result in increases of olive-sided flycatcher habitat. As the 

insect and disease outbreak advances, standing and down dead material would increase, which in turn 

increases the risk of stand-replacing fires, which would also benefit olive-sided flycatcher with the 

creation of post-fire habitats. Benefits to olive-sided flycatcher would be dependent on the size and edge 

affects created and residual trees remaining in the area. Without a fire event, the insect outbreak would 

eventually peak and subside. Grand fir and other more shade tolerant species that currently exist in the 

understory of stands with dead and dying trees would continue to grow, perhaps eventually causing the 

long-term loss of the early seral conditions and low canopy cover preferred by olive-sided flycatchers. 

Under the “no action” alternative, the existing level of patchiness in the watershed would persist until a 

stand-replacing fire or other management action(s) take place. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

220

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Treatments that include green and dead tree harvest to improve forest health and reduce the incidence of 

insects and disease increase suitable nesting and foraging habitat for olive-sided flycatchers. Not only 

would the habitat they are using be modified, it would result in increases in suitable habitat under all 

alternatives. The changes in nesting and foraging habitat acres are identified in Table 3.7.13 by 

alternative.

Table 3.7.13 Estimated Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Nesting and Foraging Habitat by Alternative 

American River Watershed Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D NPNF1

Acres (%) existing nesting habitat 

treated 0 60 (1.2%) 60 (1.2%) 33 (0.7%) 0 

Acres (%) nesting habitat after 

treatments 0 219 (+4.4%) 235 (+4.7%) 206 (4.1%) 863 (+17.3%)

Acres (%) existing foraging 

habitat treated 0 60 (0.7%) 60 (0.7%) 33 (0.4%) 0 

Acres (%) foraging habitat after 

treatments 0 788 (+8.7%) 726 (+8.1%) 698 (+7.7%) 354 (+3.9%) 

1

Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) selected alternative for American and Crooked River Project (USDA-FS, 2005a). 2

NPNF modified acres and loss of olive-sided flycatcher nesting or foraging habitat dependent on existing conditions 

and percent of canopy cover removed within each treatment stand. No specific analysis was conducted by NPNF for 

olive-sided flycatcher. 

Alternative B would result in the largest increase in olive-sided flycatcher habitat for nesting and 

foraging, followed by Alternatives C and D. Under all action alternatives it is expected that adequate 

residual large snags and/or live trees for foraging and singing perches will be maintained across the 

project area. Research has found that tall canopy height, low canopy cover, and clearcuts have been 

beneficial to olive-sided flycatchers. The silvicultural treatments under each alternative would result in an 

increase in suitable habitats. The relative amounts of dead and dying lodgepole pine in stands that would 

remain unharvested will also contribute to canopy cover openings and early seral habitats preferred by 

olive-sided flycatchers. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for olive-sided flycatcher is the American River watershed.

The “no action” alternative could in effect, have positive cumulative effects from fire effects on olivesided flycatcher habitat availability. Absence of fuel reduction and lodgepole pine harvest, would add 

cumulatively to overall risks of eventual fire spread, which could create post-fire and early seral habitats 

preferred by olive-sided flycatchers. In addition, dead and dying lodgepole stands would create openings 

and early seral habitats which also would contribute suitable habitat. Successional advancement for some 

stands would result in mid-aged and mature stands with high canopy cover, resulting in loss of suitable 

nesting and foraging habitats. 

The action alternatives would result in habitat increases. Such increases add moderately to cumulative 

increases of existing and potential future olive-sided flycatcher habitat related to previous harvests and 

post-disturbance harvest projects as well as reasonably foreseeable harvests on private and nearby NPNF 

in the analysis area. 

Implementation of the FS American and Crooked River Project selected Alternative D would reduce 

canopy cover on an additional 1,217 acres of timbered stands, which potentially could increase nesting 

habitat by an additional 17.3 percent and foraging habitat by 3.9 percent within the American River 

watershed, which would result in additional cumulative increases in olive-sided flycatcher habitat to those 

identified in Table 3.7.13 above. The Eastside Project and FS American and Crooked River Project 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

221

cumulatively may result in an increase of 21.4 to 22.9 percent of existing nesting habitat and 11.6 to 12.6 

percent foraging habitat. 

Increases of existing and future foraging and nesting habitat opportunities would result from this project, 

the increase would be relatively moderate in the American River watershed. The relative acres proposed 

for mechanical harvest are only a small portion of the total acres that are dead and dying, which would 

also provide potential suitable habitat for olive-sided flycatcher. These acres may burn by wildfires and 

become high quality post-fire habitat in the future, therefore the relative amount of anticipated olive-sided 

flycatcher habitat predicted to be increased from management treatments is relatively minor within the 

analysis area and relatively inconsequential. The mountain pine beetle epidemic has created many 

thousands of acres of potential future olive-sided flycatcher habitat in the upper South Fork of the 

Clearwater River subbasin. 

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for olive-sided 

flycatchers; however, some treatments would create suitable habitat. Projects within the upper South Fork 

Clearwater drainages all target fuel loading and bug-infested trees in some capacity. Ongoing activities 

such as post and pole gathering, firewood cutting, road construction/maintenance, and fire suppression 

also affect habitats that could be utilized by olive-sided flycatchers. Past timber harvest activities have 

created a patchy landscape across the watershed, which has likely resulted in more suitable habitat than 

would occur in unlogged habitats. However, advancement of forest succession will result in these logged 

areas becoming unsuitable as trees mature and canopy cover increases. 

Across the range of the species, especially the Interior Columbia River Basin, moderate or strong declines 

in unburned habitats potentially used by olive-sided flycatchers have occurred. However, timber harvest 

activities have created additional suitable habitats. The natural pattern of beetle outbreaks has been altered 

through silvicultural and fire management practices. Silvicultural practices directed at maximizing wood 

production by harvesting trees before they are susceptible to bark beetle attacks and salvage logging of 

beetle-infested, fire-killed, and wind-killed trees reduced the occurrence of beetles in some areas. Fire 

management policies have lengthened fire return intervals and allowed more frequent occurrences of 

beetles. Impacts of the Eastside Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

in and around the American River watershed appear negligible. With continued management emphasis on 

returning fire (both natural and prescribed) to the landscape and silvicultural treatments favoring more 

open canopy cover, openings, and early seral conditions, habitat conditions for the olive-sided flycatcher 

will improve. 

The sensitive species determination for olive-side flycatcher would be “may impact individuals or habitat, 

but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or 

species” for alternatives B, C, and D. 

Fisher

Existing Condition

Fishers are wide-ranging forest predators that prefer late seral, mesic (moist) forest habitats (Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, 1995:9). Fishers are known to occur within the South Fork Clearwater 

River Subbasin. 

Current distribution of fishers in North America is substantially fragmented compared to their historical 

(pre-European) distribution. Across the species’ range, fisher populations declined in the early twentieth 

century, probably due to a combination of over trapping, predator poisoning, and habitat loss from 

settlement, logging and forest fires (Heinemeyer, 1994). Fishers and their habitat use were studied by 

Jones (1991) in the adjacent Newsome Creek watershed and surrounding areas near Elk City during the 

late 1980s. Jones concluded that over-trapping and historic habitat loss due to extensive fires in 1910 and 

1934 were most likely responsible for the historical decline of fishers in Idaho. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

222

No fisher trapping is currently allowed in Idaho, but animals are occasionally caught incidental to marten, 

coyote, and bobcat trapping. Trapping pressure within the American River watershed and South Fork 

Clearwater River Subbasin is currently limited due to low trapper interest (USDA-FS, 1998b; USDA-FS, 

2004a).

Habitat conditions and relative amounts and larger blocks of old growth and late seral habitats preferred 

by fishers are prevalent in the American River. Currently, 51 percent of the American River drainage 

supports late seral habitat (USDA-FS, 1998a:141). However, developed portions of the American River 

drainage have been impacted and fragmented to varying levels by past timber harvesting and roading 

activities.

Overall however, fisher habitat has increased over historical conditions by approximately 188 percent 

within the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin. This can be attributable to increases in more shade 

tolerant tree species, like subalpine fir and grand fir, due to fire suppression and forest succession 

(USDA-FS, 1998a:83). 

Suitable fisher habitat in American River drainage is currently 233 percent of historic amounts (USDAFS, 1998b). Conserving the integrity of late seral habitats near the upper end of their historic range of 

variability would benefit fishers (USDA-FS, 1998a:140–141 and 148). 

Fishers are believed to use selected suitable habitat portions of the American River watershed. Local 

trends in fisher populations remain stable based on (USDA-FS, 2005a): 

x Population monitoring results, 

x Incidental sightings, 

x ICDC database records, and 

x Local downtrends in the two of the most commonly recognized threats to fisher populations in the 

western U.S. (trapping pressure and clearcutting of late successional timber). 

(FS 15th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report Draft; 2002 Fisher/pine marten monitoring data–Item 

10 Population Trends of Indicator Species, Nez Perce National Forest, USDA-FS, 2004d). 

The size of a male fisher’s home range is larger than that of a female. Fisher home ranges in north-central 

Idaho were 2 to 15 times larger than other reported fisher home ranges, and averaged 82.6 km2

 (20,400 

acres) for males and 40.8 km2

 (10,080 acres) for females (Jones, 1991:103). Even when home range size 

estimates were standardized across multiple studies, those in Idaho remained much larger than estimates 

from other geographic areas (Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994). 

For this analysis, fisher summer habitat was defined as large trees (greater than 15 inches dbh) in mixed 

conifer and mixed subalpine fir forests. Mesic lodgepole pine was also determined to be considered 

summer habitat where diameters are greater than 10 inches. Fisher use appears in stands with greater than 

40 percent canopy cover, but the NPNF dataset did not allow for selection for this. Instead, moderate to 

high canopy closure was selected (greater than or equal to 25 percent). Winter habitat was defined as 

summer habitat plus pole-sized trees (greater than 10 inches dbh) with greater than 25 percent canopy 

cover and drier lodgepole pine habitat types. The following table shows the acres of summer and winter 

fisher habitat for the American River watershed. 

Table 3.7.14 Estimated Acres of Fisher Habitat

Watershed

Summer Habitat Acres 

(% watershed) 

Winter Habitat Acres 

(% watershed) 

American River 38,326 (65%) 40,651 (69%) 

By assuming an average home range size of acres per female fisher (Jones, 1991), an analytical index was 

developed to compare the effects of each alternative. Under the existing condition, 40,600 acres of habitat 

could support about 4 fisher females in the American River watershed. It is important to realize that this 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

223

number is simply an analytical index and in no way attempts to measure actual densities or numbers of 

fisher on the landscape. 

The results of the FIA indicate that, overall, fisher habitat is widely distributed across the South Fork 

Clearwater River subbasin and American River watershed (this includes summer and winter habitat). 

Within the American River watershed, total fisher habitat (represented by winter habitat as summer 

habitat is included in the calculations) amounts to 53 percent of the forested lands. The following table 

displays the FIA data at two scales: 

1. Subbasin (4th HUC) 

2. Watershed (5th HUC). 

The amount and distribution of habitat is both a reflection of the capability and current condition of the 

landscape.

Table 3.7.15 Data at Two Scales for Percent Fisher Summer and Winter Habitat1

South Fork Clearwater River American River Watershed 

Fisher Habitat CI

Low Mean

CI

High

CI

Low Mean

CI

High

Fisher Summer Habitat 20 26 33 13 28 45 

Fisher Winter Habitat 35 43 51 32 53 75 1

Forest inventory and analysis data at two scales for percent fisher summer and winter habitat, including 90 percent 

confidence intervals (CI low and CI high). 

Environmental Effects 

The Habitat Conservation Assessment for Fisher in Idaho suggests that although fisher trapping seasons 

are closed in Idaho, incidental trapping mortality may limit populations in the state (Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, 1995:6). None of the alternatives will harvest in existing old growth timber. In addition, 

protection of RHCAs (riparian habitat conservation areas), would provide for maintenance of mature, old 

growth, and potential old growth stands within these areas and help maintain patch sizes and connectivity. 

A fundamental aim of the project is removal of fuel-loading from dead and dying lodgepole pine. Most of 

the lodgepole pine of 6 inches or greater diameter in the project area will no longer contribute to forest 

canopy cover irrespective of alternative harvest plans. Effects of each alternative on fishers and their 

habitats should also factor in the reduced risks (if any), for subsequent habitat losses due to future fire 

impacts. 

Noxious weeds, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments using prescribed fire are 

not expected to impact fishers or their habitats considerably, regardless of alternative. Road 

decommissioning would be expected to help reduce motorized access on existing roads, contributing to 

reductions in fisher mortality risks from trapping. Based on best available information, the analysis 

criteria for fisher will be the extent to which each alternative: 

1. Conserves or protects the integrity of late seral habitats, 

2. The amount of habitat modified by each alternative, and 

3. The degree to which each alternative provides security by limiting mortality risks from incidental 

trapping, because densities of accessible roads and trails facilitates human access. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This “no action” alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the fisher or 

its habitat. As local stands mature and decline with their attendant fuel-buildups, lethal, more severe fire 

risks would become more prevalent. Such risks would increase the chances of late seral habitat losses to 

wildfires. No direct or indirect changes in access would occur, so security would not improve. Existing 

road access levels that facilitate potential trapping for other furbearers would remain unchanged. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

224

Existing fisher habitat would not be harvested under this alternative. In general, mature, high-canopied 

habitat would increase and small-tree winter habitat would decrease as forest succession continues to fill 

in understories and increase stand canopy closure. In predominantly lodgepole pine stands, additional 

trees would die as a result of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and dead trees would eventually fall to 

the ground. This process would create suitable habitat and niches for at least some of the small mammal 

species fisher prey upon. Fishers do not forage in openings; therefore, areas with significant fallen 

lodgepole pine would only provide habitat along the edges of these newly opened areas. High densities of 

downed logs, shading from snags, and lack of seed sources may delay the regeneration of new trees 

relative to harvested areas and extend the length of time it would take for new small tree and mature 

habitats to develop. In RHCAs, trees killed by insects and other successional processes would fall to the 

ground and into streams enhancing structural diversity in these areas. 

Fuel build-up resulting from fire suppression activities would continue, thereby increasing the likelihood 

of a stand-replacing fire. Stand-replacing fires could potentially reduce mature and old growth habitat 

across the project area, depending on the size and severity of the disturbance. Similarly, fuel loads along 

streams and RHCAs would continue to increase and may expose these environments to intense fires. 

Stands of dead and dying lodgepole pine are particularly vulnerable to stand-replacing fires; small tree 

lodgepole pine winter habitat would likely be lost in a fire event. An increase of large logs on the ground 

due to fire or insect epidemics could provide denning structures and cover for fisher and several prey 

species, but these areas are likely to be avoided until the living canopy cover again exceeds 40 percent. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Treatments that include green and dead tree harvest to improve forest health and reduce the incidence of 

insects and disease would affect both summer habitat and winter habitat for fishers. The changes in 

habitat acres (overlap exists between summer and winter habitats) are outlined in Table 3.7.16 by 

alternative. Alternative D would modify the fewest acres of fisher summer (629 acres) and winter habitat 

(632 acres), and alternative B would modify the greatest acreage of summer (687 acres) and winter 

habitat (690 acres) in the American River watershed. All action alternatives are very similar for effects at 

a watershed level, and would harvest and modify less than 2 percent of the summer and winter habitat for 

fishers.

Using the NPNF analytical index, under alternatives B, C, and D, enough fisher habitat would remain in 

the project area to support about 3.9 female fishers in the American River watershed. This would be a 

slight reduction from the existing condition. 

Table 3.7.16 Estimated Acres of Fisher Habitat in the American River Watershed by Alternative 

Fisher Habitat Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D NPNF1

Acres (%) summer habitat 

treated

0 687 (1.8%) 678 (1.8%) 629 (1.6%) 246 (0.6%) 

Acres (%) winter habitat treated 0 690 (1.7%) 682 (1.7%) 632 (1.6%) 262 (0.6%) 1 Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) selected alternative for American and Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 

2005a). 

In the Northern Rockies, fishers evolved under a disturbance regime that created numerous openings in a 

matrix of mature forested habitats. Removing downed woody material and canopy cover in stands used by 

fisher and their prey could reduce suitable habitat in the short-term. Fishers do not forage in openings and 

would avoid using newly harvested units except perhaps along the edges of those units. However, the 

conversion of some percentage of older age class lodgepole pine and mixed conifer habitats to younger 

age classes could promote a diversity of prey species and thus have long-term benefits for fisher 

populations. At localized levels, it would also reduce the probability of fire spreading to high quality 

fisher habitats within the watershed. Tree planting and site preparation, such as the removal of dead and 

downed wood through burning, would accelerate regeneration of green canopy cover. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

225

None of the action alternatives would harvest trees in RHCAs. Connectivity along riparian habitat 

corridors would remain intact for all action alternatives. As with the “no action” alternative, trees killed 

by insects and other successional processes would fall to the ground and into streams enhancing structural 

diversity in these areas. However, fuel loads along streams and RHCAs would continue to increase and 

may expose these environments to intense fires. 

The temporary increase of human activity in the project area associated with harvest and vegetative 

treatments could increase the possibility of human-fisher interactions. By design, all current access 

closures would be maintained as part of the proposed project. 

Action alternatives would not harvest in any existing old growth timber. Moderate harvest levels would 

have limited direct impacts on fisher habitat due to increased overall habitat fragmentation. Treated stands 

would provide moderate levels of on-site fuel reduction. 

Security would improve slightly under all alternatives. Alternative C would improve security slightly 

more than the other alternatives with a reduction in motorized access, followed by Alternatives B and D. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for fisher is the American River watershed. 

Risks of fire-spread losses in old growth or other late seral stands would become cumulative to past and 

present effects of fire exclusion in the analysis area. Whether these effects would extend outside the 

project or analysis area is uncertain. The “no action” alternative would have no certain cumulative effects 

on the fisher or its habitat other than fire and security risks, which would eventually become additive to 

the past effects of roading, logging, incidental trapping risks, fire exclusion and other human disturbances 

of normal ecosystem processes and forest pattern. 

The action alternatives would add moderately to forest fragmentation at the level; however, this would 

result in negligible cumulative effects compared to other past, present, and other foreseeable harvest 

activities in the American River watershed analysis area. Other projects include the American and 

Crooked River Project and private land timber harvest. It would reduce fuels at relatively moderate levels, 

potentially contributing to less fire risks to old growth and late seral habitats. The action alternatives 

would also slightly reduce potential levels of human access, thereby helping to reduce mortality risks 

from trapping. 

Implementation of the FS American and Crooked River Project selected Alternative D would modify an 

additional 246 acres of summer habitat and 262 acres of winter habitat. The Eastside Project and FS 

American and Crooked River Project cumulatively may modify 2.2 to 2.4 percent of summer habitat and 

2.2 to 2.3 percent of winter habitat (see Table 3.7.16).

Past insect outbreaks, fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest have left a mosaic of habitats on the 

landscape, but they are not characteristic of the patterns that occurred historically under a more natural 

disturbance regime. Most harvest units are simple, uniformly-shaped, small- to medium-sized patches 

(greater than 40 acres), without snags or large fire-resistant trees. Gone in these areas are the important 

snag, down wood, and residual large tree components that provide the structural diversity preferred by 

fishers once a stand regenerates. Past activities in developed portions of the watershed may have altered 

the availability of denning habitat, forested connectivity, and prey habitat for fisher. The loss of medium 

and large trees from timber harvest has reduced the older forest component that is important to fisher 

year-round. Across the analysis area, open roads facilitate access for trappers and firewood cutters, 

potentially decreasing fisher populations and the downed logs important for fisher and their prey species. 

However, at the watershed analysis level, current suitable fisher habitat is more abundant than historic 

levels.

Within the analysis area, private land logging and the American and Crooked River Project target dead, 

dying, and merchantable green lodgepole pine, and other tree species in some capacity. Cumulatively, the 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

226

loss of suitable habitat for fishers could affect fisher populations in the project area and in the American 

River watershed. Adding to this situation is the fact that many additional stands of small tree lodgepole 

pine and mixed conifers that are not proposed for timber harvest or silvicultural treatments are being 

altered or lost by a more “natural” process of bug kill, decay, and fire. At the project and watershed 

levels, fisher populations could be affected however, the effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions appear small to negligible. 

The sensitive species determination for fisher would be “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not 

likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or species” for 

alternatives B, C, and D. 

Wolverine

Existing Condition

The wolverine is an uncommon, wide-ranging carnivore that typically occurs at low densities across its 

range. Home ranges average approximately 100,000 acres. Within the western U.S., they occur 

principally in remote, high-elevation mountain basins and cirques, particularly during the breeding season 

(Rowland et al., 2003). The Conservation Strategy for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Idaho (Copeland and 

Hudak, 1995) defined wolverine habitat as areas associated with a component of seclusion or separation 

from human influence. Wolverines are relatively intolerant of human disturbance requiring large tracts of 

remote mountainous habitat (Hornocker and Hash, 1981). Habitat of this nature is most easily defined by 

existing tracts of set-aside or defined refugia such as RARE II land or designated wilderness. 

Wolverine have been observed on the Nez Perce National Forest. Most observations have been within or 

adjacent to designated wilderness areas in relatively remote, isolated landscapes. The edge of the GospelHump Wilderness is several miles southwest of the project area. Central-Idaho wolverines are known to 

commonly cross distances of 20 kilometers (12.4 miles), negotiating road systems and active timber sales, 

to reach insular subalpine habitats (Copeland and Hudak, 1995). 

In Idaho, female wolverines use high-elevation cirque basins for natal sites, while making daily forays 

into lower montane habitats to forage (Copeland and Hudak, 1995). The analysis area (American River 

watershed) occurs approximately 20 mile northeast of the high elevation Gospel-Hump Wilderness. 

Absence of high elevation cirque basins and boulder talus within the project area, as well as extensive 

previous development, roading, harvest, and other human activities conducted in the project area make it 

unsuitable as breeding or denning habitat; however wolverine may occasionally traverse through the 

analysis area in search of food. Wolverines are opportunistic scavengers and ungulate carrion is 

considered an important food source. Activities that decrease ungulate populations may negatively affect 

wolverines (Copeland and Hudak, 1995). 

Incidental trapping mortality is a potentially important factor in managing wolverine populations. 

Wolverine trapping is not allowed in Idaho, but animals are occasionally caught by accident by coyote 

and bobcat trappers. Within the analysis area, trapping pressure and risks to wolverine are relatively low 

due to low trapper interest (USDA-FS, 1998b). 

The analysis area is well developed, substantially roaded and contains large amounts of ongoing vehicular 

and human disturbances. The American River ERU holds no areas of low human disturbance and is not 

considered quality habitat; however it may contribute foraging areas and overall habitat potentially 

capable of supporting wolverines (USDA-FS, 1998b). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

227

Environmental Effects 

The analysis area lacks seclusion from human influence, and the character of extensive roadless habitat 

security preferred for natal denning. No high elevation cirque basins occur in the analysis area either. 

Noxious weed effects can indirectly impact overall elk habitat quality, which may indirectly affect longterm availability of carrion for wolverines where weeds may dominate native vegetation, but these are not 

considered major impacts. Watershed restoration actions and post-harvest slash treatments using fire are 

not expected to impact wolverine or their habitat considerably regardless of alternative. Road 

decommissioning will help reduce human-wolverine conflict potentials. 

Sites planned for harvests are well outside wilderness or Forest Service RARE II areas considered 

suitable as wolverine habitats (USDA-FS, 2005a). While wolverines may occasionally traverse through or 

across the American River analysis area, which is in proximity to three major, high elevation wilderness 

areas (Gospel-Hump and Selway-Bitterroot, Frank Church River of No Return), it is unlikely that 

wolverines would find the analysis area habitats attractive except perhaps as a travel corridor. Harvest, 

roading, watershed restoration actions and other similar project activities in all action alternatives would 

hold the potential to disturb or displace wolverine that may be traveling through the project area, but 

given the wide-ranging nature of the animal and lack of seclusion from human intrusion in the project 

area, this is unlikely. 

Productivity of habitats and related ungulate carrion availability are important aspects of wolverine 

habitat management. For these reasons, the analysis criteria for wolverine will be impacts related to 

ungulate (elk) summer habitat effectiveness. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

No road decommissioning would occur under this alternative, and the current amount of wolverine habitat 

would be maintained. However, any stand replacing fires that occur in the project area might reduce the 

amount of subalpine fir and spruce forests available to wolverines. Subalpine cirque habitats would not be 

affected by this alternative, as they do not exist in the analysis area. Summer elk habitat is declining due 

to succession and the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and moose winter range may be increasing because 

of succession (see “Elk” and “Moose” discussions later in this section). Any effects these habitat changes 

have on ungulate populations could affect wolverines, as big game carrion is an important wolverine food 

resource during winter. 

The “no action” alternative would have no meaningful direct effects on current elk habitat effectiveness. 

Although the longer term indirect effects of allowing unabated fuel buildups in the analysis area could 

eventually result in a more extensive imbalance of cover and forage for elk due to eventual large-scale 

wildfires, the net impacts to wolverine, given their extremely large home ranges, would likely be 

relatively immeasurable or nil. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Action alternatives would provide improved wolverine habitat, due to a slight reduction in roads open to 

motorized vehicle use over Alternative A. Big game security would be slightly improved, as well, through 

road decommissioning. However, a slight reduction in overall EHE would occur, primarily attributed to 

size and distribution of forage and cover areas. Refer to the discussion on elk. 

None of the action alternatives would harvest trees in RHCAs except for individual trees that would be 

removed during temporary road construction, road reconstruction, or while creating cable corridors. 

Connectivity along forested drainage bottoms would remain intact for all action alternatives, as would 

potential wolverine habitat inside RHCAs. However, fuel loads along streams and RHCAs would 

continue to increase and may expose these environments to intense fires. 

Proposed harvest activities would affect summer elk habitat in the project area. For details on how this 

analysis was conducted and the conclusions that were drawn, see the “Elk” section discussed later in this 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

228

section. Project activities would also affect moose habitat. Moose winter range is the most limiting aspect 

of moose ecology in the project area, no harvest of important moose winter range is proposed under the 

action alternatives (see the “Moose” section for additional details). If elk or moose populations decline as 

a result of proposed activities, wolverines may also be affected because of their reliance on ungulate 

carrion in the winter. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would modestly improve habitat security compared to Alternative A by reducing 

motorized access particularly in the analysis area. Alternative C would slightly improve habitat security, 

compared to Alternatives B and C. 

The temporary increase of human activity in the planning area associated with harvest and vegetative 

treatments could increase the possibility of human-wolverine interactions short-term and/or cause 

wolverines to avoid regions within the project area. As mitigation, all current access closures for public 

motorized vehicle use would continue as part of the proposed project. Temporary roads would be closed 

(when not being used for project implementation) to public motorized vehicle use, reducing potential 

human impacts. Road decommissioning would help reduce human intrusion long-term. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for wolverine is the American River watershed. 

Given all past development actions that have previously impacted overall wolverine foraging habitats 

including roading, logging, recreation activities, fire exclusion and others, and considering the very large 

size of wolverine home ranges, Alternative A would have no measurable cumulative effects. The sensitive 

species determination for wolverine would be “no impact.” 

The action alternatives would add additional impacts to the developed nature of the area, but overall 

effects relative to elk habitats would be very slightly reduced. 

Past timber harvest, fire, fire suppression, and mining activity altered habitat characteristics in the project 

area by reducing the amount and distribution of large and medium trees, snags, and down wood, and by 

creating numerous, small patches across the landscape. These changes have affected wolverine prey 

species such as small mammals and ungulates. Prior to fire suppression and timber management, elk and 

deer populations were dependent upon natural disturbances to create openings that provided the early 

successional growth they favor for foraging. Larger, more connected tracts of mature and old growth 

forest provided suitable winter range for moose. Elk EHE and moose winter range would slightly 

decrease under action alternatives. The network of edges that the project would create could be beneficial 

to some small mammal prey species. 

Road construction associated with past management activities has provided people relatively easy access 

into the area and has reduced the security and isolation the watershed once provided for wolverines. 

Human developments; hiking trails; pack trails and outfitter activity; and ATV and snowmobile use 

within the drainage have had far-reaching effects. These activities have increased human access into once 

remote areas. Roads that access high-elevation areas probably have reduced habitat quality the most. 

Snowmobile use may also have had effects on winter prey species by providing pathways for other 

predators to access a limited winter wolverine prey base. With the exception of constructing a new 

permanent road and vehicle bridge for additional access for the American River subdivision (Alternatives 

C and D), and relocating an existing road out of the American River riparian area and relocating the road 

to a toeslope area (Alternatives B and C), all other roads constructed under this project proposal would 

exist only temporarily on the landscape. 

Other projects such as the American and Crooked River Project and private land logging in or near the 

American River watershed may also modify ungulate and small mammal habitat, as well as the large tree 

subalpine fir habitat used by wolverines. The project proposal is consistent with the wolverine 

management strategies identified in the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

229

1998a). Activities will not occur around wolverine denning habitat, no new campsites or mine sites are 

proposed through this project, and the project does not target coniferous riparian forests or old growth 

mixed conifer, subalpine fir, or grand fir forests. A limited amount of mature timber would be harvested 

through the Eastside Project. Individual wolverines could be impacted at the project and watershed level, 

but this can be considered negligible. 

The sensitive species determination for wolverine would be “may impact individuals or habitat, but will 

not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or species” for 

Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Western Toad 

Existing Condition

The western toad is found in a variety of habitats such as springs, streams, meadows, woodlands, ponds, 

lakes, reservoirs, and slow-moving rivers and streams (Groves et al., 1997). Several western toad 

occurrences were documented within the general project area and the American River watershed while 

conducting field surveys during 2004 and 2005, overall, they appear to be rare and not very abundant 

within the American River drainage (Craig Johnson, 2004/2005 field notes). The western toad will breed 

in a large variety of natural and artificial aquatic habitats, from the shallow margins of lakes and ponds to 

roads side ditches. It does not seem to matter if the sites have tree or shrub canopy cover, coarse woody 

debris, or emergent vegetation. Adult females may lay their eggs at depths of 5 centimeters to 2 meters 

(depths over one meter are rare) in the same location within sites each year. Outside the breeding season, 

western toads spend up to 90% of their time in terrestrial habitats. Adult toads can be found in forested 

areas, wet shrublands, clearcuts, and meadows. They appear to favor dense shrub cover, perhaps because 

it provides protection from desiccation and predators. Hibernation sites generally are deep enough to 

prevent freezing, and moist enough to prevent desiccation. 

Environmental Effects 

The primary analysis criteria for western toad are protection, enhancement, and maintenance of riparian 

and aquatic habitats, which is critical to reproduction. Western toads also use upland habitats the majority 

of the time, consequently upland treatments would have direct and indirect effects on western toads. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This “no action” alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the western 

toad or its habitat. As local stands mature and decline with their attendant fuel-buildups, lethal, standreplacing fire risks would become more prevalent. Such risks would increase the chances of western toad 

mortality and habitat losses to wildfire. Western toad habitat effects from fire caused loss of shrubs, 

which provide security cover would result in toads being more susceptible to predation. Successional 

advancement would improve some riparian habitats. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives would have direct and indirect affects on associated riparian and aquatic habitats. 

Such actions include riparian restoration, decommissioning of roads and fords, road construction and 

bridge construction within riparian areas. Short term negligible adverse affects would occur from soil and 

vegetation disturbance within riparian areas or adjacent to aquatic habitats. Long term benefits would 

occur to toad habitat with re-vegetation occurring. No timber harvest or fuels treatments are proposed to 

occur in RHCAs, which would provide for the primary protection of reproduction habitat associated with 

streams, ponds, spring, and seeps. 

Upland actions such as road construction, road decommissioning, timber harvest, fuels reduction actions, 

and post-harvest slash treatments would be expected to have discountable direct and negligible indirect 

effect on western toad reproductive habitat. However, action alternatives do treat the upland areas to 

varying degrees, which may place toads at some direct risk for harm to individuals that may be present, 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

230

including minor potential indirect impacts on riparian habitat conditions from changes due to off-site 

generated silt and water quality impacts. 

Implementing the watershed improvement projects associated with the action alternatives would cause a 

temporary increase in sediment short-term, but there would also be a long-term reduction in sediment. It 

is not expected that increases in sediment levels would adversely affect western toads, but it is reasonable 

to think that improvements to overall watershed quality and, particularly riparian habitats, would be 

beneficial to reproduction for the western toad. 

Salvaging dead and dying trees and merchantable green trees would help reduce the risk of high-intensity, 

large-scale fires in the project area. Fuel loading within RHCAs would continue under all action 

alternatives and could expose toads and toad habitat to intense fires however, by reducing fuel loads 

outside of RHCAs, fires might not be as destructive to moist environments as under the “no action” 

alternative.

Proposed harvest and underburning activities are likely to alter existing non-breeding habitat for western 

toads for the short-term. Regeneration harvest with underburning removes overstory trees and ground 

cover, resulting in warmer and drier exposed soils. Intermediate harvest and burning would retain most of 

the larger overstory trees, leaving ground-level habitat more protected, with better daytime refugia sites 

for toads. Based on this species’ ability to occupy a wide variety of habitats, western toad use could still 

occur, although at lower levels. As vegetation recovered within a few years, habitat would become 

increasingly suitable and use would be expected to increase. If adult western toads were present, 

individual mortality could occur during harvest or underburning from heat or consumed woody material, 

or by vehicles or machinery used for logging or roadwork. 

Assessing the relatively small risk of potential effects to toads while using upland habitats, Alternative B 

has the most acres of proposed treatments, Alternative C has slightly less, and Alternative D has the least. 

Alternative B has the most miles of temporary roads, followed by Alternative D, and Alternative C has 

the least. Alternative C has the highest number of roads proposed for decommissioning within riparian 

habitats, followed by alternative B and D. Decommissioning roads within floodplains and riparian 

habitats would result in moderate benefits to reproduction habitats within localized areas. 

Decommissioned roads in riparian areas would improve as vegetation becomes established on these roads 

and riparian habitats improve. Table 3.7.17 summarizes the above information by alternative. 

Table 3.7.17 Proposed Timber Harvest/Fuels Treatments, Temporary Road Construction, Road 

Decommissioning, and Riparian Restoration

Indicator Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Total Acres Treated 0 1,293 1,284 1,171 

Total Miles Temporary Road Construction 

(Miles Temporary Road Construction Within RHCAs) 

0

(0.0)

15.1

(0.0)

10.5

(0.0)

10.7

(0.1)

Total Miles New Permanent Road Construction 

(Miles New Permanent Roads Within RHCAs) 

0

(0.0)

0.6

(0.0)

1.1

(0.2)

0.6

(0.2)

New Bridge Construction 0 0 1 1 

Total Miles of Decommissioned Roads 

(Miles of Decommissioned Roads Within Riparian 

Areas) 

0

(0)

1.9

(1.1)

3.0

(2.0)

1.5

(1.1)

Stream Crossing (Fords) Obliteration and Restoration 0 2 3 3 

Miles of Riparian Restoration 0 4.8 4.8 4.8 

Total Acres Mine Site Reclamation 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

231

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for western toad is the American River watershed. 

The “no action” alternative would have no cumulative effects on the toad or its habitat cumulative to past 

harvest, roading, human disturbance, recreation, minerals or other activities. With continuation of other 

ongoing BLM and NPNF restoration actions within the watershed, improved management of riparian and 

aquatic habitats resulting from PACFISH (1995) and federal listing of fish within the watershed, 

continued long term improving riparian and aquatic trends would be expected to occur; however, natural 

riparian recovery would be slow in dredge mined areas. The sensitive species determination for western 

toads would be “no impact.” 

Action alternatives would have localized direct and indirect cumulative effects on riparian, aquatic, and 

upland habitats which may be utilized by the western toad, in addition to those produced from past 

mining, roading, timber harvest, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, public access, fire 

exclusion and other habitat impacts. The long-term outcome would be improved and restored riparian 

habitats.

Timber harvest and salvage logging, grazing, insect epidemics, fires, fire suppression, mining, and road 

construction and maintenance can cumulatively affect western toads through soil compaction, changes in 

vegetative cover, altering stream channels, or by changing the quantity and quality of water flowing into 

wet meadows. Past harvest practices that involved removing forest vegetation along streams and wetlands 

left these sites vulnerable to hydrologic and vegetative changes. Although fires aren’t as common in this 

species’ habitats, water quality and quantity varies after large fires upstream and could affect local toad 

populations. Fire suppression has created denser forests, which tend to burn hotter, and hotter fires tend to 

be more destructive. Whether these potential fire effects would extend outside the project or analysis area 

is uncertain. Livestock grazing is likely to continue on NPNF and BLM allotments and on private lands, 

and has past effects. BLM has fenced its riparian areas in Elk Creek and additional areas on private lands. 

Beaver dams also provide a flux of habitat availability; past beaver trapping may have affected habitat 

availability where beavers may not have recolonized. 

For western toads, regeneration harvest with underburning removes overstory trees and ground cover, 

resulting in warmer and drier exposed soils. Regeneration harvests have been proposed for this project 

and various other projects in the American River drainage. Cumulatively, potential upland toad habitat 

could be impacted. Individual toads could be killed from the vegetative changes, prescribed fires, motor 

vehicles, and heavy machinery associated with these proposed actions. 

Past, present, and future actions can affect western toad habitat in the project area as well as across 

American River drainage. Although individuals or localized populations can be affected, none of the 

proposed alternatives should affect populations of western toads at the project or watershed level. 

The sensitive species determination for western toads would be “may impact individuals or habitat, but 

will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or species”

for alternatives B, C, and D. 

Common Garter Snake 

Existing Condition

Common Garter Snake inhabit virtually any type of wet or moist habitat throughout its range, but regional 

populations exhibit different preferences (Groves et al., 1997). This species is most common in wet 

meadows and along water courses, but it can be found far from water in open valleys and in deep 

coniferous forests (Nussbaum et al., 1983). This species preys chiefly on earthworms, frogs, toads, 

salamanders, and fishes, less regularly on slugs, leeches, small mammals and birds, but rarely on insects, 

spiders, and small snakes (Groves et al., 1997). It hibernates underground, or in or under surface cover, 

and at times, with other snake species. One common garter snake was documented within the project area 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

232

during the 2004 field season, the common garter snake is not commonly observed in the area, while the 

western terrestrial garter snake is fairly common (Craig Johnson, 2004 field notes). 

Environmental Effects 

The primary analysis criteria for the common garter snake are protection, enhancement, and maintenance 

of meadows, riparian areas, and aquatic habitats. The common garter snake typically is associated with 

riparian and aquatic habitats, but will also use terrestrial habitats such as coniferous forests; consequently 

upland treatments could have direct and indirect effects on common garter snakes and habitats. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This “no action” alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the common 

garter snake or its habitat. As local stands mature and decline with their associated fuel buildups, more 

severe localized risks would occur. Such risks may increase the chances of common garter snake 

mortality and habitat losses due to wildfires, particularly if such fires affected riparian and aquatic 

habitats. Successional advancement would improve some riparian habitats. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives would have direct and indirect effects on the common garter snakes, particularly 

actions affecting riparian and aquatic habitats. Such actions include riparian restoration, decommissioning 

of roads, and obliteration and restoration of stream crossings (fords), road construction, and bridge 

construction. Short term negligible adverse affects would occur from soil and vegetation disturbance 

within riparian areas or adjacent to aquatic habitats. Long term benefits would occur to common garter 

snake habitats occurring in riparian areas and stream bottoms. No timber harvest or fuels treatments are 

proposed to occur in RHCAs, which would provide for the primary protection of primary habitats 

associated with wet meadows, riparian areas, streams, ponds, spring, and seeps. 

Upland actions associated with the project would be expected to place common garter snake at some 

indirect risk for harm to individuals that may be present during treatments and loss of habitats. Indirect 

effects may occur from upland treatments that affect water quality or habitat for prey species. 

Assessment of the relatively small risk of potential effects to common garter snakes utilizing riparian, 

aquatic, and upland habitats would be similar to what is described for the western toad above and is 

summarized in Table 3.7.17. All action alternatives identify restoration actions which would result in long 

term beneficial effects to riparian and aquatic habitat within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for common garter snake is the American River watershed. 

The “no action” alternative would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on the common garter 

snake or its preferred habitats. However, cumulative effects on the common garter snake or its habitat 

from past timber harvest, roading, human disturbance, recreation, mining or other activities would occur. 

With continuation of other ongoing BLM and NPNF restoration actions within the watershed, improved 

management of riparian and aquatic habitats resulting from PACFISH (1995) and federal listing of fish 

within the watershed, continued long term improving riparian and aquatic trends would be expected to 

occur. The sensitive species determination for the common garter snake would be “no impact” for 

Alternative A. 

The action alternatives would have localized direct and indirect cumulative effects on riparian, aquatic, 

and upland habitats which may be utilized by the common garter snake, in addition to those produced 

from past mining, roading, timber harvest, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, public 

access, fire exclusion and other habitat impacts. All action alternatives identify various riparian 

restoration actions, which will support upward trends for riparian and aquatic habitats. Cumulative effects 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

233

identified for the western toad would also be expected for the common garter snake and preferred 

habitats.

The sensitive species determination for common garter snake would be “may impact individuals or 

habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population 

or species” for alternatives B, C, and D. 

Idaho Giant Salamander 

Existing Condition

Idaho giant salamander larvae usually inhabit clear, cold streams, but are also found in mountain lakes 

and ponds. Adults are found under rocks and logs in humid forests, near mountain streams, or on rocky 

shores of mountain lakes (Groves et al., 1997). The occurrence of Idaho giant salamander has been 

documented in Queen, Whitaker, and Telephone Creeks, American River and E. Fork American River in 

the general project area (Craig Johnson, 2004/2005/2006 field notes). Larvae feed on a wide variety of 

aquatic invertebrates as well as some small vertebrates (e.g., fishes, tadpoles, or other larval salamanders). 

Adults eat terrestrial invertebrates, small snakes, shrews, mice, and salamanders (Groves et al., 1997). 

The salamander hibernates/aestivates. They usually reach sexual maturity (in both larval and terrestrial 

forms) at sizes greater than 115 millimeters (snout to vent length) (Groves et al., 1997). Breeding occurs 

in spring and fall. 

Environmental Effects 

The primary analysis criteria for the Idaho giant salamander are protection, enhancement, and 

maintenance of riparian areas, and stream habitats. The Idaho giant salamander is primarily associated 

with the streams and riparian habitats. Management actions that affect riparian and stream habitats will 

have direct and indirect effects on Idaho giant salamanders. Indirect effects from upland actions can also 

affect water quality and occupied habitats used by Idaho giant salamanders. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

This “no action” alternative would have no immediate, direct negative or positive impacts on the Idaho 

giant salamander or its habitat. Existing riparian conditions and trends would be expected to continue as 

early and mid-age stands would advance to more mature timber stands along some stream reaches. Some 

dredge mined areas would continue a slow rate of recovery and succession advancement along some 

stream reaches. As some riparian stands mature and decline with their associated fuel-buildups, more 

severe localized fire risks may occur. Such risks may increase the chances of Idaho giant salamander 

mortality and habitat losses due to wildfires, particularly if such fires affected large percentages of a 

drainage and its associated riparian and aquatic habitats. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives would have direct and indirect affects on the Idaho giant salamander, particularly 

actions affects affecting riparian and aquatic habitats. Such actions include riparian restoration, 

decommissioning of roads, restoration of stream crossings (fords), road construction, and bridge 

construction. Short term negligible adverse affects would occur from soil and vegetation disturbance 

within riparian areas or adjacent to aquatic habitats. Long term benefits would occur to Idaho giant 

salamander habitats in riparian areas and stream bottoms. No timber harvest or fuels treatments are 

proposed to occur in RHCAs, which would provide for the primary protection of primary habitats 

associated with riparian areas and streams. 

Upland actions such as road construction, road decommissioning, timber harvest, fuels reduction actions, 

and post-harvest slash treatments would be expected to have minimal direct and minimal indirect effect 

on Idaho giant salamander habitat. However, action alternatives do treat the upland areas to varying 

degrees, which may place Idaho giant salamanders at some direct and indirect risk for harm to individuals 

that may be present during treatments and loss of habitats, particularly treatments, temporary roads and 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

234

new roads occurring within or near riparian habitats. Indirect effects may occur from upland treatments 

that affect water quality or provide habitat for Idaho giant salamander prey species. 

Assessment of the relatively small risk of potential effects to Idaho giant salamanders utilizing riparian 

and stream habitats would be similar to what is described for the western toad above and is summarized in 

Table 3.7.12. All action alternatives identify restoration actions which would result in long term 

beneficial effects to riparian and aquatic habitat within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for Idaho giant salamander is the American River watershed.

The “no action” alternative would have no measurable direct or indirect effects on the Idaho giant 

salamander or its preferred habitats. However, cumulative effects on the Idaho giant salamander or its 

habitat from past timber harvest, roading, human disturbance, livestock grazing, recreation, mining or 

other activities would occur. Long term improving riparian and aquatic trends would be expected to occur 

with continuation of other ongoing or planned BLM and NPNF restoration actions within the watershed. 

In addition, improvements are also the result of improved management of riparian and aquatic habitats 

resulting from PACFISH (1995) and management actions implemented for listed fish within the 

watershed. The sensitive species determination for Idaho giant salamander would be “no impact” for 

Alternative A. 

The action alternatives would have localized direct and indirect cumulative effects on riparian, aquatic, 

and upland habitats which may be utilized by Idaho giant salamanders, in addition to those produced from 

past mining, roading, timber harvest, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, public access, 

fire exclusion and other habitat impacts. All action alternatives identify various riparian restoration 

actions, which will support long term upward trends for riparian and aquatic habitats. Cumulative effects 

identified for the western toad (Section 3.7.4.6) would also be expected to be similar for the Idaho giant 

salamander and preferred habitats. 

The sensitive species determination for the Idaho giant salamander would be “may impact individuals or 

habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population 

or species” for alternatives B, C, and D. 

3.7.5 Indicator 3–Other Species of interest

Elk

Existing Condition

Historically, elk were likely somewhat widespread but sparsely populated in most areas but fairly 

common in the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin’s coniferous forests. Early in the twentieth century, 

when large wildfires created extensive forage areas, habitat conditions favored elk population increases. 

In recent decades, elk populations have stabilized and begun to decline because of forest successional 

advancement on winter ranges and greater hunting mortality (USDA-FS, 1998b). Elk habitat is 

categorized into summer and winter range. At the larger scale, winter range is considered a major habitat 

limiting factor for elk populations in the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin. Winter habitat conditions 

relative to vegetation have become unbalanced due to domination by conifers within some winter range 

areas in the subbasin. For this assessment, elk winter range is defined as habitat that is available even in 

the harshest winters. Winter range is essentially absent in the project area of the American River 

watershed.

The analysis area is primarily used by elk as late spring, summer, fall, and early winter range. Localized 

areas within the American River watershed provide winter and spring ranges and may be used during 

winters with low snow depths. Elk are a wildlife indicator of a diverse array of habitat types and forest 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

235

successional stages. In some areas, unusually high densities of conifers, compounded by an accumulation 

of ladder fuel vegetation, have progressively shaded out and discouraged the growth of forage plants 

required for overall elk health and productivity. 

The quality of summer elk habitat and whether the habitat is capable of sustaining or increasing elk 

populations is rated through the use of the Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing Summer Elk Habitat 

in Northern Idaho (EHE) model (Leege, 1984). When all habitat factors are in optimum abundance and 

distribution, habitat would be rated 100% of potential elk use. The percentage value refers only to habitat 

quality and not to actual elk use. The primary factors decreasing habitat quality are: 1) road density and 

roads open to vehicle use, 2) size and distribution of hiding and thermal cover, and 3) size and distribution 

of forage areas. 

Environmental Effects 

Direct disturbances from harvest actions, roading, watershed restoration actions and other similar 

activities will temporarily disturb or displace elk in all action alternatives, but these impacts would be 

limited in duration. Elk can avoid such disturbances by using unlogged and unroaded areas, and utilize 

topography and vegetation as visual barriers. Noxious weeds that could pioneer burned sites would 

negatively impact elk foraging areas by displacing desirable plants, but this would not be expected to be 

sufficiently extensive or widespread enough to be of major significance under any action alternative. 

Noxious weeds can reduce available forage for elk and degrade long term habitat quality where 

infestations become severe. Road decommissioning, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash 

treatments using fire are not expected to negatively impact elk or their habitats considerably in the long 

term, regardless of alternative. 

EHE (Leege, 1984) was used to analyze units for potential elk use within a designated Elk Analysis Unit, 

(EAU) which included the Eastside Project area. In evaluating potential elk use, this habitat suitability 

index model factors in several variables affecting elk use including open roads, livestock densities, and 

other factors such as cover, forage, and security areas. Summary results for EHE are listed in Table 

3.7.18. 

During field reviews and harvest site inventories for the Eastside Project, a limited number of 

unauthorized and undocumented ATV trail segments created by unknown users were discovered. No 

formal inventory of the numbers and extent of unauthorized ATV trails in the analysis area currently 

exists and thus is uncertain. Unauthorized trail segments were incorporated into the roads/trails analysis 

portion of the elk modeling results listed if they were mapped and uses were deemed measurable. 

Motorized travel prevention effectiveness of each road decommissioning action may vary slightly. 

Effectiveness of motorized travel restrictions on decommissioned roads will relate to the site-by-site 

conditions after decommissioning, relying specifically on road prism recontouring in combination with 

slash and/or existing vegetative barriers and camouflage or concealment of roadway entrances. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Elk summer habitat effectiveness throughout the analysis area would experience no changes attributed to 

BLM management actions, some increases in cover would occur with forest successional development in 

some localized areas. Early seral advancement to mid-age and mature stands would result in a decrease in 

suitable forage areas, while elk security and cover would increase. As deadfall from fuel buildups 

continued, the attractiveness of some of the lodgepole dominant stands in the area may decline in value 

due to perceived travel impairments and predator escapement difficulties. This alternative would have the 

greatest fuel buildup, risks for more severe fires and, consequently, the post-fire conditions which would 

result in early seral habitats and improved forage conditions. Whether these effects would extend outside 

the project or analysis area is uncertain. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

236

There would be no short-term changes to summer elk habitat under this alternative, and road 

decommissioning would not occur. Summer elk habitat potential would be maintained as depicted by the 

existing condition, at least short-term. As a result of fire suppression, succession will continue. Open 

patch sizes will continue to decrease as ingrowth fills and matures in old openings; conifers will encroach 

in grasslands. This process decreases the nutritional value and availability of transitional and summer 

forage. If wildfires were to occur in the area, forage areas could be replenished, but existing cover would 

decrease. As the mountain pine beetle epidemic continues, areas that currently provide cover will become 

too open to serve that function. As numerous dead trees fall to the ground, debris in certain areas may 

become too deep for elk to move through. Downed logs, shading from snags, and lack of seed sources 

may delay the regeneration of new trees relative to harvested areas. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Alternatives B, C, and D would slightly improve some elk habitat conditions long term in the Eastside 

Project EAU, due mostly to modest reductions in open motorized road and trail access and improved 

forage production. Moderate levels of harvest, followed predominantly with prescribed fire to remove 

logging slash, would help stimulate regeneration of nutritious forage plants important to elk nutrition. 

However, overall a slight reduction in overall EHE would occur with implementation of the action 

alternatives, primarily attributed to size and distribution of forage and cover areas.

Overall, Alternative C would impact EHE the least, compared to the other action alternative because it 

decommissions more road miles. This is due to reductions in motorized access levels on roadways 

resulting from road decommissioning. 

Table 3.7.18 shows the new EHE numbers, which were calculated as a measure of the effects of each 

action alternative on summer elk habitat. 

Temporary road construction across FS lands would occur in the American River EAU (Alternatives B 

and C) and Queen Creek EAU (Alternatives B and D). The temporary roads in American River EAU 

were included in the selected FS selective alternative (see Table 3.7.19). Alternative B has the highest 

amount of proposed temporary roads crossing FS lands, including 1.89 miles in the American River EAU 

(Number 58122) and 0.26 mile in the Queen Creek EAU (Number 58131), see Table 3.7.19 for a 

summary of existing EHE and long term EHE. Alternative C has 1.89 miles of temporary road in FS 

American River EAU. Alternative D has 0.26 mile of temporary road construction in FS Queen Creek 

EAU.

By removing dead material and conducting some burns, browse species could be rejuvenated and 

resprouting would occur. 

Table 3.7.18 Percent Elk Habitat Effectiveness (EHE) for the Eastside Project EAU and Alternatives 

Elk Analysis Unit 

Alt A 

(Existing) Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Eastside Township EAU (Long Term) 40 37 37 36 

Eastside Township EAU (Short Term) 

Project Implementation 40 321 321

 311

1 Prediction of short term EHE that would occur with all temporary roads constructed and timber harvest and fuel 

reduction related activity occurring at the same time. All timber harvest related roads are temporary and would be 

decommissioned and obliterated after timber harvest and fuel treatments are completed. 

As vegetative treatments are implemented in the project area, human-elk interactions are likely to 

increase. To minimize this impact, existing access restrictions will be maintained within the analysis area. 

Temporary roads would be closed (when not being used for project implementation) to public motorized 

vehicle use, reducing potential human impacts. In the long-term, road densities would decrease as roads 

are decommissioned. Weed treatments that reduce weed competition within elk forage areas would be 

beneficial to elk, although weed treatment is not a component of this project. Moist sites, such as wet 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

237

meadows, ponds, seeps, and springs, are important to elk and would be protected by RHCA buffers as 

part of project implementation. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for elk is the American River watershed and NPNF EAUs 58121, 

58122, 58131, and 58161; and the BLM Eastside Project EAU.

The “no action” alternative would add cumulatively to fuel loading effects caused by past fire exclusion 

and the current mountain pine beetle epidemic, but overall net effects on elk or their habitat would be 

relatively minor. Allowing continued fuel buildups in the analysis area would have little effect initially, 

but eventual negative impact on elk habitat conditions (jack-strawed stands, movement barriers) would be 

cumulative to previous roading, public vehicular travel in the area, harvest activities, and other humaninduced disturbances and activities on elk habitat security. Other recent and foreseeable harvests on 

nearby private, and the American and Crooked River Project, and BLM lands would also help create 

additional forage resources for elk. 

Moderate reductions in fuel buildups in the project area would reduce the potential for movement barriers 

(jack-strawed stands). However, in untreated areas the potential for jack-strawed stands to create 

movement barriers would be cumulative to previous roading, public vehicular travel in the area, harvest 

activities, and other human-induced disturbances and activities on elk habitat security. Other recent and 

foreseeable harvests on nearby private, NPNF lands (American and Crooked River Project) and BLM 

lands would also help create additional forage resources for elk, but would also add to security 

weaknesses and cover losses. Overall cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative A. 

Past fires, fire suppression, and timber harvest across the analysis area have resulted in a complex matrix 

of forested interior habitat, edge, ecotones, and openings in various stages of succession. Past timber 

harvest converted hiding and thermal cover into seedling stands, some of which have progressed to 

sapling hiding cover. Past timber harvest also narrowed or severed forested connections. Tree harvest has 

removed hiding and screening cover along open and closed roads, and human population and access have 

dramatically increased over historical conditions. The Eastside Project EAU includes a large percentage 

of private lands, which are more roaded, have higher levels of timber harvest, and more home 

development than EAUs occurring on adjacent NPNF lands. EHE is slightly downward within the 

Eastside Project EAU from BLM action alternatives; however, future private land logging and roading 

would be expected to result in some additional declines to EHE within this EAU. Numerous recreational 

opportunities across the project and watershed analysis area, including big game hunting, can cause 

displacement or mortality of elk. 

The BLM EAU is located along the eastside of the Elk City township and includes BLM and private 

lands only (see Table 3.7.18 above). The FS American and Crooked River Project (USDA-FS, 2005a) 

analysis included EHE assessment for four EAUs within the American River watershed, three of which 

border the Elk City township on the east side. These FS EAUs do not include any BLM or private lands 

within the Elk City township. Table 3.7.19 identifies the EAU and EHE analysis for the American and 

Crooked River Project selected alternative. It would result in improvements in all EAUs in the long term. 

However, short term logging related and human interactions would be expected to reduce EHE during the 

duration of the project. 

Table 3.7.19 Forest Service Percent Elk Habitat Effectiveness by EAU for American and Crooked River 

Project FEIS Selected Alternative 

FS Elk Analysis Unit and 

Number

Forest Plan Objective 

(%) Existing EHE Selected Alternative Long Term EHE1

Marten Meadows–58121 75 84 92 

American River–581222 50 72 81 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

238

Queen Creek–581312

 50 77 80 

Kirks Fork–581612 75 83 88 1 Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) selected alternative for American and Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 

2005a). 

2 FS EAU adjacent to BLM Eastside Project and east side of Elk City township, these EAUs do not include BLM or 

private lands within Elk City township. 

Shiras Moose 

Existing Condition

Shiras moose are widely distributed in suitable habitat in Idaho and are relatively common in the South 

Fork Clearwater Subbasin, including the Elk City township and Eastside Project area. Moose populations 

have greatly expanded across Idaho since the 1960s, and most populations are currently stable or 

increasing (USDA-FS, 1998b). Good quality winter range habitat is characterized by mature to old 

growth grand fir, with an understory of Pacific yew. Riparian habitats and mesic meadows along 

American River have been adversely impacted by dredge mining, roads, and human development. Dredge 

ponds created by historic mining are commonly used by moose for forage areas and summer relief from 

heat and insects. 

Based on local research, favored moose foraging areas include lakes, creeks, mesic meadows, 5–40 year 

old timber harvest units, and burned forest (Pierce and Peek, 1984). The most limiting habitat feature for 

moose in the South Fork subbasin is the availability of high-quality winter range (USDA-FS, 1998a). This 

winter moose habitat is important to moose for both cover and forage. Moose habitat in the American 

River ERU is now 306 percent of historic levels (USDA-FS, 1998b). This can be attributable to increases 

in more shade tolerant tree species, like subalpine fir and grand fir, due to fire suppression and forest 

succession (USDA-FS, 1998a:83). The American River ERU contains an abundance of high quality 

moose winter habitat (approximately 21,391 acres) (USDA-FS, 1998b). 

Maintaining high quality moose habitat in quantities that are well beyond the historic levels would not be 

practical, especially for a species which is increasing and is a relative habitat generalist (USDA-FS, 

1998b). In addition, attempting to maintain such conditions would likely be unsustainable over the longer 

term, given increasing fuel loadings and the known fire disturbance patterns in the analysis area. Fire 

hazard will increase as more stands in the area transition from low or moderate hazard to high. The 

American River watershed has not been identified as a high priority area to manage for moose 

conservation (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

Environmental Effects 

Noxious weeds, road decommissioning, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments 

using fire are not expected to impact moose or their habitats considerably regardless of alternative. 

Primary analysis criteria for moose would include acres of mature and old growth grand fir stands with 

Pacific yew understory identified for harvest. No stands meeting this criterion are identified for harvest. 

Actions that directly or indirectly affect riparian habitats and mesic meadows in the analysis area would 

affect moose habitat quality. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Overall, the existing condition would not change under this alternative. The “no action” alternative would 

not harvest important moose winter habitats. The road decommissioning and riparian restoration actions 

associated with this project would not take place. The “no action” alternative would have uncertain 

indirect effects of encouraging continued fuel loading throughout the areas, which may indirectly increase 

future fire-loss risks of some stands of moose winter habitat. Whether these effects would extend outside 

the project or analysis area is uncertain. Continued fire suppression activities would result in a decline in 

younger stands and openings used by moose during summer. Conifer-shrub and mountain shrub cover 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

239

types would decline in amount and distribution, as would the size of open patches as ingrowth fills and 

matures in old openings. Mature and old growth forests with a Pacific yew understory would remain 

intact barring a wildfire. Considering current moose habitat prevalence and moose populations in the 

analysis area, this would not likely be considered a major negative impact. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

No harvest of important moose winter habitat would occur. Indirect effects to important moose winter 

range from wildland fire would be negligible in the American River watershed because of the amount of 

treatment acres relative to the location of important moose winter range. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would modestly improve habitat security compared to Alternative A by reducing 

motorized access in portions of the analysis area. Alternative C would improve habitat security to the 

highest level and positive effects would occur primarily along some segments of American River that 

would not have motorized vehicle access. Temporary roads would be closed (when not being used for 

project implementation) to public motorized vehicle use, reducing potential human impacts. 

All action alternatives identify various riparian restoration actions, which will support long term upward 

trends for riparian and aquatic habitats. Refer to the previous Table 3.7.17 for a summary of riparian 

restoration actions for each Alternative which would prove beneficial for moose. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for shiras moose is the American River watershed. 

The “no action” alternative would have no major cumulative effects on moose or their important winter 

habitats. This action, along with past and present fire exclusion, along with other habitat intrusions such 

as roading, harvesting, public recreation activities and other impacts on the land would further modify 

habitat outside its historic norm, but would not be likely to affect moose considerably. 

Past timber harvest has resulted in the loss of medium and large trees as well as some grand fir/Pacific 

yew moose winter range. Active fire suppression since the early 1900s has allowed succession to 

continue, and this has resulted in an increase in the amount of moose winter range available in the area in 

recent time. The long-term effect of fire suppression could increase the likelihood of stand-replacing fire, 

which in turn could result in the loss of Pacific yew, a fire-intolerant species. 

Road construction has resulted in increased access into the project area and reduced security for moose. 

Human disturbance, as it relates to wildlife security and human-induced mortality, is the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable action with the greatest effect on moose in the planning area (USDA-FS, 2005a). 

All action alternatives would decommission roads and continue current access restrictions for public 

motorized vehicle use. 

The Eastside Project would not treat any important moose winter range; therefore, there would be no 

cumulative impact to this habitat feature. 

Modifications to moose summer habitat would be less impactive to individuals and populations, as 

summer habitat is not limiting in the project area and because present and future actions would tend to 

modify rather than remove summer habitat. At the watershed level, past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would have negligible effects. 

Black-backed Woodpecker 

Existing Condition

Black-backed woodpeckers inhabit boreal forests throughout North America, including Idaho. Suitable 

habitats may be found in lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and mixed conifer forests, 

especially those experiencing insect infestations. Optimal habitat is provided by sites experiencing 

destructive insect infestations, such as bark beetles or recent (less than 5 year old) burned-over forests. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

240

Black-backed woodpeckers evolved with and have become dependent on natural landscape disturbances, 

particularly fire but also areas experiencing insect infestations. They are also relatively nomadic, 

displaying “irruptive dispersal” in response to habitat changes, and will move to large areas where firekilled dead and/or dying trees are infected with bark and wood-boring beetles. As a result, the species 

displays extensive dispersal capabilities. The most expansive mountain pine beetle outbreak documented 

within the Northern Region of the Forest Service occurred on the Nez Perce National Forest where nearly 

117,000 acres were identified as infested in 2003 alone (USDA-FS, 2004d:54). Similarly, the project area 

and surrounding drainages are currently predominantly infested with mountain pine beetle, and with 

pockets of other insect damage. Areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle infestation within and around 

the project area now total at least 250,000 acres conservatively. These sites provide the specialized habitat 

conditions required for nesting and feeding by this bird. In addition, recent wildfires have occurred 

adjacent to the American River drainage (Slims Fire on the Selway-American River divide to the north). 

Pockets of crown fires or areas with stand-replacing fires have created high quality habitat for this species 

for the next few years. 

After stand-replacing fires, forests consist almost entirely of standing dead snags. Starting immediately 

after the fire, these snags are colonized by wood-boring beetles, which attract woodpeckers. Black-backed 

woodpeckers seem to depend on one- to six-year-old burns, and their numbers may peak two to three 

years after fires (Hejl and McFadzen, 1999; Murphy and Lenhausen, 1998). Black-backed woodpeckers 

will also forage in stands undergoing bark beetle outbreaks, but density estimates in these stands are 

substantially lower than in post-fire forests (Powell, 2000). Black-backed woodpeckers move to stands 

and trees following active beetles, and abandon sites in which the trees have died. Home range sizes are 

relatively small, averaging about 300 acres per bird (range: 175–810 acres) (Dixon and Saab, 2000). 

Goggans et al. (1988) state that black-backed woodpeckers’ home range size may be related to the 

proportion of the range that is unlogged; the largest home range in their study had the smallest proportion 

of unlogged habitat. 

In the study conducted by Goggans et al. (1988), all nests were located in lodgepole pine trees, and live as 

well as dead trees were used for nests. Smaller trees were utilized; the mean size of nest trees was 11 

inches dbh, and mean stem size of nesting stands was eight inches dbh. Bull et al. (1986) found blackbacked woodpecker nests in both ponderosa pines (67 percent) and lodgepole pines (27 percent). Mean 

dbh of nest trees was 15 inches, and 60 percent of these trees were dead. These researchers noted that 

black-backed woodpecker selection of smaller trees is unusual, as most woodpecker species nest in larger 

dead trees. 

Until the recently expanded mountain pine beetle epidemic, it was acknowledged that as a whole, suitable 

habitat for black-backed woodpeckers had likely declined more for this bird than for any other wildlife 

species. In the American River watershed, black-backed woodpecker habitat was only 88 percent of 

historic levels (USDA-FS, 1998b). This can be attributable to decreases in large patches of fire-killed 

trees due to fire suppression (USDA-FS, 1998a:84). However, the very wide extent and magnitude of the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic has substantially changed these circumstances. 

Based on the extent and progression of the current mountain pine beetle epidemic in the American River 

drainage and surrounding areas, extent of the beetle epidemic has created many thousands of new acres of 

suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat. In addition, lethal severity fires are a probable outcome 

throughout much of the American River watershed in the years ahead. 

For this analysis, black-backed woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat was defined as lodgepole pine or 

mixed xeric conifer forest with a lodgepole pine component with pole and larger sized trees (trees greater 

than 5 inches dbh) of any canopy closure (10–100 percent). Table 3.7.20 shows the acres and percent of 

habitat for the American River watershed. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

241

Table 3.7.20 Estimated Acres of Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat

Watershed Habitat Acres 

(% Watershed) 

American River 19,014 (32%) 

By assuming a home range size of 600 acres per pair, an index was developed to compare the effects of 

each alternative. Under the existing condition, 19,014 acres of habitat could support about 32 blackbacked woodpecker pairs. It is important to realize that this number is simply an analytical index and in 

no way attempts to measure actual densities or numbers of black-backed woodpeckers on the landscape. 

Black-backed woodpecker home ranges can vary in size according to the amount of logged habitat and 

the continuity or disconnectedness of that habitat. It is also not known how much home range overlap 

might exist within or between black-backed woodpecker pairs. 

Environmental Effects 

Noxious weeds, road decommissioning, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments 

using fire are not expected to impact black-backed woodpeckers or their habitats considerably (regardless 

of alternative). The removal of dead, dying, and green trees would remove foraging and nesting sites, and 

would constitute habitat losses. The net effects of harvest on black-backed woodpeckers would be 

relatively minor within the context of each alternative and landscape acres under beetle attack. Based on 

available information, the analysis criteria for black-backed woodpecker will be the relative amounts of 

lodgepole pine retained after harvest that will likely remain in place or available to subsequently burn and 

become highly suitable for use. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The “no action” alternative would have no direct effect on black-backed woodpecker or its habitat. This 

alternative would leave stands unharvested. As forest succession and fire suppression occur in 

overstocked stands, trees become more susceptible to attack from insects and disease. This increases the 

amount of foraging and nesting resources available to black-backed woodpeckers. As the insect and 

disease outbreak advances, standing and down dead material would increase, which in turn increases the 

risk of stand-replacing fires. If a fire event were to occur, wood-boring beetle populations would spike 

causing a concurrent spike in black-backed woodpeckers for one to six years post burn. Without a fire 

event, the insect outbreak would eventually peak and subside. Grand fir and other more shade tolerant 

species that currently exist in the understory of stands with dead and dying trees would continue to grow, 

perhaps eventually causing the long-term loss of the early seral tree species black-backed woodpeckers 

prefer (e.g., lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine). The risk of losing early seral species does not seem as 

high as the risk of stand-replacing fires in the American River watershed. Under the “no action” 

alternative, the existing level of patchiness in the watershed would persist until a stand-replacing fire or 

other management action(s) take place. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Treatments that include green and dead tree harvest to improve forest health and reduce the incidence of 

insects and disease would reduce habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. Not only would the habitat they 

are using be modified, the patchiness of the remaining habitat would increase. The changes in habitat 

acres are outlined in Table 3.7.21 by alternative. 

Table 3.7.21 Estimated Acres of Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat Modified by Action Alternative 

within American River Watershed 

American River Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D NPNF1

Acres (%) Habitat Treated 0 984 (5.2%) 975 (5.1%) 866 (4.5%) 518 (2.7%) 1

Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) selected alternative for American and Crooked River Project FEIS (USDA-FS, 

2005a). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

242

While Alternative B results in greatest loss of future foraging and nesting habitat opportunities, the loss 

would still be relatively minor and inconsequential, similar to other alternatives. The relative amounts of 

dead and dying lodgepole pine in stands that would remain unharvested in the American River watershed 

dwarfs the harvested acres many fold. 

Alternative D would modify the fewest acres (866 acres) of black-backed woodpecker habitat of the 

existing habitat in American River, and alternative B would modify the greatest acreage (984 acres), all 

action alternatives would modify approximately 5 percent of existing habitat within the American River 

watershed. Using an analytical index, under alternatives B, C, and D, enough foraging and nesting habitat 

would remain in the project area to support 30 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers in the American River 

drainage.

Scientific literature shows that the amount of logged versus unlogged habitat on the landscape, both preand post-fire, affects black-backed woodpecker distribution and home range size. Approximately 15 

percent of the American River drainage has been harvested, with the majority occurring in the last 50 

years, the project area does exhibit patchiness. Additional green and dead tree harvest from any of the 

action alternatives will add to the patchiness of the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis for blackbacked woodpecker will focus on the American River 

watershed.

The “no action” alternative would in effect, have positive cumulative effects on black-backed woodpecker 

habitat availability. Absence of fuel reduction and lodgepole pine harvest, would add cumulatively to 

overall risks of eventual fire spread, but potential maximization retention of habitat creation for blackbacked woodpeckers occur in the American River watershed. Ultimately, this alternative would serve the 

local habitat needs of black-backed woodpeckers best and the impacts would be positive. 

Action alternatives would result in habitat losses. Such losses add moderately to cumulative losses of 

existing and potential future black-backed woodpecker habitat related to previous harvests, roading, and 

post-disturbance harvest projects as well as reasonably foreseeable harvests on private and nearby Nez 

Perce National Forest lands in the analysis area. While losses of existing and future foraging and nesting 

habitat opportunities would result from this project, the loss would be relatively minor and 

inconsequential in the American River drainage. The relative acres proposed for mechanical harvest are 

only a very small portion of the total acres that are dead and dying. These acres are likely to burn by 

wildfires and become high quality habitat in the future, therefore the relative amount of anticipated blackbacked woodpecker habitat predicted to be lost to harvest is relatively minor within the analysis area and 

relatively inconsequential. The mountain pine beetle epidemic has created many thousands of acres of 

highly suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat, making habitat losses to both harvest and reduced fire 

incidence relatively minor. 

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for black-backed 

woodpeckers, which in turn affect black-backed population levels. Projects within the upper South Fork 

Clearwater drainages all target fuel loading and bug-infested trees in some capacity. Ongoing activities 

such as post and pole gathering, firewood cutting, road maintenance, and fire suppression also affect 

habitats that could be utilized by black-backed woodpeckers. Past timber harvest activities have created a 

patchy landscape across the watershed, which has likely resulted in larger black-backed woodpecker 

home ranges than would be the case in unlogged habitats. Larger home ranges affect the energy reserves 

of animals, as they must travel greater distances for their daily needs. Many past timber activities left few 

snags on the landscape that could be utilized for black-backed foraging, nesting, or drumming sites. At 

the project and watershed level, black-backed woodpecker populations could decline as a result of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

243

Implementation of the FS American and Crooked River Project selected Alternative D would modify an 

additional 518 acres (2.7%) of black-backed woodpecker habitat. The Eastside Project and FS American 

and Crooked River Project cumulatively would modify 7.2 to 7.9 percent of black-backed woodpecker 

habitat within the American River watershed, refer to Table 3.7.21 above. 

The South Fork Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a) states that, “When pre-burn harvest is used, 

approximately 50 percent of the trees should be retained for burning with preference given to larger size 

classes.” The planned harvest of up to approximately 1,300 acres in the Eastside Project would remove 

less than 0.5 percent of the total landscape affected by the current mountain pine beetles infestation within 

the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin and on the Nez Perce National Forest. Planned BLM and FS 

harvests would impact about 4.3 percent of the American River watershed, leaving conservatively more 

than 80 percent of the landscape (accounting for harvest-related reduced fire intensities) potentially 

available to be influenced by fires. 

Across the range of the species, especially the Interior Columbia River Basin, moderate or strong declines 

in unburned habitats used by black-backed woodpeckers have occurred. The natural pattern of beetle 

outbreaks has been altered through silvicultural and fire management practices. Silvicultural practices 

directed at maximizing wood production by harvesting trees before they are susceptible to bark beetle 

attacks and salvage logging of beetle-infested, fire-killed, and wind-killed trees reduced the occurrence of 

beetles in some areas. Fire management policies have lengthened natural fire regimes and allowed more 

frequent occurrences of beetles. However, the effects of most of these past actions and events are 

imbedded in the existing condition described above. Impacts of the Eastside Project and other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in and around the American River watershed appear 

negligible. With a management emphasis on returning fire (both natural and prescribed) to the landscape, 

prospects for this species appear brighter. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds use all the habitats within the project area during the breeding season. In their 

Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, Idaho Partners in Flight (2000) identified several high priority species that 

use lodgepole pine habitats. Idaho Partners in Flight did not identify any high priority species that use 

lodgepole pine forests as their primary breeding habitat, but this is likely an artifact of the data collected. 

Those species that are thought or known to occur in the project area and are identified as high priority 

species by Idaho Partners in Flight are listed in Table 3.7.22 by primary breeding habitat. 

Table 3.7.22 Idaho Partners in Flight High Priority Species Potentially Occurring in the Project and 

Analysis Area 

Habitat Type Species

High-elevation Mixed Conifer Three-toed woodpecker (moderate conservation priority), olive-sided 

flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher 

Lodgepole Pine Ruffed grouse, black-backed woodpecker, varied thrush 

Low-elevation Mixed Conifer Sharp-shinned hawk, northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, 

brown creeper, varied thrush, Townsend’s warbler, western tanager 

Ponderosa Pine Flammulated owl, white-headed woodpecker 

Mountain Brush Lazuli bunting (moderate conservation priority) 

Grassland Western meadowlark 

Non-Riverine Wetlands

(Marshes, Lakes, Ponds) 

Cinnamon teal, redhead, sandhille crane, killdeer, American avocet 

Riparian Rufous hummingbird, willow flycatcher, black-billed magpie, 

American dipper, yellow warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

244

Neotropical migrant songbirds utilize coniferous forest habitats of the U.S. during the summer breeding 

season, but migrate to southern latitudes to spend winters as far south as Mexico and South America. 

Tropical deforestation and other environmental effects related to wintering grounds are thought to be 

largely responsible for declines in some Neotropical migrant species that summer in forests of the 

Eastern U.S. 

Fragmentation of nesting habitat is also theorized to increase rates of migrant bird nest predation and 

brood parasitism by other species. Small, isolated forest patches, particularly in forests of the eastern U.S. 

are considered at greatest risk. In contrast, natural fire regimes and topographic diversity in the western 

U.S. combined in the past to produce a temporally dynamic, naturally fragmented landscape compared 

with the previously extensive and relatively homogenous eastern deciduous forests. Timber harvest and 

fire suppression activity have nevertheless altered the natural landscape of western forests (Dobkin, 

1994).

Despite these changes, Neotropical migrant bird populations in the western U.S. are recognized as faring 

better than eastern North American populations. A comprehensive review of Breeding Bird Survey data 

from 1966–85 found that Western Neotropical migrants as a group were not declining overall. However, 

the review found evidence of widespread declines among 19 songbird species of native grassland and 

shrub steppe habitats (Dobkin, 1994). None of these habitats are represented within the Eastside Project 

analysis area. 

A three-year study by the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program (Hutto 

and Young, 1999:69), concluded that some landbird species are relatively restricted in their habitat 

distribution to only one or two naturally occurring cover types that are themselves restricted in spatial 

content, or at least less extensive than they were historically. Of the potential cover types in the Eastside 

Project area, providing adequate amounts of the following were considered important to maintaining 

neotropical migrant bird population diversity and viability in the long term: 

1. Post fire standing dead forests; 

2. Relative uncut older forest; and 

3. Riparian environments 

Within the Eastside Project area, riparian areas (RHCAs) would receive protection from harvest through 

the application of PACFISH standards designed for fish habitat protection (PACFISH). An abundance of 

uncut standing forest acreage will be retained after the project (regardless of alternative), as potential 

future post-fire standing dead forest. 

Environmental Effects 

Noxious weeds, road decommissioning, watershed restoration actions, and post-harvest slash treatments 

using fire are not expected to impact Neotropical migratory birds or their habitats considerably, regardless 

of alternative. The removal of dead, dying, and green trees would remove foraging and nesting sites and 

would constitute habitat losses. The net effects of harvest on migratory birds would be relatively minor 

within the context of each alternative and landscape acres under beetle attack. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Overall, this alternative would leave bird habitats across the project area to continue with relatively 

natural processes. Areas with heavy tree mortality and blowdown would provide structural diversity, 

downfall trees, and a few long-standing snags. As beetle-killed trees fall to the ground, downed logs and 

shading from snags could delay regeneration in those stands with particularly heavy mortality. The 

probability of more severe wildfire would increase, particularly in areas with heavy fuel loads and in 

adjacent stands. Mature mixed conifer, subalpine fir, and grand fir forests could potentially be lost in fire 

event, as could areas of old growth. Live vegetation that provides cover, foraging, and nesting habitat 

could be reduced across the project area. Post-fire, there would be an initial shift in species composition 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

245

to invader species and those adapted to early successional communities. Within time, there would be a 

gradual return of those species adapted to mid-seral, mature, and late successional forests. Whether these 

effects would extend outside the project or analysis area is uncertain. 

Watershed improvement projects would not be implemented under this alternative. Riparian forest and 

shrub environments are important for a variety of bird species, and the current lack of large woody debris 

and streamside shade/shrub could be diminishing the habitat quality of these areas for birds. As 

succession continues, large woody debris would be expected to fall into streams and riparian areas and 

stream shading should increase. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives would alter migratory bird habitat through the direct removal of nesting and/or 

foraging habitat (trees) by various levels of timber harvest. Timber harvest would create openings and 

edges that could be used by a variety of bird species. Prescribed fire, natural regeneration and/or seed 

planting, and other silvicultural prescriptions could accelerate regeneration of canopy cover in harvest 

units. By leaving large, wind-firm live trees and snags, and pockets of down wood, feeding and nesting 

habitats for songbirds could be maintained. By reducing fuel loads and creating openings across the 

landscape, the risk of stand-replacing fire would diminish locally. 

Of the harvest treatments in the Eastside Project, approximately 80% would be considered relatively 

intense regeneration harvests. The remaining harvests would be variations of partial-cut or thinning aimed 

at removing lodgepole and other components but favoring retention and perpetuation of fire-adapted 

species. Each harvest type will change habitat resulting in habitat reductions or habitat enhancements, 

depending on the bird species considered. Some Neotropical migrants will be harmed to some measure, 

while others will benefit. Harvested units that remove virtually all canopy and tree boles typically leave 

no residual nesting habitat for most species, but often create openings and herbaceous ground cover used 

by aerial insect foraging species. Impacts of partial cut harvesting on Neotropical migratory birds in 

conifer forests of the Northern Rockies in one study (Young and Hutto, 2002), found that 5 bird species 

(brown creeper, winter wren, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, and Townsend’s warbler), were 

more abundant in uncut forest stands in at least one year, and 15 species were more abundant in partially 

cut stands. Many of the bird species that were more abundant in the partial-cut stands, such as the hairy 

woodpecker, mountain chickadee, yellow-rumped warbler, and western tanager, are open-forest species 

that might be expected to be more common in thinned conifer forests than anywhere else. In the body of 

the referenced study, concern was expressed that brown-headed cowbirds are much more likely to occur 

in partially cut than in uncut forests and the presence of this nest parasite may create unsuitable 

environments for other nesting birds. 

Few studies have examined habitat and landscape factors affecting the distribution of Brown-headed 

cowbirds, a nest-parasitic native bird. Using data from a region-wide monitoring program conducted 

across the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Region (including the Nez Perce National Forest), Young and 

Hutto (1999) concluded that the presence of clearcuts does not draw cowbirds into forested regions. The 

density of potential host species (cattle or other livestock) was one of the most important local-scale 

correlates of cowbird presence. In this study, cowbirds were so strongly associated with proximity of 

agricultural areas that the authors concluded that many areas of the forested mountains are probably still 

safe from parasitism pressure. 

Watershed improvement projects that improve overall water quality would benefit many Neotropical and 

other migratory birds. No timber harvest or salvage is planned in RHCAs, so these habitats would remain 

available to birds. Similarly, seeps, springs, and wet areas would be buffered with no timber harvest, 

leaving these areas intact for songbirds. 

Timber removal would result in the potential loss of nesting and foraging habitat currently being used by 

a variety of Neotropical and other migratory bird species. Given the status of the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic in the project area, many nesting and foraging opportunities would continue to exist. Individual 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

246

birds or local populations could be impacted by timber cutting should harvest occur during the breeding 

season. Indirect effects would be the temporary displacement of individuals or potential losses of nests 

and/or young of some birds in those areas where concentrated mechanical and/or human activities are 

occurring in order to implement the prescribed treatment and for road construction or decommissioning. 

This displacement is expected to last as long as the disturbance, after which affected individuals would 

resume use of the area(s) affected. These effects would not be of sufficient magnitude to risk loss of any 

individual bird species in the local landscape because harvested acres would be only a very small 

percentage of the forested area within the analysis area. 

Snag retention would meet or exceed guidelines, and no old growth stands would be harvested. 

Any existing old growth would not experience direct impacts from harvest as presented in the action 

alternatives. Some species that utilize old growth for nesting would utilize mature or large tree stands, and 

would experience a slight loss of nesting habitat from action alternatives. Indirect reductions in fuels and 

intermediate aged stands at moderate levels would occur. Unharvested stands with lodgepole pine that is 

in the process of dying would be relatively poor nesting habitat for some Neotropical migrant birds, 

because of declining live canopy cover. A review of ground and shrub-level nesting birds from the USDA 

Forest Service’s Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program (Hutto, 1995), was conducted by the 

Forest Service on a project that included forest stand treatments adjacent to the Eastside Project (USDAFS, 2005a). Prescription fire applied to reduce post-harvest slash, if applied during the spring nesting 

period, would potentially impact nests of only 2 species (MacGillivray’s warbler and Dark-eyed junco) of 

the approximately 35 bird species documented to inhabit the lodgepole pine and mixed-conifer cover 

types in the project area (USDA-FS, 2005a). Both species inhabit a wide variety of forest cover types, and 

monitoring of spring burns on the Forest to date has not found evidence of such losses. In the long term, 

thinning and harvest treatments will tend to create more nesting habitat conditions suitable for these birds. 

It is recognized that treatments would also occur in areas not dominated by lodgepole pine. 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for neo-tropical migrants is the American River watershed. 

Past and present actions have impacted or altered migratory bird habitat in the project area and 

surrounding watersheds. These actions include grazing, dredging, mining, firewood cutting, timber 

harvest, fire suppression, road construction and maintenance, winter trail grooming, dispersed and 

developed recreation, administrative facilities maintenance, and home site construction. Timber harvest 

has added successional diversity across an otherwise rather homogeneous landscape that has grown out of 

60 years of fire suppression. Patch sizes are smaller and snags, down wood, and legacy trees are fewer 

than in a fire-impacted landscape. All of these past and present effects have contributed to the current 

species distribution and population sizes of Neotropical and other migratory birds. 

Action alternatives, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would also 

affect bird species by potentially removing important foraging and nesting habitat and through the 

creation of early successional and/or thinned areas that might benefit certain bird species. The removal of 

dead, dying, and green trees would remove foraging and nesting sites and would constitute habitat losses, 

but the extent of the impacts will be limited in context of each alternative due to limited areas involved. 

Woodpecker populations and secondary cavity-nesters in particular are likely to be affected by the 

removal of dead and dying trees and fuel reduction projects. Harvests that occur during the nesting period 

would increase the likelihood of direct mortality to nestlings and could disturb mating and nesting 

behaviors.

The action alternatives, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

including fire exclusion in the overall landscape, will cumulatively add some fragmentation effects to the 

forested landscape but the net impacts to bird species would be relatively minor, given historical impacts 

of fire regimes, overall insect-driven disturbance, and tree death throughout the analysis area. At the 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

247

project and watershed level, the cumulative effects of the proposed project may affect individuals or local 

populations of some bird species. 

3.7.6 Wildlife Habitat Associations and Guilds

Common to All Alternatives 

Cumulative effects analyses for wildlife species and habitats are summarized for habitat 

fragmentation/connectivity, snags and large down wood, and four generalized species habitat guilds based 

on predominant habitat associations or dependency relationships, (i.e., riparian/aquatic dependent, 

fire/early seral dependent, late seral/old-growth associated, and security dependent). Some species may 

align with more than one guild. Cumulative effects take into account the Eastside Project as well as past, 

present, and potentially foreseeable future actions (see complete listing referenced in Table 3.0.1). 

Table 3.7.23 Wildlife Habitat Associations and Guilds

Habitat Associations and Guilds Wildlife Species–Dependency Associations 

Habitat Fragmentation and 

Connectivity 

All species 

Snags and Large Down Wood black-backed woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker 

Riparian/Aquatic Dependent western toad, common garter snake, Idaho giant salamander, 

bald eagle

Fire/Early Seral Dependent lynx, wolf, bald eagle, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided 

flycatcher 

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated northern goshawk, Williamson’s sapsucker, fisher, Shiras 

moose, Neotropical migrant birds 

Security Dependent wolverine, elk, fisher 

Collectively, all cumulative impacts would be scattered across the entire project area and the American 

River watershed, which is located within a much larger landscape. Past harvesting and fire effects patterns 

have impacted habitats with overall cumulative habitat fragmentation, changes in patch size and 

dynamics, increased roading and related human disturbance impacts, increased edge effects, and 

reductions in old growth habitat abundance as illustrated and referenced in the South Fork Clearwater 

River Landscape Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a). Within this larger perspective for the entire watershed, 

the cumulative effects, when combined with Alternatives A, B, C, or D, would not be expected to yield 

adverse effects on any species or habitats that would threaten the population viability of any species 

discussed in Section 3.7 (Wildlife). 

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity

Fragmentation and connectivity of wildlife habitats can be viewed as positive and negative. Habitats have 

historically been fragmented by wildfire, insect and disease and other disturbance processes. These can be 

viewed as positive influences on the landscape, providing and maintaining a diversity of wildlife habitats. 

However, fragmentation of habitats having long fire intervals and large patch sizes may negatively 

influence the wildlife species preferring large patches of undisturbed habitats. 

Habitat connectivity can have positive and negative considerations. Connectivity is important for some 

wildlife species to move on the landscape. However, habitats that have not been connected due to fire 

history, natural barriers, etc. that are allowed to become connected (through fire exclusion for example) 

may allow wildlife, plants, insects and disease to interact in negative ways. Invasive wildlife species and 

noxious weeds increase their ranges by using these artificial connections on the landscape. These 

connections may influence how insects and disease interact with and affect habitats. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

248

Native wildlife species have adapted to a landscape with a high degree of fragmentation, abundant edge 

and a variety of patch sizes, the result of natural processes and topography. This situation within the upper 

South Fork Clearwater River subbasin and American River drainage landscapes has not been appreciably 

altered by any past actions on the landscape except for perhaps high volume road systems and fire 

exclusion or in heavily developed areas. Highway 14 parallels the South Fork Clearwater River and lower 

American River, and other roads and trail open for motorized use affect wildlife habitat use within the 

analysis area. Other than these high volume roads, fire exclusion has created the greatest effects by 

allowing development of dense multi-canopied forests that have created conditions not preferred by 

species such as goshawks and flammulated owls. Effects of fragmentation on wildlife dispersal or 

movement between various habitat elements (water, forage, winter/summer range, breeding areas) have 

not affected the viability of any wildlife species within the American River analysis area (USDA-FS, 

2005a).

Snags and Large Down Wood

Snags, broken-topped live trees, downed logs, and other woody material are required by a wide variety of 

species for nesting, denning, roosting, perching, breeding, and cover. The number, species, size, and 

distribution of available snags strongly affect snag-dependent wildlife (Bull et al., 1997). Although 

smaller creatures can use many sizes of dead trees, larger birds and mammals require larger snags and 

down logs. In the American River area, large western larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir snags are 

most valuable. 

Downed trees and other woody material are also important for many species (Bull, 2002). Downed logs 

and stumps provide resting and denning for species hunting below the snow in winter (Buskirk and 

Ruggiero, 1994) and are used as travel cover. Pine marten and lynx dens are associated with down logs. 

Amphibians and reptiles use large woody debris for shelter and breeding sites (Bull et al., 1997). Down 

wood also provides habitat for insects and other invertebrates that form an important forage base for 

larger species. Large diameter logs provide long-term habitat structures. 

The current mountain pine beetle epidemic has killed up to 50–60% of the lodgepole pine trees in 

portions of the American River watershed. The mountain pine beetle generally kills trees six inches in 

diameter at breast height and larger and prefers lodgepole pine trees. At epidemic levels, the beetle may 

affect smaller trees and other tree species. This is evident in the American River drainage. 

There are abundant small to medium sized lodgepole pine snags in the American River drainage. 

Currently 15% of the area is lodgepole pine dominated habitats in the American River watershed. 

Additionally, 25–40% of the area is mixed conifer habitats with lodgepole pine as a component (USDAFS, 2005a). Most of these areas have been affected by the mountain pine beetle. Surrounding watersheds 

have also been affected by the epidemic. Lodgepole pine snags are not preferred by many wildlife 

species, possibly because of small diameter and in many cases in American River lodgepole pine trees 

form a subdominant tree layer under larger diameter and taller grand-fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and 

western larch, all of which are preferred snag species over lodgepole pine. 

Riparian and Aquatic Associated Species

The stream channel in the American River watershed are predominately low to moderate gradient B and 

C channel types, with higher gradient channels in the mountain uplands. The American River watershed 

has a large amount of mid to upper elevation alluvial valleys, and these features are spread more evenly 

throughout the watershed than is typical of the subbasin. The lower to mid reaches of the larger streams 

are composed predominately of C channel types. 

The riparian plant communities within the analysis area are comprised of early seral to late seral plant 

communities. The riparian vegetation includes overstory trees of grand fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole 

pine, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir. Common understory shrubs include alder, Drummond’s willow, red-
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

249

osier dogwood. Common herbaceous plants include arrowleaf groundsel, twisted stalk, blue joint, 

mountain brome, redtop, reed canary grass, water sedge, small-fruited bulrush. Typical riparian plant 

communities include conifer dominated overstory such as grand fir and Engelmann spruce, with 

understory shrubs, sedges/grasses, and forbs. Large sedge meadows are found in the lower Elk Creek 

drainage, and stringer sedge meadows, and shrub/sedge complexes also occur along lower gradient 

streams. 

Most of the larger streams and riparian areas have been impacted to varying degrees, primarily by dredge 

mining, roads, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and home construction. These disturbed riparian habitats 

have also been infested by nonnative vegetation. Dredge mining has left some stream reaches lacking in 

trees and shrubs, and natural re-vegetation/succession has been curtailed and recovery has been slow. 

Riparian habitats provide an important habitat or critical habitat component for most wildlife species. 

These areas provide important riparian/aquatic habitats for dependent species such as amphibians. 

Riparian habitat reserves also provide important old growth or potential old growth stands. Riparian 

corridors also provide connectivity and travel corridors for a variety of wildlife. 

Fire/Early Seral and Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated Species

In the American River watershed approximately 15% has had historic timber harvest activity, the FS 

(USDA-FS, 2005a) documented that 83 percent of historical was done during the 1950s–1980s, with the 

remaining 17 percent being done during the 1990s–current time. The effects have impacted late seral/old 

growth species and security dependent species the most; however many intermediate-aged stands have 

since moved into late-seral or old growth conditions as well. Some species such as early seral associates, 

have in fact, benefited substantially from the harvests. Other species guilds were impacted moderately. 

The fire history of the American River watershed added further to past impacts. Historical fire-related 

impacts in both drainages occurred before the 1950’s when most harvest impacts began. Fire impacts in 

the American River watershed added over 59,000 acres of disturbance since 1878, with highest impact 

years being 1889 (36 percent of all acres), 1910 (18 percent of all acres), and 1919 (41 percent of all 

acres). Cumulatively, these impacts resulted in greatest negative effects for late seral/old growth 

associated and security-dependent species, with moderate or lesser effects on ponderosa pine dependent, 

aquatic. Fire/early seral–dependent species subsequently benefited from these harvest and fire 

disturbances.

The project area and proposed Eastside Project treatments occur in VRU 6, which comprises 36,340 acres 

and 62 percent of the American River watershed. Table 3.7.24 summarizes natural/historic disturbance 

regimes by size class for this VRU and existing conditions. 

Table 3.7.24 VRU 6 Natural/Historic and Existing Conditions in the American River Drainage

Size Class 

Natural/Historic

Disturbance 

Regimes1

Available Size Class Data 

Used For Analysis 

Alt A 

Current Acres 

(%) 

Non-Forest 5–10% Non-Forest

& Shrub Dominated 3,005 (8.6%) 

Seedling/Sapling 

(<5 inch dbh) 10–30% Seedling/Sapling 

(<5 inch dbh) 10 (<0.5%) 

Pole (5–9 inch dbh) and Small Tree (5–9.9 inch dbh) 4,178 (12%) 

Small Tree (9–14 inch dbh) 

30–45% Medium Trees 

(10–14.9 inch dbh) 11,988 (34.4%) 

Medium Tree 

14–21 inch dbh 20–40% Large(15+ inch dbh) 15,659 (44.9%) 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

250

Size Class 

Natural/Historic

Disturbance 

Regimes1

Available Size Class Data 

Used For Analysis 

Alt A 

Current Acres 

(%) 

Large Tree 

>21 inch dbh 5–20% 

1

Source–South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment Volume 1–page 96 (USDA-FS, 1998a)

The FS completed a cumulative effects analysis of large tree patch statistics and changes in large tree 

stand retention for the American and Crooked River Project (USDA-FS, 2005a). It includes the American 

River watershed and was done roughly on summary of decadal intervals (1948, 1970, 1990, 2004). Large 

tree stands were identified through aerial photo interpretation techniques using approximations of 10–15 

trees per acre in the 18–21 inch size classes, so this assessment was of moderate accuracy. Tracking 

cumulative changes by individual project became impossible since most project development impacts 

spanned time intervals up to 10 years and multiple project impacts sometimes overlapped one another. A 

summary of cumulative changes in patch size/shape statistics changes over time are listed below in Table 

3.7.25. 

Table 3.7.25 Average Patch Size and Shape of Large Trees1

Year Average Patch Size Patch Shape 

(1.00=perfect circle) 

1948 219.09 1.97 

1970 168.54 1.97 

1990 160.78 2.08 

2004 158.38 2.11 

1

Source: USDA-FS, 2005a 

Patch shape definition equals the perimeter to area ratio. A Number higher than 1.00 indicate increased 

edge effects and fragmentation. As shown by the above table, as the patch size of large trees decreases, 

edge increases. 

Security Dependent Species 

Cumulative effects of past incremental road development in the analysis area include variable progressive 

increases in wildlife effects such as direct habitat loss, disturbance, displacement, vehicular-induced and 

human-induced direct and indirect mortalities, increased habitat fragmentation, noxious weed spread, and 

other similar effects. Existing and planned road decommissioning and access restrictions have mitigated 

some negative effects over time. The analysis of progressive road-density related effects on wildlife 

through time are displayed by elk summer habitat analysis conducted for the Eastside Project EAU (see 

previous Table 3.7.18). The Eastside Project EAU includes BLM and private lands and the existing EHE 

is 40%. The primary impact on EHE results from existing roads open to motorized use, specifically 

primary and secondary roads that go through areas with no hiding or security cover for elk. The actions 

alternatives would result in a long term 36% to 37% EHE. Adjacent EAUs on NPNF lands do not include 

private or BLM lands. They have existing EHE ranges of 77% to 84%. After implementation of the 

preferred alternative for the American and Crooked River Project (USDA-FS, 2005a), the long term EHE 

for the NPNF EAUs would range from 80% to 92% (see Table 3.7.19). 

In most areas 60 to 80 percent of the total roads had been developed by the mid-1980s. At this time, 

principally due to concerns over EHE, road closure and access restriction programs had begun to be 

implemented to reduce impacts on elk behavior. Although these mitigations have reduced vehicular and 

human disturbances, vulnerability to hunting, and similar impacts on other wildlife, some impacts on 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

251

habitats and species still remain in place. Alternative A would not decommission any roads, thus existing 

cumulative impacts would remain. 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity–The mountain pine beetle would continue affecting wildlife 

habitats, especially at the American River watershed scale and the South Fork Clearwater River Sub-basin 

scale. Canopy gaps in mixed conifer habitat would create areas where shrubs, forbs, and grasses would 

respond to available sunlight and moisture. Following this response, tree regeneration (primarily shade 

tolerant species such as grand fir and Douglas-fir) would occur. Areas dominated by lodgepole pine 

would have larger openings, but the predicted cycle of forage development followed by tree regeneration 

would be the same. 

Snags and Large Down Wood–No new activities are proposed with this alternative. Many snags would 

be available for wildlife use. Snags used for nesting would remain at existing levels. Down wood would 

be abundant, providing high quality habitat for pine marten and fisher in areas of mixed conifer habitats. 

Abundant down large wood would favor small mammal populations. Small mammals are important prey 

species for forest carnivores. 

Snag habitat would continue to be affected by natural events such as wind and fire. Insects and disease 

would continue functioning in the area. Refer to Section 3.3 (Vegetation) for more information on insects 

and disease. Wildfire would provide post-fire snag habitats for species like the black-backed woodpecker, 

but also eliminates live tree habitats important to many wildlife species, particularly old growth 

associated species. The size of such an event would depend on fire suppression effectiveness and weather 

conditions. Whether these effects would extend outside the project or analysis area is uncertain. 

In the absence of windstorms or wildland fire, many areas dominated by dead and dying trees would 

gradually deteriorate, with few trees or snags standing after 10–50 years. In some of the mixed conifer 

areas large western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir would provide green trees to provide 

long-term snag habitat. In mixed conifer areas containing western larch and ponderosa pine, shading from 

down logs, standing snags, and live canopy cover would be a disadvantage to natural regeneration of 

these preferred species. Grand fir and lodgepole pine would regenerate. 

Access management affects snag habitat availability due to firewood cutting, often within 200 feet along 

open roads. Although there is abundant firewood gathering opportunity in American River for lodgepole 

pine, many people prefer Douglas-fir and western larch snags for firewood. This alternative does not 

change current access management. 

As forest succession and fire suppression occur in overstocked stands, trees become more susceptible to 

attack from insects and disease. This increases the amount of resources available to wildlife species. As 

the insect and disease outbreak advances, standing and down dead material would increase which in turn 

increases the risk of stand-replacing fires. If a fire event were to occur, wood-boring beetle populations 

would spike possibly causing a coincident spike in some wildlife species. Without a fire event, the insect 

outbreak would eventually peak and subside. Grand fir and other more shade tolerant species that 

currently exist in the understory of stands with dead and dying trees would continue to grow, perhaps 

eventually causing the long-term loss of the early seral tree species (e.g., lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, 

and western larch). The risk of losing early-seral tree species does not seem as high as the risk of standreplacing fires in the American River watershed. Under the “no action” alternative, the existing level of 

patchiness in the watershed would persist until a stand-replacing fire or other management action(s) take 

place.

Riparian/Aquatic Dependent–This alternative would likely have no measurable cumulative impacts on 

habitats or species. Existing conditions and trends would be expected to continue for riparian habitats. 

Some dredge mined areas would continue a slow rate of recovery and successional advancement along 

some stream reaches. As some riparian stands mature and decline with their associated fuel-buildups, 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

252

more severe localized fire risks may occur. Such risks may increase the chances of mortality to riparian 

dependent species, particularly species that are not so mobile (e.g., salamanders, frogs, western toad) and 

habitat losses due to wildfires, particularly if such fires affected large percentages of a drainage, and 

associated riparian and aquatic habitats. Whether these effects would extend outside the project or 

analysis area is uncertain. 

Fire/Early Seral Dependent–This alternative would allow cumulative fuel-loading to occur unabated. 

Cumulative effects would initially be harmful to some species because fire would be discouraged initially, 

but eventually the accumulations and continuity of fuels may encourage larger acreages to burn and 

regenerate which would result in outcomes beneficial for most fire/early seral species to mixed degrees. 

Whether these effects would extend outside the project or analysis area is uncertain. Some of these 

species also require interspersions of live cover with early seral habitat, so benefits to some species would 

be limited. Due to the magnitude and landscape acreages affected by the mountain pine beetle 

infestations, past and future harvests in the analysis area and on BLM and private lands in the area would 

likely have limited influence on overall effects to most of these species. 

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated–This alternative would initially add no direct impacts on late seral 

or old growth habitats initially protecting habitat integrity, but would allow highest levels of cumulative 

fuel-loading to occur. Cumulative effects would include uncertain future risks for fire losses of late seral 

and old growth habitats in patterns and patch sizes at scales that may be outside historical norms. The 

effects may potentially be negative for some species in some places. Whether these effects would extend 

outside the project or analysis area is uncertain. 

Security Dependent–This alternative would have no measurable cumulative impacts on critical habitats 

for species requiring remote, undeveloped areas, but would allow moderately high open road densities, 

access, and human intrusion effects in some portions of the analysis area. Current risk levels of wildlife 

disturbance, displacement and potential mortality would remain unchanged in developed areas. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity–Most of the habitats in the American River watershed would 

respond similarly to what is described under Alternative A above. In parts of the American River 

watershed, openings are currently being created as lodgepole pine trees succumb to the mountain pine 

beetle. The primary differences between habitat treatment and no habitat treatment are in terms of the 

timing of when openings would be created and the amount of vertical and horizontal habitat structure. 

Treatments would cause openings sooner than allowing the openings to occur through natural attrition of 

the dead lodgepole. The long-term result is similar, openings in forest canopy from loss of lodgepole pine 

would occur under all alternatives, including the no action alternative. Fuels reduction activities would 

alter the amount of horizontal and vertical habitat structure or habitat complexity in treated areas verses 

untreated areas. 

Fragmentation of habitats used by small bodied, relatively immobile, and relatively small home range 

species may be affected by the proposed actions in treatment areas. Affects to mobile, wide-ranging 

species would be less affected. Species using complex vertical and horizontal habitat structure would 

experience simplification of habitat in treated areas. This “simplification” would be proportional to the 

total acre treated, with Alternatives B treating the most acreage, Alternative C treating slightly less, and 

Alternative D treating the least. 

All action alternatives identify road decommissioning and riparian restoration actions which would 

indirectly and directly result in small levels of reduction in habitat fragmentation and improve 

connectivity. Such actions would allow for less potential for disturbance in localized areas with a 

reduction in motorized vehicle use and reduction in “open” road densities. Riparian area restoration 

would allow for long term improvements to riparian corridors which are utilized for travel and 

connectivity between suitable habitats for a large number of wildlife species. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

253

Snags and Large Down Wood–Most of the habitats in American River watershed would respond 

similarly to what is described under Alternative A above. In parts of the American River watershed, 

openings are currently being created as lodgepole pine trees succumb to the mountain pine beetle. The 

primary differences between habitat treatment and no habitat treatment are in terms of the timing of when 

openings would be created and the amount of vertical and horizontal habitat structure. Treatments would 

cause openings sooner than allowing the openings to occur through natural attrition of the dead lodgepole. 

The long-term result is similar, openings in forest canopy from loss of lodgepole pine would occur under 

all alternatives, including the no action alternative. Fuels reduction activities would alter the amount of 

horizontal and vertical habitat structure or habitat complexity in treated areas verses untreated areas. 

Treatments that include green and dead tree harvest to improve forest health, reduce the incidence of 

insects and disease, or reduced fuel buildup would reduce habitat for many snag dependent species. Not 

only would the habitat they are using be modified, it would also increase the patchiness of the remaining 

habitat.

Numbers of snags are expected to decrease with the action alternatives as snags would be lost as hazard 

trees and through damage by logging operations. Many snags felled during harvest activities for safety 

reasons are often ones in an advanced state of decay. Felling these snags can also provide down woody 

material and subsequent nesting, resting, cover, and foraging areas for a variety of wildlife species. Some 

snags will be created from the burning of harvesting slash where fuel loads are concentrated. Snags can 

also be created during harvest activities by trees being damaged or the tops snapping off. However, more 

snags are generally lost than created during harvest operations when compared to fire. It is important that 

sufficient amounts and size classes of snags are left in clumps or as individuals to meet the needs of snag 

dependent wildlife species and to add diversity to the landscape. 

Public firewood gathering and reduction of snags potentially used for roosting can be expected to occur 

along roads. However, this is not expected to result in the loss of species viability for snag dependent 

species since snags would still be present in unmanaged stands away from roads. In addition, with the 

obliteration of existing roads, the impacts of snag losses along roads would be lessened. 

Alternative D would modify the fewest acres of snag habitat and alternative B would modify the greatest 

acreage. Alternative C would modify slightly less than Alternative B, and is very similar. Standards for 

snag retention would be met or exceeded by implementing the snag management protocol, which is being 

incorporated into the silvicultural prescriptions.

Riparian/Aquatic Dependent–Action alternatives would protect moist riparian-zone habitats used for 

feeding, resting, and/or reproduction, but watershed restoration actions would initially add modest levels 

of sediment to streams impacted by past activities in the drainages, elevating impacts related to sediment 

and water quality. The effects would be relatively minimal in terms of impacts to aquatic wildlife species 

and their habitats. 

Fire/Early Seral Dependent–Action alternatives, along with past and planned future harvests, would 

remove relatively moderate acreage amounts of habitat components (standing dead trees) deemed 

important to feeding and nesting for at least one species. For black-backed woodpecker, the overall 

effects would be minimal given the overall acreage now dead or dying. Action alternatives would have 

the initial effect of potentially reducing local fire intensity risks where fuels are removed, resulting in 

uncertain levels of both positive and negative effects to various species of this guild. Overall, habitat 

quality would improve for some early seral dependent species such as the olive-sided flycatcher under all 

action alternatives. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would create early seral habitat, with Alternative B creating the 

most seedling/sapling and small tree stands (1,074 acres), followed by Alternative C (1,049 acres), and 

Alternative D (965 acres). Stand treatments are primarily occurring in mid-age stands, followed to a lesser 

extent in large tree stands (mature stands). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

254

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated–Action alternatives would protect all existing old growth stands. 

Future risks of late seral and old growth habitat losses to fire would remain except possibly within or near 

harvested sites. 

The majority of stands treated under all action alternatives are mid-aged stands. Approximately 15 

percent of the mid-aged stands are dominant lodgepole pine stands within the American River watershed, 

and are primarily dead or dying trees. These lodgepole pine stands do not provide late seral or old growth 

habitat.

Security Dependent–All action alternatives identify a limited amount of roads proposed for 

decommissioning. Alternative C would have the highest net amount of roads proposed for 

decommissioning at 1.9 miles, followed by Alternative B (1.3 miles), and Alternative D (0.9 mile). 

New permanent road construction is proposed under action alternatives B, C and D. Relocation of two 

segments of road out of the riparian area (American River subdivision road), would result in 

approximately 0.6 mile of new road in a toeslope area, while 0.53 mile of riparian road would be 

decommissioned under Alternatives B and C. A new road totaling 0.6 mile and a vehicle bridge across 

American River would be constructed under alternatives C and D. This road would provide additional 

access from the north for residents living along American River in a subdivision. 

Although temporary road construction would occur in order to access some harvest units, these temporary 

roads would be decommissioned and would not contribute to long-term motorized access and security 

reduction. Temporary roads would be closed (when not being used for project implementation) to public 

motorized vehicle use, reducing potential human impacts. Short term disturbance and displacement to 

wildlife would occur during project implementation and associated use of temporary roads. Alternative B 

has the highest amount of proposed temporary roads (15.1 miles), followed by Alternative D (10.7 miles), 

and Alternative C has the least amount (10.5 miles). 

All action alternatives identify the conversion of roads to ATV trails, level of motorized use would 

decrease slightly on these primitive roads. However, such would still be open to ATV use. Alternative D 

identifies 2.6 mile of road would be converted to ATV trails, followed by Alternative B and C, which 

would be similar (1.3 miles). 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for habitat guilds and associations is the American River watershed. 

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity–The cumulative effects of proposed actions under all action 

alternatives would not be beyond the scope of what is currently occurring as a result of the mountain pine 

beetle epidemic. The epidemic has affected large areas in the in the South Fork Clearwater Sub-basin and 

approximately 9,000 acres (15%) in the American River watershed. Proposed Eastside Project alternatives 

would reduce fuels on 2.0 to 2.2 percent of American River watershed, approximately 61% to 62% 

percent of alternative treatment stands have a dominant cover type of lodgepole pine and have already 

been affected by the mountain pine beetle. Cumulatively, the FS Crooked and American River project 

would reduce fuels on an additional 2.0 percent of the American River watershed. Due to the relative 

proportion of proposed treatments compared to the amount of habitat modified by the mountain pine 

beetle, the long-term habitat modifications resulting from the epidemic are not appreciably different than 

the long-term habitat modifications in action alternatives. 

The FS American and Crooked River Project selected alternative identifies that 8.41 miles of road would 

be decommissioned within the American River watershed. The BLM Eastside Project action alternatives 

identify a net total (minus new permanent roads) of 0.9 to 1.9 miles of road would be decommissioned. 

The BLM and Framing Our Community are cooperatively proposing to decommission approximately 1.0 

mile of BLM road in the Buffalo Gulch watershed, a tributary drainage in the Lower American River. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

254

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated–Action alternatives would protect all existing old growth stands. 

Future risks of late seral and old growth habitat losses to fire would remain except possibly within or near 

harvested sites. 

The majority of stands treated under all action alternatives are mid-aged stands. Approximately 15 

percent of the mid-aged stands are dominant lodgepole pine stands within the American River watershed, 

and are primarily dead or dying trees. These lodgepole pine stands do not provide late seral or old growth 

habitat.

Security Dependent–All action alternatives identify a limited amount of roads proposed for 

decommissioning. Alternative C would have the highest net amount of roads proposed for 

decommissioning at 1.9 miles, followed by Alternative B (1.3 miles), and Alternative D (0.9 mile). 

New permanent road construction is proposed under action alternatives B, C and D. Relocation of two 

segments of road out of the riparian area (American River subdivision road), would result in 

approximately 0.6 mile of new road in a toeslope area, while 0.53 mile of riparian road would be 

decommissioned under Alternatives B and C. A new road totaling 0.6 mile and a vehicle bridge across 

American River would be constructed under alternatives C and D. This road would provide additional 

access from the north for residents living along American River in a subdivision. 

Although temporary road construction would occur in order to access some harvest units, these temporary 

roads would be decommissioned and would not contribute to long-term motorized access and security 

reduction. Temporary roads would be closed (when not being used for project implementation) to public 

motorized vehicle use, reducing potential human impacts. Short term disturbance and displacement to 

wildlife would occur during project implementation and associated use of temporary roads. Alternative B 

has the highest amount of proposed temporary roads (15.1 miles), followed by Alternative D (10.7 miles), 

and Alternative C has the least amount (10.5 miles). 

All action alternatives identify the conversion of roads to ATV trails, level of motorized use would 

decrease slightly on these primitive roads. However, such would still be open to ATV use. Alternative D 

identifies 2.6 mile of road would be converted to ATV trails, followed by Alternative B and C, which 

would be similar (1.3 miles). 

Cumulative Effects (includes foreseeable future actions) 

The cumulative effects analysis area for habitat guilds and associations is the American River watershed. 

Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity–The cumulative effects of proposed actions under all action 

alternatives would not be beyond the scope of what is currently occurring as a result of the mountain pine 

beetle epidemic. The epidemic has affected large areas in the in the South Fork Clearwater Sub-basin and 

approximately 9,000 acres (15%) in the American River watershed. Proposed Eastside Project alternatives 

would reduce fuels on 2.0 to 2.2 percent of American River watershed, approximately 61% to 62% 

percent of alternative treatment stands have a dominant cover type of lodgepole pine and have already 

been affected by the mountain pine beetle. Cumulatively, the FS Crooked and American River project 

would reduce fuels on an additional 2.0 percent of the American River watershed. Due to the relative 

proportion of proposed treatments compared to the amount of habitat modified by the mountain pine 

beetle, the long-term habitat modifications resulting from the epidemic are not appreciably different than 

the long-term habitat modifications in action alternatives. 

The FS American and Crooked River Project selected alternative identifies that 8.41 miles of road would 

be decommissioned within the American River watershed. The BLM Eastside Project action alternatives 

identify a net total (minus new permanent roads) of 0.9 to 1.9 miles of road would be decommissioned. 

The BLM and Framing Our Community are cooperatively proposing to decommission approximately 1.0 

mile of BLM road in the Buffalo Gulch watershed, a tributary drainage in the Lower American River. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

255

At the landscape level, inventoried NPNF roadless areas and wilderness areas remain available and 

function as habitat linkages/corridors at American River drainage and subbasin scales. Highway 14 would 

continue to alter habitat use along the South Fork Clearwater River. Action alternatives do not alter 

current use of these highways nor do they alter wildlife movements or habitat use to a degree that would 

alter existing mortality risk associated with these highways.

Snags and Large Down Wood–Throughout the West, densities of large-diameter snags (>21 inch dbh) 

have been reduced in roaded areas with a history of timber sales (Hann et al., 1997; Hessburg et al., 1999; 

Quigley et al., 1996). Fire suppression efforts, salvage of insect-infested trees, firewood harvest, and 

harvest of dead and dying lodgepole have reduced the habitat potential for species relying on dead and 

downed wood. 

Action alternatives continue the cycle of salvaging dead and dying lodgepole in response to insect 

activities in the American River drainage. The action alternatives would provide for long-term snag 

retention. Relative to the American River watershed, the activities proposed in the Eastside Project would 

likely be undetectable. 

Some actions would have minor or negligible effects on snags and downed wood habitat. These include 

precommercial thinning, tree planting, Christmas tree harvesting, noxious weed treatment, and soil 

restoration efforts. Road maintenance and the construction and maintenance of trails would cause some 

hazard trees to be felled and fallen trees to be cleared from travel ways. These effects would be 

cumulative to those discussed above and the effects of most of these past actions and events are described 

as part of the existing conditions described previously. 

Snags would continually be lost during harvest activities for safety reasons, as well as firewood cutting. 

Snags are also constantly being lost and created resulting from natural wildland fires and other natural 

disturbances. Some of these snags fall and provide much needed ground structure and habitat. With fire 

suppression and succession, the density of snags may have increased, but the size of the snags has 

decreased, which may not be beneficial to many wildlife species that depend on or prefer large-diameter 

snags and logs. 

Approximately 15 percent of the American River watershed has been harvested, including regeneration 

cuts or clear-cuts, with little provision for maintenance of soil wood or snags to recruit soil wood. Minor 

amounts of extensive snag patches are present on the landscape, except for small-diameter snags 

associated with recent lodgepole pine mortality. The current small dead trees benefit small woodpecker 

species and may provide some foraging opportunities, but are considered short-term because many are 

expected to fall in five years. 

Increased fuel loads from fire suppression and the current mountain pine beetle epidemic increase the 

chance of stand-replacing fires, which could remove acres of already existing snags across the landscape. 

Fires would also create additional snags. Other projects in or near the project area may also alter the 

amount and distribution of snags within the American River drainage and adjacent watersheds. 

The mountain pine beetle epidemic is creating many acres of snag habitat. However, the aforementioned 

projects will remove a majority of the high-risk trees and create areas practically devoid of snags or down 

wood within a given area, especially when the new units are adjacent to old units. 

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for many snag 

dependent species, which in turn affects population levels. Projects within and adjacent to American 

River watershed all target fuel loading and bug-infested trees in some capacity. Other ongoing activities 

such as post and pole gathering, firewood cutting, road maintenance, and fire suppression also affect 

habitats that could be utilized by wildlife species. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy 

landscape across the watershed, which has likely resulted in larger wildlife home ranges than would be 

the case in unlogged habitats. Larger home ranges affect the energy reserves of wildlife species as they 

must travel greater distances for their daily needs. Many past timber activities left few snags on the 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

256

landscape that could be utilized for foraging, nesting/resting, or drumming sites. At the project level, snag 

dependent wildlife populations could decline as a result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.

The natural pattern of beetle outbreaks has been altered through silvicultural and fire management 

practices. Silvicultural practices directed at maximizing wood production by harvesting trees before they 

are susceptible to bark beetle attacks and salvage logging of beetle-infested, fire-killed, and wind-killed 

trees reduced the occurrence of beetles in some areas. Fire management policies have lengthened fire 

return intervals and allowed more frequent occurrences of beetles. The effects of most of these past 

actions and events are reflected in the existing condition described in this document. At the level of any 

given wildlife species, impacts of the Eastside Project proposal and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in and around these watersheds appear negligible. 

Riparian/Aquatic Dependent–The “no action” alternative would have no cumulative effects on 

riparian/aquatic dependent species or its habitat cumulative to past harvest, roading, human disturbance, 

recreation, minerals or other activities. With continuation of other ongoing BLM and NPNF restoration 

actions within the watershed, improved management of riparian and aquatic habitats resulting from 

PACFISH (1995) and federal listing of fish within the watershed, continued long term improving riparian 

and aquatic trends would be expected to occur. 

Action alternatives would have localized direct and indirect cumulative beneficial effects on riparian and 

aquatic habitats which may be utilized by dependent species, in addition to those produced from past 

mining, roading, timber harvest, residential development, livestock grazing, recreation, public access, fire 

exclusion and other habitat impacts. 

Timber harvest and salvage logging, grazing, insect epidemics, fires, fire suppression, mining, and road 

construction and maintenance can cumulatively affect riparian/aquatic habitats and dependent species 

through soil compaction, changes in vegetative cover, altering stream channels, or by changing the 

quantity and quality of water flowing into wet meadows. Past harvest practices that involved removing 

forest vegetation along streams and wetlands left these sites vulnerable to hydrologic and vegetative 

changes. Although historical fires often burned riparian habitats at lower severity, advanced succession 

and increased fuel loading would increase risk for more severe fires within riparian habitats, which may 

affect dependent species habitats, water quality and quantity. Fire suppression has created denser forests, 

which tend to burn hotter, and hotter fires tend to be more destructive. Livestock grazing is likely to 

continue on NPNF and BLM allotments and on private lands. 

Fire/Early Seral Dependent–The “no action” alternative would in effect, have positive cumulative 

effects on post-fire and early seral dependent species habitat availability. Absence of fuel reduction and 

principally lodgepole pine harvest, would add cumulatively to overall risks of eventual fire spread, but 

potential maximization retention of habitat creation for wildlife such as black-backed woodpeckers would 

occur in the drainage. 

Action alternative treatments would cause openings sooner than allowing the openings to occur through 

natural attrition of the dead lodgepole. The long-term result is similar, openings in forest canopy from loss 

of lodgepole pine would occur under all alternatives, including the no action alternative. Fuels reduction 

activities would alter the amount of horizontal and vertical habitat structure or habitat complexity in 

treated areas verses untreated areas. 

Action alternatives would result in post-fire habitat losses; however, they would create early seral 

habitats. Such losses add moderately to cumulative losses of existing and potential future black-backed 

woodpecker habitat related to previous harvests, roading, and post-disturbance harvest projects as well as 

reasonably foreseeable harvests on private and nearby NPNF lands in the analysis area. While losses of 

existing and future post-fire habitat opportunities would result from this project, the loss would be 

relatively minor and inconsequential in the American River drainage. The action alternative treatment 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

257

acres proposed for mechanical harvest are only a very small portion of the total acres that are dead and 

dying. These acres potentially could burn by wildfires and become high quality habitat in the future, 

therefore the relative amount of anticipated post-fire habitat predicted to be lost to harvest is relatively 

minor within the analysis area and relatively inconsequential. The mountain pine beetle epidemic has 

created openings in the forest canopy; created early seral habitat, created more snags, and has occurred on 

thousands of acres. 

Activities that reduce the potential for wildfire and insect outbreaks reduce habitat for post-fire or early 

seral dependent species, which in turn affect population levels for early seral habitat dependent species. 

Projects within the upper South Fork Clearwater drainages all target fuel loading and bug-infested trees in 

some capacity. Past timber harvest activities have created a patchy landscape across the watershed, which 

has likely resulted in greater early seral habitat, which has improved forage for elk, deer, and moose. 

Past, present, and foreseeable future fuel treatments and timber harvest on BLM lands, private lands, and 

NPNF lands have created or would continue to create early seral habitat in the American River watershed. 

The NPNF American and Crooked River project is a large fuels project proposal which is adjacent to the 

Eastside Project area, implementation of this project would provide additional early seral habitats. Forest 

successional advancement would reduce the value of early seral habitats to dependent species with growth 

of trees from early seral to mature stands, and associated increased canopy cover. 

Late Seral/Old-Growth Associated–Cumulative impacts would be scattered across the entire project 

area and the American River watershed. Past harvesting and fire effects patterns have impacted habitats 

with overall cumulative habitat fragmentation, changes in patch size and dynamics, increased roading and 

related human disturbance impacts, increased edge effects, and reductions in old growth habitat 

abundance as illustrated and referenced by Map 12 of the South Fork Clearwater River Landscape 

Assessment (USDA-FS, 1998a). In the American River watershed, most of the nearly 6,000 acres of 

historical harvest (83 percent) was done during the 1950s–80s with the remaining 17 percent being done 

during the 1990s–current time. The effects have impacted late seral/old growth species and security 

dependent species the most; however many intermediate-aged stands have since moved into late-seral or 

old growth conditions as well. 

Past timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression, and mining activity have altered habitat characteristics in 

the project area by reducing the amount and distribution of large and medium trees, snags, and down 

wood, and by creating numerous, small patches across the landscape. 

Timber harvest and road construction have reduced the amount and continuity of mature and old growth 

habitat across the analysis area. In addition, past actions frequently targeted medium and large trees and 

valuable ponderosa pine and western larch snags. These actions have left fewer appropriate stands, and 

trees within stands, that could be used by species that require mature or old growth forest conditions. Past 

harvest left few snags or legacy trees, and little down wood. As these older harvest units have begun to 

mature, they are devoid of the structures that could be utilized by species that require old growth 

conditions.

No alternatives fragment old growth with harvest or roadways within any existing old growth, thus shortterm habitat integrity is protected in all alternatives. Nesting and denning habitat components provided by 

old growth will remain protected from harvest related activities in all alternatives. Some clusters of 

planned project harvest units, in conjunction with the interruption of fuels created by previous harvest 

units, may impart some measure of fire risk reduction to old growth patches. If old growth habitats in the 

American River watershed are partially lost to stand replacing fires in the near future, old growth 

conditions would still remain well distributed across the Forest Service lands in the subbasin in the 

remaining watersheds and habitat for old growth associated species, as well as other wildlife species, 

would be managed to maintain viable populations of wildlife species (USDA-FS, 2005a). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

258

Security Dependent–Roads are a major factor cumulatively influencing wildlife habitat and use patterns, 

particularly for species preferring remoteness or are hunted/trapped. Without roads, human use of the 

American River watershed would be very limited. Wildlife habitats and wildlife use patterns would be 

dictated by natural processes (weather, fire, insects and disease). Human disturbance to wildlife species 

would likely be similar to that of large wilderness areas. 

Road decommissioning would not occur under Alternative A, therefore cumulative effects of roads in 

American River would continue. Under all action alternatives, a limited amount of road decommissioning 

is proposed. 

Research focusing on the influence of open roads on wildlife species in the 1970’s and 1980’s revealed 

the effects of roads on big game species (Leege, 1984). In the 1980s and 1990s, road construction was 

mitigated by implementing road restrictions. The focus recently has been to decommission roads, thus 

reversing the cumulative effects of human access into wildlife habitats. This action alternatives 

decommissions a limited amount of roads within the American River watershed. 

Cumulative effects of past incremental road development in the analysis area include variable progressive 

increases in wildlife effects such as direct habitat loss; disturbance; displacement; vehicle-induced 

mortality; human hunting and trapping mortality; habitat fragmentation; edge effects; and noxious weed 

spread.

3.7.7 Irreversible, Irretrievable Effects (All Terrestrial Species) 

None of the alternatives described and analyzed would implement actions or activities that would result in 

an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources harmful to populations of any resident or 

migratory wildlife species. In addition, no alternative would result in irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of species or habitat resources that foreclose the formulation or implementation of 

reasonable and prudent alternatives that would violate Endangered Species Act Section 7 (a) (2) leading 

to jeopardy. None of the alternatives would threaten species subpopulation viability at the local level. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

259

3.8 Roads __________________________________________

3.8.1 Introduction

3.8.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The focus of this analysis is the transportation system, which consists of both the road and trail systems, 

within the Eastside Project area. Several proposed temporary roads on the NPNF are included in this 

project. Originally, the NPNF included temporary roads that BLM needs for the Eastside Project, in their 

American and Crooked River Project. The NPNF FEIS for their project was appealed and the roads that 

BLM needs were dropped from the American and Crooked River Project. This information was a factor 

in the formulation of alternative D. An additional temporary road across the NPNF that was not included 

in the American and Crooked River Project is included in the Eastside Project. The NPNF is now a 

Cooperating Agency in the Eastside Project and will determine whether to authorize BLM to construct 

and use roads across their land based on this analysis. 

BLM needs to use three roads across private land to access treatment areas in the Eastside Project. The 

current state of the transportation system is presented, followed by discussions of the changes resulting 

from the three action alternatives. 

Several indicators are used for roads to track the effects on the transportation system including; Road

Decommissioning, Road Conversion, Miles of Road (Permanent and Temporary), and Bridges. The

indicator for trails, Miles of trails, includes both summer trails and winter snowmobile trails. 

3.8.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

North Idaho Timber Management FEIS 

The North Idaho Timber Management FEIS Appendix 2-4 (USDI-BLM, 1981b) contains guidance 

related to roads. The primary goal is to provide an adequate and useable road system while protecting the 

environment. Specific guidelines to road planning and road design include: 

x Cooperating with other land owners. Plans would be made to serve tributary areas of drainages or 

ownership blocks so that only the minimum amount of road necessary to meet management 

objectives would be planned. 

x Temporary or permanent closures will be considered for all dead end roads or roads with an 

expected use period of 5 years or less. 

Nez Perce Forest Plan as Amended 

A stable and cost efficient transportation system will have been provided through construction, 

reconstruction, maintenance, or transportation system management (USDA FS, 1987a – II-1, Goal 12). 

PACFISH standards and guidelines have been incorporated into the Eastside Project. See Fisheries 

Section 3.6 for details. 

3.8.1.3 Management Factors 

There are several factors that were considered in the development of the road and access alternatives. 

x Minimize new road construction and major reconstruction for timber harvest purposes within 

RHCAs.

x Minimize the amount of permanent road for timber harvest; use temporary roads as much as 

possible.

x Place roads on mid- and upper-slopes as much as possible to reduce the amount of project 

produced sediment entering reaches of the American River watershed. 

x Avoid live water crossings. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

260

x Avoid crossing multiple small parcels of privately owned property. 

x Minimze the amount of monies invested in permanent road upgrade. 

x Relocate permanent roads along the American River away from the river where possible. 

x Decommission roads not needed for administrative purposes. 

x Close live water fords. 

Permanent Road Construction: Permanent construction is a major activity involving the use of heavy 

equipment. There can be movement of earth to substantial depth to clear, align and cut and fill a new 

roadway and includes preparing a sub base, and surfacing the road. It can include significant drainage 

work including ditching, and the installation of live water crossings. Some new permanent roads will be 

open for public use only on a seasonal basis during and after the project is complete. Seasonal closure will 

be accomplished through installment of gates at each end of the new road. 

Temporary Road Construction: Temporary construction is an activity involving the use of heavy 

equipment. There will be the movement of earth to clear, align and cut and fill a new roadway and 

includes preparing temporary running surface wide enough for the safe passage of trucks and equipment. 

It includes drainage work (sufficient enough to carry water off the running surface and can include the 

installation of relief culverts). Temporary roads would be constructed where needed for access to 

treatment areas. All temporary roads would be decommissioned no later than three years after initial 

construction. Refer to Chapter 2 for information regarding design measures for reducing the effects of 

temporary road construction.

Road Decommissioning, Conversion to Other Use: The physical process, or method, of 

decommissioning (referred to as management activity/ decommissioning level in Appendix J) depends on 

the condition of the road template, the magnitude of the side slope on which the road is located, the 

proximity of the road to streams, and cost. This process can range from simply abandoning the road to 

removing the road template completely, including removal of drainage structures and re-contouring the 

landscape. In general, the preferred method is to remove the road template and recontour the landscape. 

This method is most effective in removing the road as a source of sediment and restoring the natural 

hydrologic function of the watershed. It is, however, the most costly method. If the road is located on 

relatively flat terrain, is not close to a stream, and is substantially overgrown with vegetation, 

abandonment may be a better option. 

In addition to the two decommissioning methods just discussed, there is a category used in Appendix J to 

describe an intermediate level of decommissioning. This category, called Varied (for varied treatments), 

can include removal of drainage structures, decompaction of the roadbed, and can include limited 

amounts of re-contouring. Seed and fertilizer would be applied to reestablish vegetative cover. 

Unauthorized use of decommissioned roads was a concern expressed during public scoping. 

Decommissioned roads will generally be camouflaged so they are no longer recognizable as a road. This 

will make unauthorized uses less likely. For roads already overgrown with substantial vegetation, 

unauthorized use is not generally a problem. 

Roads proposed for conversion to another use would include a change in the road prism and a 

corresponding change in the type of use. This conversion is proposed primarily for watershed restoration 

for fisheries, although other wildlife species will benefit (see Section 3.7 Wildlife). The running surface 

of converted roads would be reduced to an approximate width of 55 inches. This would be accomplished 

through limited amounts of re-contouring, installing barriers (usually large boulders) along road 

shoulders, decompaction of the roadbed, or a combination of all three. On altered roadbeds, seed and 

fertilizer would be applied to reestablish vegetative cover. The road use change is of primary interest to 

most road users. The following table summarizes the length of road proposed for decommissioning, as 

well as the effect of the decommissioning on travel access, for each alternative. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

261

Ford Closure: This will be accomplished through obliteration of the current fords. The work will involve 

deep ripping of the approaches, mulching, seeding or planting of native vegetation (including shrubs), 

placement of large woody debris, and large boulders to prohibit vehicle use. Table 3.8.3 illustrates the 

number of ford closures by action alternative. 

Ford Hardening: The approaches to the ford would be reconstructed (re-contoured) and stabilized. The 

road crossing would be “hardened” with the placement of concrete planks or suitable substrate that would 

be secured to bottom and streambanks so that vehicle use or high flows would prevent movement or 

scouring of the instream “hardened” ford crossing. 

Minor Reconstruction/Maintenance: It involves grading and shaping of the roadway and minor 

drainage work (such as adding waterbars and replacing or adding a few culverts, generally not on live 

streams). The roadwork proposed with the action alternatives would be to prepare a road for timber 

hauling.

3.8.1.4 Analysis Methods 

Information and analysis came from two sources. First is the area within the BLM project area and second 

is the incorporation of the Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), and Areas with Possible Unroaded 

Characteristics from the American and Crooked River FEIS (USDA-FS, 2005a) for certain roads that 

were covered in that analysis. 

The BLM roads information used in the development of the action alternatives was obtained from the 

Cottonwood Field Office Transportation System database and from field survey data not previously 

stored in this database. All of the roads proposed for decommissioning were identified through analysis 

conducted as part of this project. The roads were determined to not be needed for future management of 

BLM system lands within the analysis areas. Issues raised internally, through public scoping, and in 

discussions with the NPNF were considered in the development of the alternatives. Spatial data is 

displayed using maps generated with Argos software. 

3.8.2 Indicators - Road Decommissioning, Road Conversion, Miles of Road (Permanent 

and Temporary), and Bridges 

Existing Condition

The BLM lands in the east portion of the Elk City township have had very little active management 

applied to them in the last 50 years. None of the primary access routes are owned or maintained by the 

BLM. Except for the area near the Alamance Mine, there are no secondary roads on BLM into any of the 

fuels/vegetation proposed treatment units. Appendix A, Map 15 displays the current road system. 

Primary maintained roads are of two types. First are NPNF roads that bisect (road 1809 central portion of 

project) or are near BLM land (road 1809A east of project and 9812 north of project). Secondly are 

county roads that border (road 443 in central portion of project) or are near BLM land (road 1818 south of 

project).

Roads going through the private subdivisions are maintained by the private landowners. These road cross 

BLM prior to entering private property. The BLM presently has no permanent or temporary easements on 

these roads across private land. 

The roads across BLM land within the project are all historic roads that evolved through necessity or 

tradition. Most are serpentine roads along streams, primarily the American River that originated for 

access to mining sites. The use of these roads has evolved into the primary ingress route to the American 

River Subdivision and east end of the Coppernoll subdivision, as well as recreational uses on the upper 

and lower ends of the project area. Most of these roads fall into RHCAs where riparian-dependent 

resources receive primary emphasis (see Section 3.4 Watershed). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

262

There are approximately 10.3 miles of inventoried road in the Eastside Project area. Jurisdictions of these 

road miles vary. The following two tables summarize the current state of the road system within the 

Eastside Project. 

Table 3.8.1 Current Road Miles by Owner

Length of Road (Miles) by Type 

Owner Primary Road, Regular 

Maintenance

No Regular 

Maintenance

Percent of Total 

BLM 5.86 56.8% 

Forest Service 1.58 15.3% 

Idaho County 1.45 14.1% 

Private 1.42 13.8% 

Table 3.8.2 Current RHCA Road Miles by Owner

Length of Road (Miles) by Type 

Owner Primary Road, Regular 

Maintenance

No Regular 

Maintenance

Percent of Total 

BLM 5.53 73.7% 

Forest Service 1.24 16.5% 

Idaho County 0.39 5.2% 

Private 0.34 4.5% 

There are existing private and NPNF roads that are outside of the project area that may be utilized. The 

private roads will be used either through existing permanent easements or through temporary easements. 

The use of Forest Service roads will require a road maintenance agreement. Additional roads that are 

needed for access but are not within the project area include: 

x 7.67 miles of NPNF roads 1809, 1809a, 9812, 9812F, and 9812F1 

x 2.65 mile of private roads on Bennett Forest Industries property (existing permanent easement) 

x 0.29 miles of private road on Leslie Lynn property (temporary easement to be acquired). 

Environmental Effects 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

With Alternative A, the road system, in the Eastside Project area would remain unchanged. Parts of the 

American River road would continue to be chronic sediment sources. The portion north of the American 

River Subdivision viewed as an escape route would continue to deteriorate. Current fords would continue 

to impact sedimentation and fisheries in the American River. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Road Decommissioning, Conversion to Other Use 

All roads proposed for decommissioning are identified as not required for future management needs. 

These roads were selected for decommissioning primarily because of the resulting benefit to watershed 

health by returning the landscape to a more natural state. These actions have direct and indirect effects to 

Watershed, Fisheries and Wildlife and are discussed in those sections. Table 3.8.3 show the amount of 

road decommissioning and conversion by alternative. Alternative C has the largest number of miles, 

followed by Alternatives B and D. All but 0.11 miles of roads proposed in any alternative for 

decommissioning are within the RHCAs, primarily along the American River. All of the roads converted 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

263

from highway vehicles to ATV are within the American River RHCA. This table also illustrates the 

effects on restricted public access and the differences of decreased highway vehicle miles. 

Refer to Appendix J for a list of the roads proposed for and the method of decommissioning by 

alternative. Refer to Appendix A, Maps 2, 5, and 8, for graphic displays of the roads proposed for 

decommissioning by Alternative. 

A summary of the costs associated with the proposed road decommissioning is presented in Section 3.13 

(Socio-Economic). Table 3.8.3 show the amount of road decommissioning and conversion by alternative. 

Stream Ford Closures 

There are currently three live water crossings in the project area with active fords. Two of these are on the 

American River, and the other is on Kirks Fork at the confluence with American River. Closure of some 

or all of these fords is proposed in all action alternatives for watershed restoration purposes. These 

closures will stop a chronic sediment source into the American River system. These actions have direct 

and indirect effects to Watershed, and Fisheries and are discussed in those sections. Table 3.8.3 shows the 

number of fords closed or hardened by alternative. 

Table 3.8.3 Road Decommissioning or Conversion

Item Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Decommissioned Miles 1.92 2.98 1.50 

Conversion to ATV Trail Miles 1.62 1.62 2.39 

Decreased Highway Vehicle Miles1 2.122 2.623 2.484

Reduction of RHCA Road Miles 2.55 3.70 3.57 

Ford Closures 2 3 3 

Ford Hardening 1 

1 0.85 miles of road are substantially vegetated, and not open to vehicles. 

2

 There are 0.57 miles of new permanent in this alternative. 

3

 There are 1.13 miles of new permanent in this alternative. 

4

 There are 0.56 miles of new permanent in this alternative. 

Road Construction and Bridge Construction 

The following actions have direct and indirect effects to Watershed, Fisheries and Wildlife and are 

discussed in those sections.

Permanent Road Construction 

Some permanent road construction is proposed in all action alternatives for watershed restoration 

purposes. These new roads will provide landowner access while decommissioning existing roads or 

converting them to another use (ATV trails). Therefore, permanent road construction is related to 

decommissioning or conversion to another use and is reflected in Table 3.8.3 above. 

Alternatives C and D were developed in part to address concerns about the loss of fire escape routes due 

to suggested alterations in the current road system for restoration objectives. Residents view 1.1 miles of 

road 2541 along the American River north of the American River subdivision to the intersection with 

Idaho County road 443 as an escape route. This would require the construction of 0.56 miles of road and a 

bridge spanning the American River. 

Alternative D was developed in part to address concerns about the relocation of part of the main ingress 

route for the American River subdivision. Residents view 0.5 miles of road 2541 along the American 

River south of the American River subdivision to the intersection with forest service 1809 as the best 

section of road along the river, questioning restoration objectives, and fear that the new road would be not 

maintained.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

264

Some new permanent roads will be open for public use only on a seasonal basis during and after the 

project is complete. Seasonal closure will be accomplished through installment of gates at each end of the 

new road. This closure would apply to the road in alternatives C and D that originates on the 2541 road 

and proceeds 0.46 miles west to intersect with Idaho County road 443. 

Table 3.8.4 illustrates the miles of new permanent road by action alternative. Refer to Appendix J for a 

list of the roads proposed, and design or decommissioning features by alternative. 

Temporary Road Construction 

Alternatives C and D were developed in part to address concerns over the amount of temporary road in 

the proposed action. Alternatives B and C would construct 1.89 miles of temporary road across NPNF 

land with unroaded characteristics. These roads would exist for 1-3 years. Following decommissioning a 

corridor through the trees would remain for several years until new trees grow up on the site. Alternative 

D includes a temporary road constructed in the Middle American River RHCA. Approximately 0.06 miles 

would exist for 1-3 years within the RHCA. Table 3.8.4 illustrates the miles of temporary road by 

alternative. Refer to Appendix J for a list of the roads proposed, and design or decommissioning features 

by alternative. 

Minor Reconstruction/Maintenance 

Field surveys were conducted to determine the condition of the roads in the project area and the 

maintenance needs required to prepare the roads for access to the treatment areas. As stated earlier in this 

section, there are very few secondary roads on BLM land; private secondary roads have been recently 

used, and the primary roads are maintained by other entities. Therefore, only minor reconstruction or 

maintenance is needed. 

Except for a few short segments of existing road in the Alamance Mine area, all of the work would be 

done on roads across private lands outside of the project area, and is the same for all Alternatives. These 

are:

x 2.65 mile of existing private roads on Bennett Forest Industries property (existing permanent 

easement). 

x 0.29 miles of existing private road on Leslie Lynn property (temporary easement to be obtained). 

Table 3.8.4 Road and Bridge Construction

Item Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Permanent Road Construction (Miles) 0.57 1.13 0.56 

Bridge Construction ATV 2 2 2 

Bridge Construction Highway Vehicles 0 1 1 

Minor Reconstruction (Miles) 3.70 3.70 3.70 

Temporary Road Construction on BLM (Miles) 12.97 8.43 10.28 

Temporary Road Construction on Private (Miles) 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Temporary Road Construction on NPNF (Miles) 2.151 1.891 0.26 1 Includes 1.89 miles that was included in the FEIS for the American and Crooked River Project 

3.8.3 Indicator–Miles of Trails 

Existing Condition

Historically, trails in the area were primarily developed for access to mining claims, private lands, fire 

suppression activities and access to adjacent NPNF land for Forest Service administrative uses. Most 

trails were built to accommodate pack and saddle stock, and were the primary access routes in the 

American River drainage. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

265

Currently, the majority of the trail system is utilized for recreational purposes. There are approximately 

2.7 miles of system trails within the Eastside Project area; however there is no current budget for 

maintenance of these trails. These trails are primarily used by ATV(s), motorbikes, hikers, and 

pack/saddle stock. The following table displays the system trails in the Eastside Project area, their length, 

and current restrictions. 

Table 3.8.5 System Trails on BLM land

Trail

Number Trail Name Length(Miles)

Current Management 

Restrictions 

T2524 Kirks Fork .52 No Restrictions 

T2523 Box Sing .39 No Restrictions 

T-01 Telephone Creek .76 No Restrictions 

T2517 East Fork American River 1.81 No Restrictions 

T25 Lower American River 1.83 No Restrictions 

There is an increasing demand from user groups for motorized trail opportunities. A concern raised during 

scoping was that decommissioning road 2541 north from the American River subdivision to Idaho 

County road 443 was less preferable than conversion of this road to and ATV trail. 

There are several undesignated trails being used by ATV and two wheel motorized vehicles. There is an 

unauthorized ATV bridge spanning the American River in the southern portion of the project on BLM 

land. This would be replaced as part of the project. 

There is a winter trail system that crosses BLM land that is not administered by the BLM. This winter 

trail system includes portions of the road system to provide a network of groomed snowmobile trails. This 

system is groomed regularly between December and April under a cooperative agreement between Idaho 

Department of Parks and Recreation, Idaho County and the Nez Perce Forest. The Eastside Project 

includes 1.1 miles of this groomed system is (Road 443–American River-Selway Falls). 

Environmental Effects 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The miles of trails available to the public would not change under this alternative. However, the public’s 

ability to use the trail system may eventually be restricted due to limited BLM funds available to maintain 

the trails.

As dead and dying trees fall across the system trails, maintenance costs will likely increase due to the 

increase in the number of trees down per mile. Even with annual maintenance occurring, the trail users 

will likely need to be prepared to cut trees in order to use the trail system. 

Wildfire occurrence would increase the cost of trail maintenance. Trail damage from fire normally results 

in holes in the trail tread due to tree roots burning out; increased erosion due to the lack of vegetation 

resulting in the need for more erosion control structures; and an increase the number of down trees over 

the trail. Signs and erosion control devices would need to be replaced due to fire damage. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The miles of trails available to the public would change under all action alternatives. There would be a net 

increase in designated trails open to motorized Off Highway Vehicles (OHV). The miles of increase by 

alternative are, 1.62 for Alternatives B and C, and 2.39 miles for alternative D. This increase would come 

primarily as the result of reducing the running width of roads currently open to highway vehicles. In 

alternative D there is approximately 0.5 miles of new designated trail that would result by improving an 

undesignated, currently used trail around the ford on the American River on the north end of the project. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

266

Road 443 provides access in all alternatives. If winter hauling occurs on Road 443, it would need to be 

restricted for snowmobiling during timber hauling for safety purposes. This would result in a short-term 

reduction in the number of miles of snowmobile trail available for use, 1.1 miles for Alternatives B and C, 

and 0.2 miles for Alternative D. 

3.8.4 Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Areas with Unroaded Characteristics 

Adoption from American and Crooked FEIS 

This section incorporates portions of the American and Crooked River FEIS (USDA FS 2005) regarding 

IRAs and Areas with Possible Unroaded Characteristics. The analysis of Areas with Possible Unroaded 

Characteristics pertains to two temporary roads that approach the Elk City township line from the north. 

3.8.4.1 Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Existing Condition

One IRA lies east of the project area on the NPNF and is described in the 1987 Nez Perce National Forest 

Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 1987a). This closest point of the West Meadow 

Creek Roadless Area is separated from the Eastside Project by 0.6 miles of NPNF land. 

3.8.4.2 Environmental Consequences All Alternatives 

Direct Effects 

The proposed action does not enter or occur in the adjacent inventoried roadless areas. There are no direct 

effects to inventoried roadless areas. 

Indirect Effects 

The values in the roadless area most at risk are those associated with apparent naturalness, remoteness, 

solitude, and semi-primitive recreation. The sights and sounds of logging could diminish each of these for 

the period of logging and for some time after logging. 

However, it is important to put this into proper perspective. First, there are not trails that lead people into 

the portion of the roadless area where impacts would be seen or felt. None of the roadless area is 

immediately adjacent to the project area. Therefore the project is out of sight and inaudible and would 

have little impact on remoteness. Finally, the view from the area is not currently pristine or near natural 

appearing due to past harvest activity, road building, and past mining activities. None of the action 

alternatives would diminish the natural appearing nature of the IRA. 

There would be minimal impacts of smoke from burning on air quality (see Section 3.2). Wildlife and 

TES species would be little impacted (see Section 3.7 Wildlife); additional or new motorized access is not 

an issue. Non-motorized primitive or semi-primitive recreation is not compromised by the project. The 

project does not create new access into the roadless area or change the recreation experience. 

3.8.4.3 Unroaded Analysis 

Introduction

In addition to an analysis of the impacts of the project on Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) as described 

above, this analysis describes the impacts of the project on unroaded lands. This analysis pertains to 

NPNF lands that are adjacent to the Eastside Project, and that would be directly affected by the 

construction of temporary roads through them. The original analysis was done as part of the American 

and Crooked River FEIS, is incorporated by reference here, and has been supplemented with additional 

information. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

267

For the purposes of this analysis, the Forest Service considered all areas without the presence of classified 

roads and outside existing inventoried roadless areas as unroaded lands. Map 2A in the American and 

Crooked River FEIS and Map 15 of this EIS provide a view of the unroaded areas. 

This unroaded analysis will consider the unique values of the unroaded area in the context of five 

important resource values: 

Natural Integrity is the extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating. 

Apparent Naturalness means the environment looks natural to most people. 

Remoteness is the perceived condition of being secluded, inaccessible, and out of the way, and 

Solitude is a personal, subjective value defined as the isolation from the sights sounds, and presence 

of others and the development of man. 

Special Features are unique geological, biological, ecological, and cultural or scenic features, and 

Special Places are those areas that cause one to visit for pleasure or their livelihood. 

Manageability and Boundaries consider the ability of the NPNF to manage a roadless area to meet 

the minimum size criteria (5,000 acres) for wilderness. Additionally, the ability to allow fire to play a 

more natural role without threatening residential areas or communities and the ability to manage for 

non-motorized access from access points or private property were also considered in this category. 

Existing Condition

The unroaded lands that would be affected by the Eastside Project are easiest to describe and evaluate if 

they are viewed as geographic areas. Below is a description of each unroaded area. 

American-2 is west of the West Meadow Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) 1845C. This unroaded 

area has been subdivided along the subwatershed boundaries to better explain the affects to important 

subwatersheds. This unroaded area is comprised of 5,684 acres. 

American-2a (AM-2a) (see Map 15) is west of the West Meadow Creek IRA 1845C and is comprised of 

4,969 acres within the East Fork American River watershed. The southwestern most portion of this 

unroaded area lies within the Elk City community protection area (Wildland urban interface) where the 

management emphasis is protection of life and property from potentially catastrophic effects of wildfire. 

Natural integrity is relatively high in this area, although the mixed conifer stands are stocked higher 

with trees and have less shrub and open grass lands than might be expected under a more natural fire 

frequency. Non-native plants and invasives are uncommon in the area. This area is not used by 

livestock. There is a high degree of Natural Integrity in this area. The watershed has high importance 

for anadromous fish habitat. 

Apparent Naturalness is high except on the one and one half mile southwestern boundary along the 

Elk City township line that separates the National Forest lands from the BLM and private lands 

within the township that have been altered from their natural appearance. An unclassified motorized 

trail that is maintained by users follows the ridge and portions of the proposed temporary road 

location. AM-2a also contains one quarter mile of Trail 852 which is a motorized trail. 

Remoteness and Solitude are increased as you get farther from the Elk City township, along the 

southwestern portion of the area. As indicated above, within the one and one half miles of the Elk 

City township line the feeling of solitude has been compromised. 

Special features and special places are not present from the standpoint of geological resources. 

However, from a biological standpoint the East Fork of the American River as a high fish habitat 

value and contributes to the anadromous fish productivity. The area is not unique from the standpoint 

of known cultural or historic resources. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

268

Manageability and Boundaries The unroaded area by itself is 4,969 acres adjacent to the 107,512 

acre West Meadow Creek IRA. The proximity to roads and past harvest units could make the area 

difficult to manage for wilderness within the one and one half miles along the Elk City township, 

which comprises the southwestern boundary. Otherwise there are no boundary issues with this area. 

American-2d (AM-2d) (see Map 15) consists of 306 acres on the western lobe of AM-2a, and 

encompasses a small portion of Flint Creek. Three separate watersheds converge near this unroaded area. 

The area has relatively high levels of past development in the form of roads and timber harvest. It is close 

to the major road system that provides access to the area. The southwestern most portion of this unroaded 

area lies within the Elk City township line and the community protection consideration (Wildland-urban 

interface) where the management emphasis is protection of life and property from potentially catastrophic 

effects of wildfire. 

Natural integrity has been modified by past timber harvest and roads. The viewshed is comprised of 

highly modified landscapes. The mixed conifer stands are stocked higher with trees and have less 

shrub and open grass lands than might be expected under a more natural fire frequency. Non-native 

plants and invasives are uncommon in the area but may occur along the southern border of the area 

where previous disturbance has occurred. This area is not used by livestock. 

Apparent Naturalness depends on scale. Although small portions of the unroaded area might seem 

natural, the proximity to Forest roads nearby logging, and development within the Elk City township 

has decreased apparent naturalness. The unclassified motorized trail originating in AM-2a continues 

to follow the ridge and/or proposed temporary road location until it junctions with Forest Road 9812. 

Remoteness and Solitude are decreased due to the proximity of roads and development within the 

Elk City township. 

Special features and special places are not present from the standpoint of geological, biological, or 

ecological reasons. The area is relatively common and like much of the forested area in north-central 

Idaho. The area is not unique from the standpoint of known cultural or historic resources. 

Manageability and Boundaries: The unroaded area is 306 acres and is separated from the West 

Meadow Creek IRA 1845C by the 4,969-acre AM-2a unroaded area. The community protection 

emphasis, proximity to roads, past harvest units, the Elk City township boundary, and development 

would make the area difficult to manage for wilderness. The complex topographic features involved 

with the confluence of the three separate watersheds make boundary management more complex. 

American-2e (AM-2e) (see Map 15) consists of 236 acres on the western lobe of AM-2a, and 

encompasses a small portion of the American River. The area has relatively high levels of past 

development in the form of roads and timber harvest. It is close to the major road system that provides 

access to the area. All but a tiny sliver of the unroaded area lies within the Elk City community protection 

area (Wildland-urban interface) where the management emphasis is protection of life and property from 

potentially catastrophic effects of wildfire. 

Natural integrity has been modified by past timber harvest and roads. The viewshed is comprised of 

highly modified landscapes. The lodgepole pine stands are uniformly fully stocked with trees and 

have less open grass lands interspersed with the lodgepole pine than might be expected under a more 

natural fire frequency. Non-native plants and invasives are uncommon in the area but may occur 

along the southern border of the area where previous disturbance has occurred. This area is not used 

by livestock. 

Apparent Naturalness depends on scale. Although small portions of the unroaded area might seem 

natural, the proximity to Forest roads nearby logging, and development within the Elk City township 

has decreased apparent naturalness. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

269

Remoteness and Solitude is decreased due to the proximity of roads and development within the Elk 

City township. 

Special features and special places are not present from the standpoint of geological, biological, or 

ecological reasons. The area is relatively common and like much of the forested area in north-central 

Idaho. The area is not unique from the standpoint of known cultural or historic resources. 

Manageability and Boundaries: The unroaded area is 236 acres and is separated from the West 

Meadow Creek IRA 1845C by unroaded are AM-2d and AM-2a. The community protection 

emphasis, proximity of roads, past harvest units, the Elk City township boundary, and development 

would make the area difficult to manage for wilderness. The complex topographic features involved 

with the confluence of the three separate watersheds make boundary management more complex. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

All roads constructed by this project are temporary roads that will be obliterated upon completion of this 

action.

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative A would not impact the unroaded lands described in this section, since no temporary road 

building would occur. 

Alternatives B and C 

AM-2a: This area has unroaded characteristics that are highly intact accept as noted previously in the 

western end. The temporary road is on the extreme western boundary and is part of an approximately one 

mile long temporary road off the 9812F1 road. Only 0.1 mile of this temporary road would be within this 

unroaded area. These alternatives would only affect the unroaded character (Natural integrity, Apparent 

Naturalness, Remoteness and Solitude) of this area along the extreme west boundary of this 4,969 acre 

area. The presence of the classified and unclassified motorized trails has already reduced the Apparent 

Naturalness of this area. This impact will recover in time as the approximately 0.4 acres directly effected 

by the temporary road corridor revegetates following decommissioning. The decommissioning of the 

temporary road may reduce the ability for future motorized use of the unclassified trail. Fish habitat, 

which is a special feature of this unroaded area, will not be impacted by the proposed action in the East 

Fork of the American River. 

AM-2d: Approximately one mile of temporary road will be constructed from the 9812F1 road but only 

0.56 mile is within AM-2d. This area has not retained high unroaded characteristics due to past activities 

in the area and is within the community protection area for the Ericson Ridge Subdivision within the Elk 

City township. There will be additional impacts to the unroaded characteristics due to the proposed 

action, but this is somewhat reduced due to previous disturbances in the area. Additionally the proposed 

activities are consistent with the community protection within the Elk City township. There will be 

additional temporary impacts to the unroaded characteristics (Natural integrity, Apparent Naturalness, 

Remoteness and Solitude) due to this activity. This impact will recover in time as the approximately 1.7 

acres directly effected by the temporary road corridor revegetates following decommissioning. 

AM-2e: Approximately one mile of temporary road will be constructed from 9812F, and one mile of 

temporary road will be constructed from 9812F1, with 1.23 mile within AM-2e. This area has not retained 

high unroaded characteristics due to past activities in the area and is within the community protection area 

for the Ericson Ridge Subdivision within the Elk City township. There will be additional temporary 

impacts to the unroaded characteristics (Natural integrity, Apparent Naturalness, Remoteness and 

Solitude) due to this activity. This impact will recover in time as the approximately 3.6 acres directly 

effected by the temporary road corridor revegetates following decommissioning. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

270

Alternative D 

Alternative D, would not impact the unroaded lands described in this section, since no temporary road 

building would occur on Forest Service land in these areas. 

Cumulative effects 

There are no cumulative effects to potential roadless areas. The NPNF does not include these areas in the 

current draft for potential roadless area designation in the analysis for the new Forest Plan. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

271

3.9 Visual Resource Management ______________________ 

3.9.1 Introduction

Visual Resource Management classes (VRM) and the corresponding VRM objectives were established in 

the Chief Joseph MFP in 1981. The Proposed Action and all alternatives fall within areas managed under 

VRM Class III guidelines. The VRM Class III guidelines provide that management activities may be 

evident to the casual visitor; however, the activity should remain subordinate to the visual strength and 

natural character of the landscape. 

A management activity may repeat the dominant qualities common in the landscape and may visually 

change the essential character of existing dominance factors in the landscape. However, these changes 

must be relatively small in scale and generally subordinate to the visual strength of the natural landscape. 

All non-exempt resource management program actions that will modify the landform, water bodies, 

vegetation, and structures will comply with contrast rating directives. 

Specific MFP Guidelines for Forest Management: 

1. Clearcuts may be seen but must simulate typical natural openings. No geometric shapes are 

allowed. Size shall not be greater than 50 acres. 

2. Shelterwood or selective logging, with a maximum cut of 60 percent are a modification of 

textural contrast. Therefore, resulting openings appear natural. They shall not exceed a 60 percent 

cut. Some feathering may be necessary to meet class objectives. 

Class III guidelines for roads are that roads should be partially concealed by vegetation follow natural 

landforms and should be seeded as soon as possible. 

Analysis Methods 

The BLM no longer uses a numeric contrast rating system as described in the MFP. Instead the BLM now 

uses ratings of Strong, Moderate, Weak, and None for the contrast rating system (BLM Handbook H8431-1). 

The first step is to select Key Observation Points (KOPs). This is along commonly traveled routes or 

other likely observation points. Factors that influence KOPs are angle of observation, number of viewers, 

length of time area is in view, and season of use. KOPs for the project area are the American River road, 

the Ericson Ridge road, the Mother Lode Hill Road, and the Flat Iron Ridge road. Most of the project area 

is not viewable from KOPs. 

Prior to completing the contrast rating, visual simulations of the proposed treatment activities viewable 

from the KOPs were prepared using two methods. Photographs of similar post treatment areas were 

obtained and the Forest Vegetation Simulator was used to model treatments. This output was then used in 

the Forest Visualization System to produce graphic representations of the proposed treatments. See 

Appendix K for KOP photo and FVS output. 

Contrast ratings were then completed from the KOPs. A rating matrix is used to rate the degree of 

contrast by looking at basic features (i.e., landform/water, vegetation, and structures) and basic elements 

(i.e., for line, color, and texture). The impacts were evaluated considering a 5-year recovery period 

following the end of the project Class III areas can have a moderate contrast rating. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

272

3.9.2 Indicator–Class III Visual Resource Objective 

Existing Condition

Landforms within the project area are generally representative of the physiographic area. Rolling, forested 

hills intersected by perennial and intermittent streams, with small open meadows and glades form the 

basis of the landscape. The landscape type is common throughout the region. Typical views from ridge 

tops include foreground, middle ground, and background images. From valleys and river banks, the 

typical view is primarily foreground with occasional middle ground images. 

Lines in the landscape are generally horizontal in nature, formed by the shape of the hills and differences 

in vegetative concentration and composition. 

Vegetation is predominately lodgepole pine with interspersed Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western larch. 

Riparian zones and meadows are generally grassy with shrubs. Various shades of green are the 

predominant color with an increasing incidence of browns due to high numbers of dead and dying 

lodgepole pine. 

The natural texture of the vegetation is coarse in the foreground, evolving to smooth texture in the middle 

and background areas. Ridgeline Douglas-firs provide a bit of textural contrast in background areas. 

The natural landscape in the area has been extensively modified with numerous roads, structures, mining 

activities, and forest management activities occurring on private and NPNF lands adjacent to the project 

area. The extent of these modifications are an indication that visitor sensitivity to change in the visual 

landscape is low, and acceptance to visual change in the landscape is high. Travel corridors in the project 

area are mainly along the stream and river system, limiting the amount of proposed activities that would 

be visible from high traffic areas. To date little road development has occurred on BLM administered 

lands and forest management has been confined to private and NPNF lands. 

Environmental Effects 

The size and position of fuels and vegetation treatments are an element to consider in contrast rating for 

visual resources. Direct effects result from the amount of vegetation removed, logging methods and roads 

constructed.

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under the “no action” alternative, the vegetation and fuel conditions would continue to change albeit in a 

different fashion than if an action alternative is implemented. Due to the mountain pine beetle infestation, 

most of these stands will continue to experience high mortality. With increasing numbers of dead 

lodgepole pine the vegetation will change as will the color and texture across the landscape. This has 

already created a moderate contrast (begins to attract attention, and begins to dominate the characteristic 

landscape) from several of the KOPs as shown in Figure 3.9.1.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

273

Figure 3.9.1 VRM American River–Flat Iron Ridge Road Point, Looking WSW Towards Alamance 

Mine

The changing fuel conditions would make the area more susceptible to fires that would consume a large 

amount of the vegetation (see Section 3.1 Fire and Fuels). If such an event were to occur, there would be 

a strong contrast across the landscape. The altered vegetation would be dominant and become the natural 

character of the landscape. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The alternatives are similar in the direct effects. This is due in part because of the proximity of treatment 

areas to the KOPs. 

The proposed project would result in moderate to low contrast between the project actions and the 

existing landscape. Line, color, and texture would be affected to varying degrees. From the KOP on the 

Mother Lode road and the Ericson Ridge road, the action alternatives would affect foreground, middle 

ground, and background visuals. From KOPs on American River and Flatiron Ridge, the foreground and 

occasionally the background visuals would be affected. The impacts of the action alternatives are judged 

to be moderate to low and within the guidelines of the MFP. 

Removing up to 60% of the existing forest cover would change the texture of the visual landscape in the 

project area, with less canopy and more open viewing. Foreground areas would be most visible (see 

Figure 3.9.2), but would remain coarse in texture. Middle ground and background area would be more 

coarse, but the contrast would be less noticeable if cuts are feathered to reduce sharp changes in lines and 

geometric patterns. See Figure 3.9.3 for an example of the middle ground visual with similar treatment. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

274

Color would not change significantly, although greater open canopy areas would result in varied shades of 

green with fewer browns. 

Figure 3.9.2 Foreground example
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

275

Figure 3.9.3 Middle ground example

Temporary roads and skid trails within the project area would be located so that they are substantially 

hidden from view, and new construction would be put to bed upon completion of the project. Therefore 

structural contrast is considered low. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects–Visual Resource Management 

Common to All Alternatives 

No irreversible commitments are proposed under any of the alternatives. Visual vegetation changes due to 

tree mortality and loss of other vegetation due to wildfire would be irretrievable but not irreversible as 

trees and other plant life would regenerate over time. The same is true of the visual vegetation changes 

due to vegetation and fuels treatments. 

Cumulative Effects–Visual Resource Management 

The cumulative effects area for Visual Resource Management is the viewsheds adjoining the Eastside 

Project. Because the natural landscape has already been significantly modified in and around the project 

area, cumulative impacts are difficult to assess. Existing human-caused modification on adjacent lands 

renders the contrasts of the proposed project less noticeable than if they were to occur in a natural 

landscape, and each successive project could be considered to reduce the contrast even further, eventually 

changing the landscape character completely. The NPNF American and Crooked River project, which 

adjoins the Eastside Project area, identified that all proposed activities were consistent with the Forest 

Plan standards for visual quality (USDA-FS, 2005a). The Eastside Project units were designed to 

maintain an acceptable contrast rating according to MFP guidance; therefore, the project would not 

contribute substantially to the visual decline in landscape character.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

276

3.10 Cultural Resources______________________________ 

3.10.1 Introduction

3.10.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

Several analyses were completed to evaluate cultural resources in the analysis area. Consultation was 

initiated with the Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Department regarding identification of any cultural resources 

or Traditional Cultural Properties in the analysis area. Research of available documentation was 

conducted regarding the prehistory and the history of the analysis area. A cultural resource inventory was 

conducted to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect. Identified properties were 

evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places and project design measures were 

initiated to prevent an adverse effect. Consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Department 

continues throughout the project development and consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) has been completed. 

3.10.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

Cultural resources are managed under a variety of Federal laws. Specifically, Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, and amendments, requires federal agencies take into account 

the effect of the undertaking on any site that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Implementation of Section 106 is codified under 36 CFR 800. A cultural 

resource inventory is completed; resource eligibility evaluated in consultation with the SHPO; and 

potential impacts evaluated in consultation with the SHPO. A state protocol agreement between the BLM 

and the Idaho SHPO regarding the manner, in which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under the 

NHPA, as provided for in the National Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, is followed. These 

cultural resource data are incorporated into National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documents. 

Cultural resource information is also gathered and coordination completed through the Government-toGovernment relationship with the Nez Perce Tribe that is based on the trust relationship created from 

treaties. Treaties are negotiated contracts made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. 

Coordination and consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe is also carried out under other federal laws or 

orders including the NHPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; Executive Order 

13007, Indian Sacred Sites; and Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments. 

3.10.1.3 Analysis Methods 

The area of potential effect (APE) was identified which is considered the treatment units, proposed 

roads/trails, bridges, landings, and restoration actions for all alternatives. Review of existing cultural 

resource data was then initiated. Reference materials were examined to develop a historical context for 

the analysis area. The Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Department was contacted regarding identification of any 

known cultural resources or Traditional Cultural Properties. A cultural resource inventory was conducted 

covering the treatment units, landings, bridges, proposed roads/trails (both treatment and restoration), and 

restoration projects. Cultural resources were recorded on standard Archaeological Survey of Idaho Site 

Inventory Forms. All sites were photographed and the majority GPSed and recorded on USGS 1:24,000 

scale maps. Proposed project treatments were then compared to site locations, and in the majority of 

cases, sites were avoided by project design. Project design measures were developed to achieve no 

adverse effect on those sites that could not be completely avoided. The results of the inventory were 

presented to the SHPO and the Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Department. Consultation was completed with 

the SHPO regarding the results of the inventory and design measures developed to achieve no adverse 

effect. The SHPO has concurred with the finding of no adverse effect. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

277

3.10.2 Existing Condition 

Cultural resources have generally been characterized as having a physical presence on the landscape (i.e., 

archeological site, cabin, etc.), but this definition has gradually changed to include Traditional Cultural 

Properties. A brief cultural context is presented to create a basic understanding of the types of cultural 

resources present in the analysis area. 

The annual cycle of the Nez Perce is reflected by their subsistence economy. The canyon settings were 

primarily used in the winter from October to early spring. In the early and late spring, the Nez Perce were 

found utilizing the drainage systems of the tributaries leading in the major river systems such as the 

Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater rivers. When the roots matured large groups of people could concentrate 

in an area to harvest the crop, usually in early summer. By August, the Nez Perce would often break into 

smaller groups and move into more mountainous terrain before returning to the canyons around October. 

A wide variety of plants and animals were used. Marshall (1977) has summarized the seasonal use of 

areas and provides lists of resources used. 

Prehistoric use in this area is extremely hard to determine since many prehistoric sites have been 

destroyed by historic mining activity or are possibly located on private land. In 1976, Wanda Jo Gallaher 

conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of the Elk City township and recorded two sites known to 

have been used historically by the Nez Perce. These include a camp site and the Nez Perce Trail, which 

was later used as the Elk City Wagon Road (Gallaher, 1976:39–40). The two sites reflect two primary 

uses of the township. The first was the utilization of numerous food resources on a seasonal basis, and 

second was as a trail route on their way via the Nez Perce Trail to the plains to hunt buffalo (Gallaher, 

1976:13). 

Gallaher (1976) provides a detailed summary of the historical development of Elk City. The 

EuroAmerican history of the Elk City area begins in May 1861 when gold was discovered. Until 1863, all 

placering was done manually with a pan, a sluice box, or a rocker, and production was relatively low. 

With the introduction of hydraulics, production was greatly increased. In order to operate these hydraulic 

giants on the relatively level ground, an extensive ditch system was needed. In 1872 there was a rush of 

Chinese into the area that bought mining claims from the remaining EuroAmerican miners, worked the 

“skim diggings” and even profitably reworked some of the tailing dumps. The era of the Chinese miners 

came to a close in 1887 when a judge ruled it was illegal for aliens to hold mining claims in this area 

(Elsensohn, 1970). 

To break down the gold-bearing deposits, there had to be sufficient supply of water. Water was 

transported to the mine via ditches and flumes. The water could be directly diverted from a creek to a 

ditch or a ditch could begin at a dam that was built to store the water. A ditch was dug down into the soil 

on the contour of the slope. The water was carried directly to the mine or sometimes to a reservoir above 

the mine through the ditch. The water was then carried in a pipe from the ditch or reservoir directly to the 

mine under great pressure. At the end of the pipe was a hydraulic giant which was used to wash the goldbearing deposits into a sluice box with riffles to catch the gold. 

The first quartz vein to be developed was called the Buster in 1884 (Shiach et al. 1903:445). Many others 

were soon developed. In the 1890s dredging was attempted with varying degrees of success (Shiach et al. 

1903:445). Successful dredging operations didn’t occur until the 1930s which continued through the late 

1950s.

The cultural resource inventory has documented 54 sites in the analysis area with the majority related to 

historic mining. The sites are generally characterized by major features such as hydraulic mine cutbanks, 

tailing piles, ditches, reservoirs, rock walls, shafts, adits, dredge tailings, etc. Several sites with collapsed 

cabins or foundations and several trails were located. Several historic artifact scatters were also located. 

No prehistoric sites were discovered. One Chinese site was located which is affiliated with hydraulic 

mining.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

278

Fifty sites meet criteria 36 CFR 60.4(a) “... that are associated with events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history; ...” and criteria 36 CFR 60.4 (d) “... that have yielded, 

or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” for eligibility in the National 

Register of Historic Places. The sites represent the mining phase of Idaho history. There are sites that 

depict hydraulic mining and information on mining techniques may be gleaned from studying the 

construction of the dams, the arrangement of the tailing piles, and cutbanks. The shafts and adits reflect 

lode mining activity. Information on mining techniques may be gleaned from studying the arrangement 

and construction of the ditches. The primary value that ditches can provide comes from their location 

(that can be mapped with a GPS unit), and the construction method (that can be gleaned from 

measurements and cross-sections). Dredge piles have marginal values with the undisturbed tailing piles 

potentially indicating the techniques that led to their deposition which can be documented with 

photographs, measurements, and GPS units. Most of the sites date from the late 1800s to the early 1900s 

with several representing the 1930s to 1950s mining activity. There is potential for information in the 

archeological deposits and some information can still be gleaned from the remaining structures or 

habitation sites. 

Four sites are determined not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. They consist of two 

separate scatters of historic artifacts, a short segment of road, and a small section of stage road severely 

modified and currently used as an access road on private land. These sites do not possess information than 

can contribute to our understanding of history. 

3.10.3 Environmental Effects 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under this alternative no project actions would be undertaken. Therefore, there will be no effect to 

cultural resources. Cultural sites will continue to naturally deteriorate. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Project design measures were developed to achieve a no effect or no adverse effect for cultural sites in the 

APE. The majority of sites were avoided with a buffer of 10 meters placed around all those sites. Only 

two types of sites could not be avoided: ditches and dredge piles. On the occasion that these sites could 

not be avoided, design features for ditches and dredge piles would be implemented (see Table 2.2.2). 

Treatment activities would be completed over snow in units 34 and 35 to protect cultural values. There is 

potential for indirect effects by increased use of the area by contractors which could lead to removal of 

artifacts. Those artifacts with the greatest chance of being removed will be systematically collected prior 

to initiation of the project. 

3.10.4 Cumulative Effects 

Only two cultural feature types will be impacted from this project. Two ditches will be affected by road 

construction and several portions of dredge piles may be impacted by road construction or bridge 

construction. To evaluate the cumulative effects of the proposal, all historic mining ditches that 

transported water to mining operations (ditches within the actual hydraulic mine were not included) that 

cross through the APE were included. If the ditch extended out of the APE, and if data were available, the 

entire length of the ditch was included. The total length of all ditches amounts to 7.26 miles (38,331 feet). 

Within the APE about 525 feet of ditch would be affected; that accounts for 1.4% of the total. 

Several areas of dredge tailing piles may be impacted by proposed new roads or ATV trails that would be 

used to reroute vehicle use from the road immediately adjacent to American River to these new 

roads/trails. All actions are part of the restoration effort. The total area of dredge piles in the APE 

amounts to 124,123 yd2

. About 1,292 yd2 may be impacted over the entire project area which accounts for 

about 1% of the total amount of recorded tailings in the APE. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

279

Cumulative effect to the ditches and dredge tailings is considered no adverse effect. Information gained 

from the documentation of the features recovers available data. 

3.10.5 Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects 

No irreversible or irretrievable effects are anticipated.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

280

3.11 Tribal Trust and Treaty Rights______________________ 

3.11.1 Introduction

3.11.1.1 Scope of Analysis 

The Nez Perce Tribe was consulted to gather information regarding potential issues in the analysis area. 

The analysis area is within the original Nez Perce territory. Consultation was initiated specifically with 

the Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Department regarding identification of any cultural resources or Traditional 

Cultural Properties in the analysis area. The Nez Perce Tribe Natural Resource Subcommittee has also 

been consulted. 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Framework 

On June 11, 1855, the Nez Perce Tribe and the United States signed the Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1855, 

(12 Stat. 957). The Tribe relinquished ownership of millions of acres of land to the United States. The 

treaty also guaranteed a permanent homeland for the Tribe, which became known as the Nez Perce 

Reservation. Article 3 of the treaty states: 

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering on 

said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual 

and accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting temporary 

buildings for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and 

pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.” 

This article of the treaty has direct applicability to natural resource management actions by the BLM. 

Under this article, the rights to fish, hunt, and gather are maintained by the Tribe and hence, natural 

resource management decisions then potentially affect treaty rights. The analysis area lies immediately to 

the east of the 1855 treaty boundary and is well within the aboriginal territory as described in the Indian 

Court of Claims (Chalfant, 1974). In the early 1860s gold was discovered on the Nez Perce Reservation. 

This ultimately led to a new treaty. The 1863 treaty dated June 9, 1863 (14 Stat. 647), titled Treaty with 

the Nez Percés, 1863, greatly reduced the 1855 reservation boundary. 

Treaties are negotiated contracts made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. Coordination and 

consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe is also carried out under other federal laws or orders including the 

NHPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred 

Sites; and Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 

Treaties ensured that Native American rights were reserved to maintain their culture as well as provide for 

physical subsistence activities. These rights are often referred to as trust responsibilities and include 

hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. Therefore, the totality of the entire area takes on importance not 

only for the physical subsistence aspect but also for the socio-cultural well being of the cultural group. 

3.11.1.3 Analysis Methods 

Resource information is gathered and coordination completed through the Government-to-Government 

relationship with the Nez Perce Tribe that is based on the trust relationship created from treaties. Natural 

and cultural resource data are compiled and analyzed in this document. 

3.11.2 Existing Conditions 

The existing conditions of various resources are described under their own sections in this document. 

When addressing overall resource condition it is important to also understand that this has implications 

for Native American subsistence use that includes gathering or hunting for food, as well as gathering 

medicinal resources, and craft materials. This is done in a landscape that often has spiritual meaning, not 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

281

only for the collected physical resources, but also the landforms where this activity takes place, in 

addition to the actual activity associated with this action. All landforms, soil, plants, animals, and water 

are interconnected and so the entire ecosystem must be analyzed to more fully understand the condition of 

all culturally related resources. No TCPs or other resource procurement areas have been identified by the 

Tribe that could be affected by any of the action alternatives. 

3.11.3 Environmental Effects 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Under this alternative no project actions would be undertaken. No harvest activities or restoration projects 

proposed under this project would be completed. Existing riparian and aquatic habitats along some stream 

segments will remain in poor to fair condition. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives will support upward trends for riparian/aquatic habitats within the American River 

watershed. Existing riparian and aquatic habitats along some stream segments are currently in poor to fair 

condition. These restoration actions will support trends toward fair to good condition in the long term. 

Temporary road construction will increase in the number of roads available to access areas to procure 

resources. Since the roads are all temporary and some existing roads will be obliterated, there will be 

fewer roads available for access after project completion. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Effects 

No irreversible or irretrievable effects are anticipated.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

282

3.12 Grazing_________________________________________ 

3.12.1 Existing Environment 

Grazing Allotment Profiles 

The American River (36173) and Kirks Fork (36261) Allotments are located in the Elk City township. 

The Northern Idaho Grazing EIS (1981) Record of Decision, and North Idaho Range Management 

Program (1988) established the following on the two allotments: 

Table 3.12.1 Allotments Established by the North Idaho Range Management Program (1988) 

Allotment Name Allotment

Number

Allotment

Category 

Allotment

Acres

Season

of Use 

Livestock

AUMs

American River 36173 Custodial 487 6/15–10/1 15 

Kirks Fork 36261 Maintain 1,314 7/1–10/1 45 

The American River allotment is located 3.0 air miles north of Elk City, Idaho. The allotment is currently 

leased and is predominantly forested with an inter-dispersion of perennial grasses. The current forage 

production on the allotment is 15 animal unit months (AUMs). 

The Kirks Fork Allotment is located 1.0 air mile east of Elk City, Idaho. The allotment is currently leased 

and is predominantly forested with an inter-dispersion of perennial grasses. The current forage production 

on the allotment is 46 AUMs. The current carrying capacity on the American River allotment is 32 

acres/AUM and on the Kirks Fork allotment it is 25 acres/AUM. 

3.12.2 Environmental Effects 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The no-action alternative would have a negative impact upon grazing management. The overstory reduces 

the amount of herbaceous vegetation produced and available for livestock and wildlife. In addition, as the 

dead trees fall, access through the allotments becomes very limited to livestock. 

There would be potential consequences to the grazing use of the two allotments should wildfire occur 

within the project area. Impacts would be relative to the extent of the fire and the intensity, which would 

likely be higher if fuels continue to accumulate through no action. Burned areas on BLM land are closed 

to grazing a minimum of two growing seasons post-fire to allow for vegetative recovery. Should the 

entire allotment burn, it would be closed in its entirety. When the allotment is again available for grazing 

there could be a temporary increase in forage until the trees begin to shade out the forage species. This 

increased forage may be available for as long as 15 years. The forage would then decrease to current 

levels unless management or fire again opens the canopy. Unplanned wildfire is difficult for livestock 

lessees as it immediately impacts their operations and does not allow time to adjust livestock numbers or 

make other arrangements for grazing. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The American River and Kirks Fork allotments could be partially closed to livestock grazing during the 

logging, site preparation, restoration, and reforestation activities. When logging and site preparation are 

not active; livestock grazing may continue to be authorized as long as it does not conflict with the project. 

After reforestation and restoration is complete, livestock grazing would be restricted for two growing 

seasons so that saplings and seeded areas can be established. It is anticipated that there will be long-term 

benefits (15 years) for livestock as the result of the project because of the additional forage produced and 

improved access. It is estimated that the additional forage created through timber harvest would be 

available for 15 years following reforestation before it is lost through plant succession. In addition, forage 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

283

production is estimated to become 2–6 acres per AUM during the 15 year period. Currently the carrying 

capacity on the American River allotment is 32 acres/AUM, and on the Kirks Fork allotment is 25 

acres/AUM. 

3.12.3 Cumulative Effect 

There would be no cumulative impacts on the two grazing lessees. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

284

3.13 Socio Economic _________________________________ 

3.13.1 Introduction

Idaho County is the largest county in Idaho and has an estimated population of 15,000 people. The 

Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project released a report on the economic and 

social conditions of 543 upper Columbia River Basin communities (Harris et al., 1996). The study 

reviewed several factors impacting the economies of these communities. The study found that many 

communities were strongly influenced by the amount of public land within a 20-mile radius and that their 

employment base tended to be more agriculture, wood products, mining or federal Government. Elk City 

is considered an isolated community and 98% of the land within a 20-mile radius is federally managed 

(Harris et al., 1996). 

Recreation-based industry could not be quantified by Harris et al. (1996). Given its location, it can be 

assumed that Elk City is a key access point for back country travelers to portions of the Selway-Bitterroot, 

Gospel Hump and Frank Church wilderness areas as well as the Cove-Mallard and other roadless areas. It 

also attracts substantial numbers of hunters each fall. 

With wood products its second highest employment specialization, Elk City is classed as a resource 

dependant community (Harris et al., 1996). That Elk City is virtually surrounded by federally managed 

land, it is easily discernable that they are dependant on Federal resource management, particularly Federal 

timber harvest. The Bennett Forest Industries saw mill is within the analysis area. It currently employs 

115 people and provides an annual payroll of $4.7 million plus associated contract loggers and truckers 

(Bennett, 2002). However, citing a lack of a reasonable priced log supply from Federal lands, the milling 

operation will be closed and relocated to Grangeville in early 2006 (Idaho County Free Press, December 

18, 2002). 

3.13.1.1 Scope of the Analysis 

The economic analysis for the Eastside Project will focus on those costs and revenues associated with 

implementation of each of the proposed alternatives. The purpose of the economic analysis is to 

display potential costs and revenues associated with implementation of the alternatives for 

comparison purposes. 

3.13.1.2 Analysis Methods 

Economic conditions are constantly changing and the prices and costs used for this analysis are a 

“snapshot” in time, but they do provide a standardized method to compare the impacts of each alternative. 

A weighted average delivered log price based on the median for each species of current prices being paid 

for logs delivered to the Bennett Forest Industries mill in Grangeville was used for this analysis. These 

prices should remain static until June 2006 (Glen Poxlitner, BFI, personal communication). This price 

source was chosen as it is the closest processing facility to the project area. 

The direct impact of the project on local employment was assessed using an IMPLAN model and is 

displayed in Table 3.13.2. IMPLAN is an economic impact assessment modeling system that allows the 

user to estimate employment and other changes resulting from various management decisions. 

3.13.1.3 Direct and Indirect Effects 

Long-term and cumulative effects of individual projects are difficult to quantify. Private lands will 

continue to produce forest products, but the rate of harvest is largely dependent on the landowner’s 

circumstances and is unpredictable. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

285

3.13.2 Indicator 1–Local Employment

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Local employment could be directly or indirectly impacted by the No Action Alternative. Based upon 

IMPLAN analysis summarized in Table 3.13.2 the project would help support 227-245 jobs. In the short 

term, the No Action Alternative does not provide this direct support, possibly jeopardizing local 

employment opportunities. 

In the long term the lodgepole pine in the analysis area is experiencing continuing mortality from 

mountain pine beetle. Stand exams completed in 2004 show that 30 to 50 percent of the mature trees are 

dead and mortality rates are 20–30% per year (see Section 3.3 Vegetation). Table 3.13.1 displays the 

sawlog harvest volume and percent of lodgepole pine by alternative. 

Table 3.13.1 A.C. Sawlog Harvest and Lodgepole Pine Volume by Alternative

Alternative Total Volume 

(MMBF)

Lodgepole Pine 

(MMBF)

Percent of 

Volume

B 9.705 6.623 68 

C 11.104 8.034 72 

D 10.467 7.537 72 

No action results indirectly in a lost opportunity for commercial timber harvest for at least 60 years on 

much of the project area. This would be the time required for the next generation to establish and grow to 

commercial size. The indirect effect would be the lost employment potential of the current forest stands. 

If a stand replacing fire should occur, the timeframe for the maturity of the next generation would be 

extended. The length of the delay to maturity would depend on when the fire(s) occurred and the extent of 

the fire(s). 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Local employment would be directly impacted by all action alternatives. Employment opportunities that 

may result from project implementation include: 

x restoration activities (watershed, riparian, mine site, roads, etc) 

x fuel reduction 

x forest product (including harvest, transportation and milling) 

x reforestation

x road construction 

Table 3.13.2 provides a summary of the potential jobs related to each phase of project implementation 

based on IMPLAN analysis. 

Table 3.13.2 Direct Employment Effects 

Project Type Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Restoration/Reforestation 18 18 18 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction 11 11 10 

Forest Products 196 212 196 

Road Construction 5 4 3 

 Total Jobs 230 245 227 

Secondary economic activity would also be supported indirectly through implementation of any action 

alternative. This would be related to suppliers of equipment and fuel, repairs, lodging, etc. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

286

Stewardship contracting is an implementation tool that is available for project implementation. During the 

scoping process with the public and the Nez Perce Tribe, implementing portions of the project under 

stewardship authorities was discussed and supported. Stewardship guidance, particularly for NFP fuel 

reduction projects, provides an emphasis for local hiring, the use of local contractors, and providing local 

training opportunities. This results in potentially more direct local income and job benefits than standard 

service and timber sale contracting and, through the training opportunities, can create a labor pool for 

continued employment opportunities. 

3.13.3 Indicator 2–Revenues and Costs 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The No Action Alternative, by foregoing implementation of timber harvest and the development and 

restoration package, would result in no change to the current revenue production or expenditures. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The implementation of any action alternative has the potential to affect associated revenue and costs. 

Lodgepole pine represents 68–72 percent of the available sawlog volume across the three action 

alternatives. With the annual rate of mortality expected to be 20–30 percent, the loss of potential revenue 

is quite high. The available volume figures are from stand exams completed in 2004 and represent the 

current available harvest volume. This will change with the continuing mortality, but the relative 

comparisons presented will remain valid. The top portion of Tables 3.13.3–3.13.5 display the revenue and 

costs associated with the harvest activities and the bottom portion displays the restoration activity and its 

associated cost. This information provides an estimate only and can be used as a relative comparison tool 

of the economic impact of each alternative.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

287

Table 3.13.3 Revenue and Costs of Implementation–Alternative B–Proposed Action 

Item Cost/Unit Units Costs Revenue

Vegetation/Fuels Treatment Activities 

Delivered Log Price $345 9,705.0 $3,351,130 

Tractor Logging (mbf) $165 6,757.0 $1,114,905 

Cable/Skyline Logging (mbf) $200 2,386.0 $477,200 

Helicopter Logging (mbf) $325 562.0 $182,650 

Underburn Fuels (acre) $491 340.0 $166,940 

Broadcast Burn Fuels (acre) $480 140.0 $67,200 

Excavator Pile & Burn (acre) $278 770.0 $214,060 

Hand Pile & Burn (acre) $450 54.0 $24,300 

Reforestation (acre) $490 470.0 $230,300 

Temporary Road Construction & Decomm. 

(miles) $13,000 15.1 $196,300 

Road Improvement (miles) $2,700 2.4 $6,480 

Subtotal–Treatment Activities $2,668,335 $3,351,130 

Restoration Activities 

Road Decommissioning (miles) $6,945 1.9 $13,196 

Watershed Road Improvements (miles) $3,934 $0 

New Permanent Road (miles) $99,000 0.6 $59,400 

New Automobile River Crossing (Bridge) $90,000 0.0 $0 

Queen Creek–American River Re-connect $30,692 1.0 $30,692 

Number of sites of Watershed Trail 

Improvements5 $31,350 2.0 $62,700 

Stream Crossing Improvements $5,173 2.0 $10,346 

Riparian Planting (miles) $21,818 4.8 $104,726 

Stream Bank Re-contour (miles) $30,045 1.2 $36,054 

Recreation and Trail improvements (miles) $6,652 0.2 $1,330 

Access Change (road to trail–miles) $10,000 1.6 $16,000 

Mine Site Reclamation (acres) $20,045 0.5 $10,023 

Subtotal–Restoration Activities $344,467 0 

Subtotal $3,024,802 

Net Revenue $326,328 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

288

Table 3.13.4 Revenue and Costs of Implementation–Alternative C 

Item Cost/Unit Units Costs Revenue

Vegetation/Fuels Treatment Activities 

Delivered Log Price $343 11,104.0 $3,805,405 

Tractor Logging (mbf) $165 5,335.0 $880,275 

Cable/Skyline Logging (mbf) $200 1,209.0 $241,800 

Helicopter Logging (mbf) $325 4,560.0 $1,482,000 

Underburn Fuels (acre) $491 469.0 $230,279 

Broadcast Burn Fuels (acre) $480 0.0 $0 

Excavator Pile & Burn (acre) $278 767.0 $213,226 

Hand Pile & Burn (acre) $450 54.0 $24,300 

Reforestation (acre) $490 470.0 $230,300 

Temporary Road Construction & Decomm. 

(miles) $13,000 10.5 $136,500 

Road Improvement (miles) $2,700 2.4 $6,480 

Subtotal–Treatment Activities $3,445,160 $3,805,405 

Restoration Activities 

Road Decommissioning (miles) $6,945 3.0 $20,696 

Watershed Road Improvements (miles) $3,934 $0 

New Permanent Road (miles) $99,000 1.1 $108,900 

New Automobile River Crossing (Bridge) $90,000 1.0 $90,000 

Queen Creek–American River Re-connect $30,692 1.0 $30,692 

Number of sites of Watershed Trail 

Improvements $31,350 2.0 $62,700 

Stream Crossing Improvements $5,173 3.0 $15,519 

Riparian Planting (miles) $21,818 4.8 $104,726 

Stream Bank Re-contour (miles) $30,045 1.2 $36,054 

Recreation and Trail improvements (miles) $6,652 0.2 $1,330 

Access Change (road to trail–miles) $10,000 1.6 $16,000 

Mine Site Reclamation (acres) $20,045 0.5 $10,023 

Subtotal–Restoration Activities $496,640 0 

Subtotal $3,941,800 

Net Revenue ($136,395) 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

289

Table 3.13.5 Revenue and Costs of Implementation–Alternative D 

Item Cost/Unit Units Costs Revenue

Vegetation/Fuels Treatment Activities 

Delivered Log Price $343 10,467 $3,585,850 

Tractor Logging (mbf) $165 6,527 $1,076,955 

Cable/Skyline Logging (mbf) $200 1,209 $241,800 

Helicopter Logging (mbf) $325 2,731 $887,575 

Underburn Fuels (acre) $491 266 $130,606 

Broadcast Burn Fuels (acre) $480 134 $64,320 

Excavator Pile & Burn (acre) $278 726 $201,828 

Hand Pile & Burn (acre) $450 43 $19,350 

Reforestation (acre) $490 470 $230,300 

Temporary Road Construction & Decomm. 

(miles) $13,000 10.7 $139,100 

Road Improvement (miles) $2,700 2.1 $5,670 

Subtotal–Treatment Activities $2,997,504 $3,585,850 

Restoration Activities 

Road Decommissioning (miles) $6,945 1.5 $10,418 

Watershed Road Improvements (miles) $3,934 2.1 $8,261 

New Permanent Road (miles) $99,000 0.6 $59,400 

New Automobile River Crossing (Bridge) $90,000 1.0 $90,000 

Queen Creek–American River Re-connect $30,692 1.0 $30,692 

Number of sites of Watershed Trail Improvements $31,350 2.0 $62,700 

Stream Crossing Improvements $5,173 1.0 $5,173 

Riparian Planting (miles) $21,818 4.8 $104,726 

Stream Bank Re-contour (miles) $30,045 0.8 $24,036 

Recreation and Trail improvements (miles) $6,652 0.2 $1,330 

Access Change (road to trail–miles) $10,000 2.6 $26,000 

Mine Site Reclamation (acres) $20,045 0.5 $10,023 

Subtotal–Restoration Activities $432,759 0 

Subtotal $3,430,263 

Net Revenue $155,587 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

290

The information in Tables 3.13.3–3.13.5 displays that the net value (all implementation costs minus 

revenues) for Alternative B is $326,328; Alternative C is ($136,395); and Alternative D is $155,587. 

This shows that Alternative B and D would provide sufficient revenue to offset the implementation and 

restoration costs, while Alternative C would be expected to cost an additional $136,395 to implement all 

proposed activities. With lodgepole pine a significant component of each action alternative (see Table 

3.3.1) and its declining value due to beetle mortality, it is conceivable that Alternatives B and D would 

move closer to zero or negative value with time. Options that could be implemented to ensure revenue are 

sufficient to cover expenses include dropping some higher costing harvest methods (helicopter), reducing 

the area that would be reforested with a different seral mix, or delaying implementation of restoration 

actions in excess of those needed to support an upward trend. 

3.13.4 Indicator 3–Other Economic Effects 

Common to All Alternatives 

Grazing and recreation-based services also provide economic inputs to the local economy, but they are 

very minor relative to the values of the forest products and restoration treatments. Current grazing levels 

and recreation-based economic activities would not be appreciably affected by implementation of any 

alternative.

3.13.5 Indicator 4–Environmental Justice 

Common to All Alternatives 

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Through scoping, public and collaborative meetings, the 

public and local residents have had a voice in developing alternatives and have been thoroughly informed 

of potential environmental consequences. 

The analysis area is within the ceded territory of the Nez Perce Tribe. Consideration on the impacts to 

Native Americans can be found in Section 3.11 (Tribal Trust and Treaty Rights). The Tribe was also kept 

fully involved in project development through meetings with the Natural Resources Subcommittee and 

specialist to specialist dialogue. No environmental health hazards have been identified resulting from 

project implementation. The project should not disproportionately affect income levels. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

291

3.14 Recreation ______________________________________ 

3.14.1 Introduction

Recreational use within the project area is heavily influenced by the presence of the existing 

transportation system and land ownership pattern. Dispersed recreation is predominant. Primary 

recreation activities in the area are hunting, fishing, ATV trail riding, and snowmobiling. Other activities 

include picking berries and mushrooms, cross country skiing, and viewing wildlife and fisheries. 

Swimming and picnicking are also popular activities along the American River near the Alamance Mine 

Site. Motorized and non-motorized trail use is increasing. ATV use is increasing in popularity on the trail 

system in this area. Non-motorized uses remain relatively consistent, with light to moderate numbers of 

local and out-of-area recreational users during the summer and fall seasons. Most recreation users are 

from north central Idaho, although in the fall, a significant percentage of hunters are from out-of-state or 

other parts of Idaho. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes and the corresponding ROS objectives were established 

in the Chief Joseph MFP in 1981. The Proposed Action and all alternatives fall within areas managed for 

Rural and Roaded Natural recreation opportunities. 

Roaded Natural ROS areas include moderate evidence of human modification. Surface and vegetative 

modifications are common. Constructed roads and highways are present. Structures are generally 

scattered, remaining visually subordinate. Structures may include small reservoirs, power lines, 

microwave installations, etc. Recreation facilities are generally small and rustic. The number of 

encounters with other recreation users is low. 

3.14.1.1 Analysis Methods 

In the initial steps of project design ROS classes were reviewed for the project area as delineated in the 

MFP. Based upon the class, vegetation/fuels management treatments and aquatic restoration treatments 

were designed to be compatible. 

Current recreational use areas (dispersed campsites), ATV use patterns, and highway vehicle use patterns 

are the baseline upon which potential impacts on recreational opportunities were evaluated. Recreation 

opportunities associated with dispersed activities such as hunting, fishing, camping and driving were 

used.

3.14.2 Indicator 1–Resource Opportunity Spectrum Class 

3.14.2.1 Existing Condition 

The entire project area is managed under Roaded Natural or Rural guidelines as described in the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Recreation activities include big game hunting, driving for pleasure, 

and various motorized and non-motorized trail uses. The Elk City township is a combination of BLM, and 

private lands. It is a rural, pastoral setting, with a small town within a remote, forested landscape. Elk City 

has become a destination on driving tours primarily from the Selway basin and along the Elk City Wagon 

Road. The Elk City Dust Devils is a local ATV club with over 100 members, many from outside the area 

(Evett, 2005). 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

292

3.14.2.2 Environmental Effects 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classifications identified in the MFP for the project area would remain 

unchanged by the “no action” alternative. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Visitors traveling in the American River watershed could encounter a very slight increase in traffic. Noise 

and dust from proposed treatment activities would have a short term temporary impact on recreation 

visitors. Minor, temporary changes to the recreational experience are expected from project activities 

which occur in the vicinity of popular use areas or along roads and trails. Frequency of contact would 

increase in those areas currently not adjacent to existing roads as temporary access roads are used. 

Permanent changes on the type of access available will result in a change in recreation activities and use 

patterns along the American River. 

The transportation system would be altered by road decommissioning, ford closures, ATV bridge 

construction and changes in highway vehicle use to ATV trails with the action alternatives. Current 

highway vehicle access to areas of relatively high use, e.g. the Alamance Mine and the area near the 

upper American River Ford will be restricted, and may reduce the number of visitors at these sites. 

Reducing the amount of highway vehicle access could create an increased sense of remoteness for users 

in some areas; however contact with other users on main travel routes would continue to be common. 

Although there will be some effects to recreational experiences resulting from the action alternatives, the 

effects will not be substantial enough to alter the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classifications 

identified in the MFP for the project area. 

3.14.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

The NPNF is implementing the American and Crooked River Project adjacent to the Eastside Project 

area. They used a similar classification system and categorize 97 percent of their project area Roaded 

Natural (USDA-FS, 2005a). Their project will not alter the ROS class. Cumulative effects are therefore 

the same as the direct and indirect effects at a broader scale. 

3.14.3 Indicator 2–Recreational Activities 

The project area is a popular big game hunting area for elk, moose, deer and bear. The roads along the 

American River are popular for sight seeing and dispersed camping. American River contains rainbow, 

cutthroat, brook and bull trout; steelhead, and spring and summer chinook salmon. Most dispersed use 

visitors are self-contained. Dispersed camp sites are scattered along open roads. 

3.14.3.1 Environmental Effects 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

The recreation uses would remain unchanged by the “no action” alternative. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Visitors traveling in the American River watershed could encounter a very slight increase in traffic. 

Visitors would notice a short term increase in dust and noise from the proposed activity. Anglers along 

American River could be temporarily displaced by the proposed project, due to traffic, noise and/or 

watershed restoration actions. Hunters could also be displaced by activities associated with the action 

alternatives or encounter different conditions for several seasons. The quality of experience of campers in 

the American River watershed could be reduced by increased activity during the implementation of the 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

293

proposed actions. The road along the American River in the south portion of the project would no longer 

be accessible to highway vehicles and may affect visitor numbers. Many of the vegetation/fuels treatment 

areas may become snowmobile play areas for several years until trees become taller. 

Alternatives C, and D 

The road along the American River in the north portion of the project would no longer be accessible to 

highway vehicles, which may affect the number of visitors. 

3.14.2.4 Cumulative Effects 

The NPNF is implementing the American and Crooked River Project adjacent to the Eastside Project 

area. Cumulative effects are therefore the same as the direct and indirect effects at a broader scale. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

295

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

4.1 List of Preparers _________________________________ 

Name Years

Experience Role/Responsibility Education

Greg Yuncevich 28 Line officer B.S., Wildlife Biology 

Robbin Boyce 27 Silviculture, Fire/fuels M.S., Silviculture/Fire 

Management and Ecology 

B.S., Forest Management 

Mark Craig 23 Socio - Economic B.S., Forest Management, 

minor in Business Administration 

Kristen Sanders 17 Air Quality, Fire/fuels M.S., Forestry/Fire Management 

B.S., Biology 

Chuck Dillon 10 Geographic Information System B.A., Geography 

Graduate work in GIS/Remote 

Sensing/Regional & City Planning 

LeAnn Eno 17 Special Status Plants, 

Vegetation–Riparian and 

Wetlands

B.S./Biology

Graduate work Botany 

and Plant Ecology 

LuVerne Grussing 29 Recreation, Visual Resources M.Ed., Recreation & Park 

Administration 

Dean Huibregtse 26 Livestock Grazing B.S., Range Management/ 

Wildlife Management 

Craig Johnson 31 Special Status Fish and Wildlife, 

Fish and Wildlife 

M.S., Range Resources 

B.S., Wildlife/Fisheries 

Mark Lowry 21+ Special Status Plants, Vegetation, 

Riparian and Wetlands 

B.S., Rangeland Resources 

David Sisson 28 Cultural Resources, Indian Trust 

Resources and Tribal Treaty 

Rights

M.A., Interdisciplinary Studies 

B.S., Anthropology 

Mike Stevenson 19 Soil Resources, Water Resources B.S., Geology 

Stephanie Snook 30 District Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

296

4.2 Distribution List for Final EIS_______________________ 

Private Individuals and 

Commercial Interests 

Abbott, Peter Lynn 

Bailey, Carolyn 

Baldwin, Daniel A. 

Bennett Forest Industries

Biggers, Larry 

Blasch, Kyle 

Bonnalie, Russell 

Brando, Cathy 

Chandler, Donald L. 

Clapp, Douglas E. 

Clements, Mike 

Conboy, Michael A. 

Denham, Joseph E. 

Edwards, Ellen 

Evans, Stanley R. 

Gallaugher, Clifford 

GillesRealty.com 

Lange, Irvin B. 

Orton, Senes D. 

Pierson, Larry 

Rutt, Mable 

Shawley, Margaret J. 

Three Rivers Timber, Inc. 

Woods, Trent 

Environmental and 

Recreational Groups 

Coeur d'Alene Dist. Resource Advisory Council 

Dust Devils ATV Club 

Framing Our Community 

Friends of the Clearwater 

Idaho Conservation League 

Ida-Lew Economic Development Council 

The Ecology Center, Inc

Government and 

Tribal Agencies 

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Idaho Department of Commerce/Labor 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Idaho Department of Fish & Game 

Idaho Department of Lands 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

Idaho Department of Water Resources 

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office 

Minerals Management Service 

National Park Service 

Nez Perce National Forest 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee 

Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Program 

Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Division 

Nez Perce Tribe Natural Resource Division 

Nez Perce Tribe Office of Legal Council 

NOAA Fisheries 

Office of Surface Mining 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

US Department of Energy 

US Department of the Interior 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

US Fish & Wildlife Service

US Geological Survey 

Elected Officials 

Idaho County Commissioners 

Idaho State Representative Paul Shepherd

Idaho State Representative Ken A. Roberts 

Idaho State Senator Leland Heinrich

US Representative Bill Sali

US Senator Larry E. Craig 

US Senator Mike Crapo 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

297

4.3 Consultation ____________________________________ 

Consultation with the NMFS and the USFWS was initiated February 2004 with the sending of a scoping 

letter. During March 2004, a Level 1 meeting was held with BLM and NPNF staff and NMFS and 

USFWS biologists. During this meeting the NPNF American and River Crooked River Project and BLM 

Eastside Project proposals were presented, along with some initial analysis information on the projects. 

Consultation has been ongoing, with exchange of information and several field reviews of the project 

area. A draft Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for the project and submitted to NMFS and 

USFWS. Consultation on the project will continue and a final BA will be submitted to NMFS and 

USFWS. Once the Biological Opinion BO) for the Eastside Project is received the Record of Decision 

will be completed. 

The BLM will continue to coordinate and consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Idaho 

Department of Water Resources, and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality regarding any 

necessary permits and/or water quality certification related to floodplains, wetlands, and streams. Review 

of the Draft EIS has been completed by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (December 11, 

2006) and it complies with Idaho’s Water Quality Standards 58.01.01.350. 

A cultural resource inventory was conducted to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect. 

Identified properties were evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, and 

project design measures were initiated to prevent an adverse effect. The Nez Perce Tribe was consulted to 

gather information regarding potential issues in the analysis area. Consultation with the Nez Perce 

Tribe’s Cultural Department continued throughout project development to identify cultural resources and 

Traditional Cultural Properties. The Nez Perce Tribe’s Natural Resource Subcommittee was consulted 

and representatives from the Tribe attended a field tour in 2005. The Cottonwood Field Manager met with 

the Subcommittee several times, as recently as October 3, 2006, to request input on the Draft EIS. 

Consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been completed. 

4.4 Public Scoping Synopsis __________________________ 

The public comment garnered during the scoping process came from various sources, including other 

Federal and State Agencies, the Nez Perce Tribe, organized groups at the local and regional level, and 

individuals. 

The consideration of feedback (those perceived cause-effects) was documented to determine those to be 

considered for further analysis (as potential effects) and to help gather the various cause-effects 

statements into issues to be analyzed in depth. A brief description of the process follows. 

The feedback was broken into statements that contain the perceived/alleged cause-effect. The statement 

was used to assign a cause (an activity in the proposed action) and an effect. A determination was then 

made if it constituted an applicable potential effect to consider further. The various cause-effects were 

lumped into issue statements used in the analysis in this EIS. 

The bulk of the perceived cause-effect statements in decreasing number were centered around: road & 

trail factors; watershed- and fisheries-related exiting conditions and outcomes; present and future fuels 

and vegetation conditions; wildlife concerns; economics; and recreation. 

4.5 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and BLM 

Responses __________________________________________ 

The 60-day public comment period on the Draft EIS started on July 14, 2006 and ended on September 11, 

2006. In August, 2006, a public meeting was held in Elk City, Idaho. Two members of the public 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

298

attended the meeting. A total of 10 comment letters were received on the Draft EIS from individuals, 

groups and government agencies. 

The following individuals and organizations submitted comments to the BLM concerning the Eastside 

Project. Each comment letter, listed by author and the individual comments within has been assigned a 

number to identify the comment and the ID Team response. The ID Team reviewed each comment letter 

and addressed those comments that were substantive in nature and within the scope of this project. These 

comments and their responses are listed below. 

Letter Number: 

1. B. Sachau. 07/11/2006. 

2. Idaho State Department of Parks & Recreation (Jeff Cook). 08/24/2006. 

3. Larry and Shirley Biggers. 08/29/2006. 

4. Idaho Conservation League (Jonathan Oppenheimer). 09/07/2006. 

5. Lynne Nelson. 09/07/2006 

6. Joseph Bayley. 09/08/2006. 

7. Susan Westervelt. 09/08/2006. 

8. F. Russell and Roberta Bonnalie. 09/08/2006. 

9. Friends of the Clearwater (Gary MacFarlane). 09/11/2006 

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Christine B. Reichgott). 09/11/2006 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

299

1-1|||

Letter 1: B. Sachau Letter 1: B. Sac

Comment: 1-1 Response: Thank you for your comments on Environmental Impact Statement. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

300

2-1|||2-2||2-3|||2-4|||

Letter 2: Idaho Department of Parks & Recreation Letter 2: Idaho Department of P

Comment: 2-1 Response: The effect of the project on recresnowmobiling, was considered in the design Project Design Measures Table 2.3.1, which maintain a minimum of two inches of snow This would allow for snowmobile use on the 39 in this Table allow for harvest during froimpacts to soil and plants. There would be ffrom winter logging operations. Upon furtheCook, roads #443 and #1818 noted in the DEsystem, while road #1809 is not. Comment: 2-2 Response: See Response to Comment 2-1. Comment: 2-3 Response: See Response to Comment 2-1. Comment: 2-4 Response: We contacted Mike Howzen and the grooming program in mitigating the imppossible, the BLM will plow one lane for lolane unplowed to be groomed for snowmobiprohibited on weekends to reduce potential snowmobile use. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

301

3-1||||3-2||

Letter 3: Larry and Shirley Biggers Letter 3: Larry and Shir

Comment: 3-1 Response: We understand your concerns. Wconsideration along with our need to reduce watershed restoration portions of this projecin Section 3.8.1.3 for a discussion about perusing geosynthetic fabrics and/or geogrid sypredetermined depths of pit run rock for basmaterial, the new road would be designed anthaw and wet conditions. We expect a properequire less maintenance than the existing roof dredge waste rock, would meet the needs improving riparian habitats and further reduRiver. Continuing with present day maintenbe maintained for year round use. Comment: 3-2 Response: We hope you and other local lanto improve water quality and fish habitat in you for your comment on the Eastside Draft Statement. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

302

4-1|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment 4:1 Response: The majority of temporary roads occur in land types that do not have high sedstreams (e.g., ridge tops, upper and mid slopidentify from 0.56 to 1.13 miles of new permconstructed - not two miles as you have indi3.8.4). The majority of the new road construrelocation) is proposed so that portions of throad, paralleling the river, can be decommisnecessary to develop an alternate route to throad away from the riparian area and floodpAppendix H in Volume II of this EIS providregarding aquatic trend analysis. Also additito this appendix in this Final EIS in responsIn addition to restoration work proposed in trestoration has been implemented, is currentfor the near future; all of which support upwFork of the Clearwater River subbasin. Refethis EIS, for additional information regardinpages 41-43 (Table 3.0.1), and pages 171, 1and 187. Additional information has been adFinal EIS. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

303

4-1| Cont’d|||

4-2||||||4-3|||||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-2 Response: The BLM-managed lands within t

numerous classified roads (which includes moconsidered to be unroaded. Please refer to ApTable 3.8.5 of this EIS. All of the project area Urban Interface area, as depicted on Map 18 Aof human development is common. As stated proposed action does not enter or occur in the areas.”Comment: 4-3 Response: The effects analysis is contained in Appendix H of provides additional discussion and has been supplemented in this Final EIS in comments. It is acknowledged that short term from project implementation. However, long a reduction in chronic sediment sources and riefforts.Also see response to comment 4-1 which stateproposed permanent road (0.56 to 1.13). BLM lands often do not comprise a large majoownership patterns, BLM opportunities are oftsubwatersheds. Consequently, BLM opportunmany subwatersheds are very limited.  Development of the road and access alternativof criteria as stated in Section 3.8.1.3. Table 3owner and Map 15 in Appendix A their locatio

existing roads is extremely limited due to lack roads occurring on BLM lands in several subwegress needs of adjacent owners. The road densities noted by this comment are project. These density classifications exist at pactually decreases the lower American river frthese criteria. See table 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

304

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserv

Comment: 4-4 Response: We concur that NEZSED should monitoring and professional judgment. The presented in Appendix H, pages H-9 and H-NEZSED has been tested using locally colleResults of the individual tests varied, with pand close to observed values. The model has predict, but has been determined to be a reasalternative assessment (Gloss, 1995; GerharComment: 4-5 Response: Potential increases in sediment yNEZSED model, including sediment from inin other ways. As stated on page 99, potentitraffic “will be reduced through road maintecontract provisions to minimize resource daPlease refer to Table 2.3.1 (pp27-32), for spand their relative effectiveness. Applicable concerns would include, but not be limited t14, and 15. Regarding the upward trend concern, Whittaobjectives and do not trigger the upward tren3.6.2.2 pages 147-148. The BLM is not prorestoration or designate new OHV trails in WCreeks.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

305

4-4|||||||4-5||||||||||4-6||||4-7|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-6 Response: An implementation plan for the TMDLs was completed in 2006, and the BLthis process. No single project will be expecTMDL sediment reduction goal. This projecdecrease in sediment yield to the South Fork (refer to tables 3.4.7 and 3.4.8, and Figure 3The South Fork Clearwater River TMDL tarsediment does not identify a specific time frspecific reductions of such. Consequently, tbe expected to achieve entire the TMDL sedAchievement of TMDL objectives would be of management and restoration actions. The and proposing other restoration actions that achievement of TMDL targets for the South Again, because BLM lands comprise only 1River watershed and 2 percent of the South subbasin, BLM restoration opportunities are subwatersheds Comment: 4-7 Response: See response to comment 4-1 – Elandownership in the American River waterpursuing active restoration measures. In addidentified in the Eastside Project, the BLM iproposing other restoration efforts to supporH update Table H.6 in this Final EIS for add
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

306

4-8||||||||4-9|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-8 Response: We are also concerned about imwatersheds.This EIS, pages 145-148, provides an overvincluding the fish species present. This EIS concerns are irrelevant or that these drainagFor analysis of ECA refer to pages 176 – 17– H-9. In response to your comment, we have furthanalyses procedures in Appendix H, page HComment: 4-9 Response: Channel morphology has been awhere ECA is predicted to exceed 15% as dresponse to comment 4-8. Comment: 4-10 Response: This EIS identifies that the greattemperature guidance attributed to BLM maassociated with potential impacts to riparian pages 103 – 105, 137 – 138, 174 -177). RefH-9, for additional discussion in regards to Erestoration efforts and no timber harvest in RClearwater River temperature TMDL guidanComment: 4-11 Response: See response to comments 4-8 (and Table 0.2 (page ix), summary assessmen96-102 for sediment analysis and trend infor
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

307

4-10||||4-11|||||4-12||||||4-13|||4-14|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-12 Response: Please see EIS (page 94) where thWater Yield states, “ECA was calculated by palternative.” Table 3.0.1 lists the projects that were considecumulative impacts analysis. The table on page 94 (Table 3.4.5) shows the eacres (ECA) for the subwatersheds, with areas first column. Alternative A is the existing conestimated changes from alternatives for the Eathe addition of the American Crooked Project. page 96 reflects the existing condition and the effects of foreseeable actions. The labels on thto help clarify this. As indicated on page 94 (Indicator 2 – Water Ylodgepole pine will continue to contribute to EAlso on page 94, third paragraph under Alterndying lodgepole pine and the effects to ECA. small existing trees in the understory would evconditions as the stand matures, this would likComment: 4-13 Response: We acknowledge the importance in the upper South Fork of the Clearwater Riv

River watershed. Within these areas, we have 

conduct a wide variety of restoration actions wMany of the actions noted in Table 3.0.1 have Eastside Project area, specifically American RBox Sing Creek channel re-connect and fish bRiver Restoration Projects (fish barrier removimprovement). The bank re-contour and riparian vegetation pRiver are included in all of the Eastside Projec

in Appendix A, the treatments occur on all of project area. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

308

4-15||||4-16|||4-17|||4-18||||||||||4-19|||4-20|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-14 Response: Thank you for your comment. Treconnect is designed to accommodate fish pevent (See Appendix I). Queen Creek recondescribed under Alternative B on page 20. Streatment alternatives. Page 263 clearly descwhat is planned for fords. As discussed, all eon BLM land will either be hardened or closComment: 4-15 Response: Refer to Appendix I, for a descrmeasures. Refer to Table 2.3.1, Project Desiadditional information regarding instream wRelocating fish (e.g., electrofishing) out of atakes places would not be practical in a streaRiver, primarily because of stream flow conThe riparian restoration primarily involves rseeding and planting of riparian vegetation. primarily occur in areas above the mean higComment: 4-16 Response: We agree with your comment. TCumulative Effects (page 172), identifies paundertaken to create pool habitat and place lalso plans to create pools and place woody dreaches in American River (American River 

BLM 2006), which includes stream segment
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

309

4-20| Cont’d|||

4-21||4-22||||4-23||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment 4:17 Response: Thank you for your comment. Wshould be monitored (see Appendix E-Monicomplying with state water quality standardmg/L for 96 hours) will definitely not be excBLM management actions. As stated on pamonitoring requirement for riparian and chaduring, and post-) to ensure that potential prsediment impacts are minimized to native anComment: 4-18 Response: A full discussion on sediment is 3.4.The effects of the new permanent roads and disclosed along with the effects (including bactions. The short- and long-term effects as the action alternatives will be considered in The action alternatives identify from 0.6 to roads, not 2.12 as you have stated Also see our responses comments 4-1, 4-3, concernsComment 4-19 Response: The majority of temporary roads occur in areas that have low sediment delivediscussion on sediment is disclosed in this Eon upward trends and the effects of the projeAlso see response to comment 4-1. We acknowledge that temporary roads are pyarding systems which are more economicaAlternatives C and D were developed to add
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

310

4-23| Cont’d||

4-24|||||4-25||||4-26|||4-27|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment 4:20 Response: Proposed road locations are chosen criteria as stated in Section 3.8.1.3. As table 3involved are relatively small and there are diff(reflecting the differences in the amount of heThe Eastside Project action alternatives are nobuild roads on slopes susceptible to slope failuDesign criteria have been developed for this p

physical disturbance of temporary roads, skid 

Table 2.3.1) and rehabilitation following use. discussion of road decommissioning. These and other factors were considered in altComment: 4-21 Response: This statement is does not pertain ttopic of discussion on the Whiskey South proj2006. However, PACFISH standards are used delineations. Mean high flow connected Amerconsidered in the delineation of PACFISH bufProject logging is proposed to occur within RHComment: 4-22 Response: PACFISH buffers should minimize delivery to live waters (see pages 158-159). T

Design Measures to deal with landslide prone 5 deal specifically with landslide prone. The Mof ground based yarding systems on slopes ex

design of the Eastside project is in conformancincorporates the State of Idaho Best Managem

relate to slope and logging practices and can bwww.idl.idaho.gov/Bureau/forasst.htm. The psustained slopes >35% are either cable or helic
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

311

4-28||

|

4-29||

|

4-30||4-31||

|||

4-32||

|||

4-33||

|

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-23 Response: The range of alternatives was devPurpose and Need for the Action and issues (Refer to Chapters 1 and 2). The use of altetiming clauses for operations was thoroughlalternatives. As displayed in Table 0.1, the versus other systems is substantial, as is the temporary roads. Sections 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and including logging methods. Table 2.3.1, item3.10.3 display the use of timing clauses to reHelicopter and winter logging have also beeThe Federally listed MacFarlane’s four-o’clnot occur, and no suitable habitat exists for tarea. No logging is proposed to occur in RHprotect known populations of Case’s corydariparian). No known populations of Paysonlogging areas. The Project Design Measures to mitigate impacts to Candystick (item 40) (item 41) as well as addressing noxious weeSection 3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered and Sinformation. Comment: 4-24 Response: Fuels reduction includes reducindecreasing surface fuels, lowering fuel bed dresistant species. As described in the Alternof treatment methods are proposed. The intthe best results from a silvicultural standpointreatments to fit the area. Treatments, includcuts, would achieve these variations and all retention of large trees. Appendix D, Table Dtreatment types and acreage for each alternaand species composition of the stands. The TA are illustrative of where the different meth3.3.3.2 (pages 70-71) discloses the effects to which is comparable to the Historic range (s
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

312

4-34||||||||4-35||||||||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-25 Response: We agree and have included irregas part of our project. Refer to irregular sheAppendix B page B-15. Comment: 4-26 Response: Thank you for your comment, wthis in the alternatives. Comment: 4-27 Response: We are proposing to convert 2.3ATV trail in Alternative D as shown on Tabconversion project would reduce the running for reduction of chronic sediment sources (eATV bridges), and restrict full size vehicle uComment: 4-28 Response: Thank you for your comment on Comment: 4-29 Response: Thank you for your comment. Ureduce the spread of noxious weeds. We wiefforts and require all motorized users to staOff-road vehicle use is not proposed under aComment: 4-30 Response: Thank you for your comment. Oroads that are proposed to be converted to Aalternatives, a decrease in road density and min the long term (refer to Chapter 2, and Appresponse 4-27 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

313

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment 4:31 Response: The ability to decrease existing rto the limited BLM landownership, low amosubwatersheds, and ingress and egress needs Implementation of any of the action alternatdensities in the long term. It is acknowledgeincrease in road densities would occur from temporary roads. However, public road clospublic motorized use of these temporary roafeature for the project). Long term reduction lower than existing conditions, and is primartimber stands and size of the units and not aroutes. The gray wolf population has steadirestrictions are required (see pages 200 and Page 201, states, “Watershed restoration acttreatments are not expected to negatively imhabitats considerably regardless of alternativComment: 4-32 Response: There is a conservation strategy that is being used for the Eastside Project. Sspecific goshawk management guidance and additional mitigation is deemed necessary to the project and analysis area, because suitabhistorical amounts in the American River wComment: 4-33 Response: We will implement the snag manBLM Chief Joseph MFP (1981), as amendedManagement EIS. All action alternatives inthat include snag retention and recruitment. approximately 40% of the area and retains swill be approximately 1,907 acres untreated snags and down woody debris. Also see response to comment 4-24. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

314

4-36||4-37|||4-38|||

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-34 Response: The 1.89 miles of proposed new National Forest. These roads would be tempsix acres of disturbance. Much of the areas unroaded characteristics due to past activitiecommunity protection area for the Erickson The NPNF is currently revising the Land an(Forest Plan), and edits to the July 9, 2005 Dmaps have been completed. The January 20this area in the “Areas Under Consideration Wilderness (Draft Roadless Inventory)”. ThGenerally suitable for timber production, whmanagement objective, as delineated in the cComments: 4-35 Response: The areas described are not a paInventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The boundefined in the Forest Plan and used in this Eboundary of the IRA and, as such, the areas are not a part of the IRA. IRAs and Areas wCharacteristics were analyzed in Section 3.8comments 4-2 and 4-34. Comment: 4-36 Response: See response to comment 4-2. Tand analysis of the areas having possible unto Sections 3.8.4.3, pages 266-270. Map 15 updated to show these areas.
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

315

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva

Comment: 4-37 Response: The issue analyzed in this EIS wand fuels project would have on livestock grEffects of livestock grazing within the projemajor issue because there are only two graziinvolving 60 AUMs of use. Grazing impactincluded in the description of existing condiSection 3.6.2 (pages 140-154) discloses the include the impacts of grazing as well as oth282) describes the current grazing uses and can be limited to avoid conflicts with the procalls for livestock restrictions following restadded to Table 2.3.1. Comment: 4-38 Response: The projects listed in your commexcluded from NEPA analysis because the aDepartmental or BLM Categorical Exclusioactions that Federal agencies have determineeffect on the quality of the human environmcumulatively, and for which neither an EA n1508.4). Therefore, the projects you mentio3.0.1 which displays projects considered for However, they were taken into account in asPage 53 identifies these projects as fuel treathe overall goal of the Eastside Project. Thelocated in the Little Elk Creek watershed, wlocated in the Middle American River subwto treat 20 acres within the Little Elk watersalternatives proposed in Little Elk Creek, mis only 0.1 percent. 
Eastside Fuels & Vegetation Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement April 2007 

316

Letter 4: Idaho Conservation League Letter 4: Idaho Conserva
! ut14

Elk City

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Vicinity Location Map μ

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

Legend

Project Boundary

Prescription Units

State Hwy

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Map 1
}

}

} }

} } }

}

}

}

} }

}

}}

} } } }

} }

} } } } }

}

}

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

American River

K irks Fork

Elk Creek

Little Elk

Creek

Queen Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

East Fork American River

Swale Creek

Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Red Horse Creek

Flin t Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Glass Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

Legend

ÔÑ Helicopter Landing

Existing

}}} Decommission Existing Rd

Existing Use

Proposed Permanent

Proposed Temporary

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Open Existing Trail

Cable

Helicopter

Tractor

Project Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative B Logging Methods

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

Map 2
!

D

D D

D

D

DD

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

}

} }

} }

} }

á

á

American River

Kirks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek

Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative B Restoration

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

Legend

á ATV Bridge 

Existing

Existing Use

D Decommission Existing Rd

Proposed Permanent

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Open Existing Trail

Bank Re-contour & Riparian Vegetation Planting

Riparian Vegetation Planting

Stream Reconnect Queen

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Project Boundary

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Map 3
!

}

}

} }

} } }

}

}

}

} }

}

}}

} } } }

} }

} } } } }

}

}

American River

Kirks Fork

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Queen Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

Swale Creek

Big Elk Creek

East Fork American River

Telephone Creek

Red Horse Creek

Fli nt Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Glass Creek

American River

American River

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative B Treatments

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

Legend

Existing

}}} Decommission Existing Rd

Existing Use

Proposed Permanent

Proposed Temporary

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Open Existing Trail

Irregular Shelterwood

Salvage Commercial Thin

Salvage Precommercial Thin

Seedtree with Reserves

Seedtree

Shelterwood

Slash Burn

Perennial

Intermittent

Project Boundary

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

μ

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Map 4
}

}

} }

} } }

}

}

}

} }

}

}}

} } } }

} }

} } } } }

}

}

}

}

}

} } }

} } }

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

American Riv er

Kirks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

East Fork American River

Swale Creek

Red Horse Creek

Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass Creek

Baboon Creek

Fli nt Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Cr eek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative C Logging Methods

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

Legend

ÔÑ Helicopter Landing

}}} Decommission Existing Rd

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Existing Use

Existing

Proposed Permanent

Proposed Temporary

Open Existing Trail

Cable

Helicopter

Tractor

Project Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

μ

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Map 5
!

D

D D

D

D

DD

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

}

} }

} }

} }

} }

á

á

á

American River

Ki rks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass C reek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative C Restoration

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

Legend

á Auto Bridge

á ATV Bridge

D Decommission Existing Rd

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Existing Use

Existing

Proposed Permanent

Open Existing Trail

Bank Re-contour & Riparian Vegetation Planting

Riparian Vegetation Planting

Stream Reconnect Queen

Perennial

Intermittent

Project Boundary

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

μ

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

Map 6
!

}

}

} }

} } }

}

}

}

} }

}

}}

} } } }

} }

} } } } }

}

}

}

}

}

} } }

} } }

American Riv er

Kirks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

East Fork American River

Swale Creek Big Elk Creek

Red Horse Creek

Telephone Creek

Fli nt Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Glass Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative C Treatments

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

}}} Decommission Existing Rd

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Existing Use

Existing

Proposed Permanent

Proposed Temporary

Open Existing Trail

Irregular Shelterwood

Salvage Commercial Thin

Salvage Precommercial Thin

Seedtree with Reserves

Seedtree

Shelterwood

Project Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 7

μ
D

D D

D

D

DD

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

ÔÑ

American River

K irks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek

Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative D Logging Methods

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

ÔÑ Helicopter Landing

Existing Use

Existing

Proposed Permanent

Proposed Temporary

D D Decommission Existing Rd

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Proposed ATV

Open Existing Trail

Cable

Helicopter

Tractor

Project Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 8
!

D

D D

D

D

D D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

} }

á

á

á

American River

Kirks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Little Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek

Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Elk City

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative D Restoration

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

á Auto Bridge 

á ATV Bridge 

Existing Use

Existing 

Proposed Permanent

D Decommission Existing Rd

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Proposed ATV

Open Existing Trail

Bank Re-contour & Riparian Vegetation Planting

Riparian Vegetation Planting

Stream Reconnect Queen

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Project Boundary

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

Map 9
!

D

D D

D

D

DD

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

American River

K irks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Little Elk Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek

Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Alternative D Treatments

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Existing Use

Existing

Proposed Permanent

Proposed Temporary

D D Decommission Existing Rd

Convert to Trail Existing Rd

Proposed ATV

Open Existing Trail

Irregular Shelterwood

Salvage Commercial Thin

Salvage Precommercial Thin

Seedtree with Reserves

Seedtree

Shelterwood

Project Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 10
ut14

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Current Fuel Model

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

Prescription Units

Fuel Model

 Primary, Secondary

FM 10, FM 10

FM 10, FM 10/8

FM 10, FM 8/10

FM 10, FM 8

FM 8/10, FM 10

FM 8/10, FM 10/8

FM 8/10, FM 8/10

FM 8/10, <Null>

FM 8/10, FM 8

FM 8, FM 10/8

FM 8, FM 8/10

FM 8, FM 8

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 11
! ut14

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

Eastside Project Area

Predicted Fuel Model for Year 

2015 Without Treatment

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

Prescription Units

12

10/12

10

8/10

8

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 12
! ut14

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

Eastside Project Area

Predicted Fuel Model for Year 

2015 With Treatment μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

Prescription Units

12

10/12

10

8/10

8

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 13
ut14

!

Elk City

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Fish Distribution

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

012 0.5

Miles

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

Prescription Units

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

Steelhead and Redband Trout

Brook Trout

Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 14
!

American-2a American-2e

American-2d

Americ an River

Kirk s Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Little Elk Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

East Fork American River

Swale Creek B ig Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Glass Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Road and Trail Network

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

FS 9812

County 443

FS 1 809

FS 1 809

County 1818

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

Existing Road

Designated Trail No Restrictions

Non-Designated Trail

Groomed Snowmachine Routes

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Areas of Roadless Characteristics

Map 15
!

American River

Kirks Fork

Queen Creek

Elk Creek

Box Sing Creek

Little Elk Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek B ig Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

G lass Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Irish Creek

ut14

Elk City

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Vegetation Composition

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Lodgepole

Lodgepole/Douglas-fir or Spruce

Lodgepole/Grand Fir

Grand Fir/Lodgepole

Douglas-fir/lodgepole

Douglas-fir/grand fri

Grand Fir

Douglas-fir

Larch 

Cedar 

Grassland

Prescription Units

Map 16
!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!!

!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

South Fork Clearwater River

American River

Crooked River

Big Elk Creek

Horse Creek

Little Elk Creek

Kirks F ork

Red River

Siegel Creek

Flint Creek

Buffalo Gulch

Relief Creek

Red Horse Creek

Swale Creek

Little Boulder Creek

East Fork Horse Creek

Doe Creek

West Fork O,Hara Creek

East Fork O'Hara Creek

Queen Creek

Wart Creek

Galena Creek

East Fork American River

Loon Creek

Maurice Creek

Cole Creek

Box Sing Creek

Whitaker Cree

Monro

k

e Creek

O'Hara Cr

Wigwam Creek

West Fork American River

Steckner Creek

Limber Luke Creek

Boyer Creek

Sixtysix Creek

Wheeler Creek

East Fork Relief Creek

Little Siegel Creek

Ericson Creek

G

Big Campbell Creek

West Fork Big Elk Creek

Cartwright Creek

East Fork Fivemile Creek

Glass Cre ek

Lightning Fork Little Elk Creek

Baner Creek

R

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

West Fork Ande

Whiskey Creek

Spring

Creek

Elk Creek

Spring Creek

Lick Creek

Moose Creek

Deadwood Creek

Wh iskey Gulch

Ditch Creek

Fivemile Creek

Telephone Creek

1

tu4

Elk City

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

American River Watershed

Elk City Township and

Stream Network

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

Upper American River

170603050509

Lick Creek

170603050508

West Fork American River

170603050507

Little Elk Creek

170603050505

Big Elk Creek

170603050504

Buffalo Gulch

170603050503

Lower Elk Creek

170603050517

Lower American River

170603050516

Flint Creek

170603050514

Middle American River

170603050506

East Fork American River

170603050510

Kirks Fork

170603050511

Box Sing Creek

170603050515

Queen Creek

170603050513

Whitaker Creek

170603050512

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83

IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Project Boundary

! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !

!!! !!!

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

012 0.5

Miles

Map 17

Crooked River
Red River

Big Elk Creek

American River

Little Elk Creek

Buffalo Gulch

Kirks Fork

Swale Creek

Whiskey Creek

Elk Creek

Deadwood Creek

M

Queen Creek

aurice Creek

Cole Creek

Box Sing Creek

Crooked River

East Fork American River

Flint Creek

Whitaker Creek

Red Horse Creek

Monroe Creek

Loon Creek

East Fork Relief Creek

Wheeler Creek

Sie gel Creek

South Fork Clearwater River

Galena Creek

Ericson Creek

Big Campbell Creek

West Fork Big Elk Creek

Telephone Creek

Sixtysix Creek

Little Campbell Creek

G lass Creek

Baner Creek

Baboon Creek

North Fork Queen Creek

Lightning Fork Little Elk Creek

Irish Creek

Little Red Horse Creek

Relief Creek

Cro oked River

tu14

Elk City

to Grangeville

ÝÞßâ

EASTSIDE PROJECT AREA

Wildland Urban Interface

Spatial Data Source:

Bureau of Land Management Cottonwood F.O.

Map Created: April 2006

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual use or aggregate use with other data,

or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information

may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification. 0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

μ

All data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83 IDAHO

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cottonwood Field Office

1 Butte Drive

Cottonwood, ID 83522

Area of Detail

Legend

Wildland Urban Interface

Project Boundary

Prescription Units

Perennial

Intermittent

Bureau of Land Management

Private

US Forest Service

Map 18

American River Subdivision
Appendix B – Glossary B-1

Appendix B – Glossary________________________________ 

Term Definition 

Abiotic Non-living. Climate is an abiotic component of ecosystems. 

Active Nest A nest with an adult pair present at least one year within a period of five 

consecutive years.

ADA American with Disabilities Act 

Affected

environment 

The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being 

analyzed. The environment of the area to be affected or created by the 

alternatives under consideration. 

Age class An age grouping of trees of according to an interval of years, usually 20 

years. A single age class would have trees that are within 20 years of the 

same age, such as 1–20 years or 21–40 years. 

Air Quality Refers to air standards for various classes of air as designated by the 

Clean Air Act, P.L. 88-206: Jan. 1978. Airshed Basic geographic units in 

which air quality is managed. 

Airshed A geographic area that shares the same air. 

Alternative A combination of management prescriptions applied in specific amounts 

and locations to achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in 

goals and objectives. One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed 

for decision. 

Alternative, No 

Action

An alternative that maintains current established trends or management 

direction.

Ammocoetes The larval form (ammocoete) of Pacific lamprey. The ammocoete 

generally spends 4- 7 years burrowed in the stream substrate prior to 

undergoing a physiological process which prepares the juvenile 

(macrothalmia) for migration and adaptation to salt water. 

Anadromous Fish Fish that migrate from salt water seas up fresh water streams to 

reproduce.

Animal Unit Month 

(AUM)

The quantity of forage required by one mature cow and her calf (or the 

equivalent, in sheep or horses, for instance) for one month. 

Apparent

Naturalness 

Roadless area characteristic defined as an indicator of whether an area 

appears natural to most people who are using the area. It is a measure of 

importance of visitors' perception of human impacts to the area. There 

may be some human impact, but it would not be obvious to the casual 

observer and the area would have the appearance of being affected only 

by the forces of nature. 

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan 

AQRVs Air Quality Related Values 
Appendix B – Glossary B-2

Term Definition 

Aquatic Ecosystem A stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the biotic 

communities that occur therein. 

Aspect The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect. 

ATV All terrain vehicles such as motorcycles, 4-wheelers, and snowmobiles. 

Authorized Officer The Bureau of Land Management employee delegated Officer given the 

authority to perform a duty described in these rules. A Regional Forester, 

Forest Supervisor, District Ranger depending on the scope and level of 

the duty to be performed. 

Avoided Preventing a potential adverse effect from occurring to a cultural resource 

by the partial or complete redesign or relocation of a proposed land use. 

Background

Viewing Area 

A landscape viewing area visible to a viewer from approximately three to 

five miles to infinity. 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

Bark beetle An insect that bores through the bark of forest trees to eat the inner bark 

and lay its eggs. Bark beetles are important killers of forest trees. 

Basal area (BA) The area of the cross section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 41⁄2 feet 

above the ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is 

occupied by trees. The term basal area is often used to describe the 

collective basal area of trees per acre. 

Best Available 

Science

The Responsible Official has considered the best available science, also 

considering public input, competing use demands, budget projections, and 

other factors. Consideration of science has included: 

Surveying a wide range of available scientific information, including both 

published material, historical data, and agency surveys and reports to 

develop a comprehensive basis for analysis of important issues. 

Using best available data and models at appropriate scales, on the basis of 

internal review and consultation. 

Evaluating and disclosing limitations of data and models. 

Evaluating and disclosing substantial risks associated with project actions 

based on that science, and identifying the ecosystem components at risk. 

Considering and disclosing uncertainties and opposing viewpoints in 

scientific literature pertinent to project development and effects analysis. 

Independent peer review and other appropriate review to evaluate the 

application of science. 

These considerations are adapted from proposed Forest Planning Rule 

219.11: Consideration of science in planning; Federal Register Volume 

59, No. 126: Notice of interagency cooperative policy on information 

standards under the Endangered Species Act; Final ESA Consultation 

Handbook, March 1998, pages 1–6 on best available scientific and 

commercial data; and relevant court decisions. Each consideration is 

discussed in the individual resource analysis to the degree the issues 

merit. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-3

Term Definition 

Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) 

The set of management practices that, when applied during 

implementation of a project, ensures that water-related beneficial uses are 

protected and that state water quality standards are met. 

Big Game Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting 

resource.

Biodiversity The variety of life in an area, including the variety of genes, species, 

plant, and animal communities, and ecosystems, as well as the 

interactions of these elements. 

Biological

Assessment (BA) 

A stand alone document that reviews all BLM planned, funded, executed, 

or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on federally 

listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species as 

identified for the cumulative effects area in coordination with the 

USFWS. A Biological Assessment is used to satisfy consultation 

requirements with the USFWS for projects requiring an Environmental 

Impact Statement. (Reference: Sec. 7, ESA; 50 CFR, 402.12, 1508.7, 

1508.25, and 

1508.27.) The Biological Assessment displays the Determination of 

Effects for the DEIS or FEIS preferred alternative. The Determination of 

Effects (Salwasser, et al. Aug. 17, 1995) is limited to: (1) No Effect; (2) 

May effect–Not likely to adversely affect (NLAA); (3) *May effect–

Likely to adversely affect (LAA); and (4) Beneficial effect. 

* = Considered a trigger for a significant action. 

Biological

Evaluation (BE) 

Documentation on BLM sensitive species (animal and plant) contained 

within an EIS. Documentation includes a review of BLM sensitive 

species present, their habitat, and addresses and identifies the 

Determination of Effects on these species. The USFWS review of the 

biological evaluation is addressed through public scoping and conducted 

in conjunction with overall agency review of the DEIS. Reference FSM 

2673.4 Biological Evaluations for Sensitive Species. Opinions in the 

determination of impacts to sensitive species (Salwasser, et al. Aug. 

17,1995) are limited to: (1) NI = No impact; (2) MIIH = May impact 

individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species; (3) 

*WIFV = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the 

action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population of species; and (4) BI = Beneficial impact. 

* = Trigger for a significant action as defined in NEPA. 

Biological Opinion An official report by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued in 

response to a formal Forest Service request for consultation or 

conference. It states whether an action is likely to result in jeopardy to a 

species or adverse modification to its critical habitat. 

Biomass The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-4

Term Definition 

Biota Living. Green plants and soil micro-organisms are biotic components of 

ecosystems 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

Board foot A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood 

contained in an unfinished board 1-inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 

inches wide. 

Broadcast burn A prescribed fire that burns a designated area. These controlled fires can 

reduce wildfire hazards, improve forage for wildlife and livestock, or 

encourage successful regeneration of trees. 

Buffer A land area that is designated to block or absorb unwanted impacts to the 

area beyond the buffer. Buffer strips along a trail could block views that 

may be undesirable. Buffers may be set-aside next to wildlife habitat to 

reduce abrupt change to the habitat. 

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

The Department of Interior agency responsible for managing most federal 

government subsurface minerals. 

CAA Clean Air Act 

Cable logging Logging that involves the transport of logs from stump to collection 

points by means of suspended steel cables, a tower, and powered winch. 

Canopy The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually 

refers to the uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be used to describe 

lower layers in a multi-storied forest. 

Capability The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and 

services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management 

practices and at a given level of management intensity. Capability 

depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, 

slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of 

management practices, such as silviculture or protection from fire, 

insects, and disease. 

Cavity A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, 

roosting, and reproduction. 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Classified Road Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System 

lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle 

access, including state roads, county roads, privately owned roads, 

National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest 

Service.

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law that protects our nation’s 

waters, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, and coastal areas. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-5

Term Definition 

Clear cut A harvest in which all or almost all of the trees are removed in one 

cutting.

Climax The culminating stage in plant succession for a given site. Climax 

vegetation is stable and self-reproducing. 

Closure The administrative order that does not allow specified users in designated 

areas or on BLM or Forest development roads or trails. 

Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 

Regulations developed at the Department level for the specific 

implementation of a Public Law. 

Commercial Thin A cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to 

improve growth, enhance forest health, or to recover potential mortality, 

while removing a commercial product. 

Composite

Watershed 

Watersheds that are not a single complete drainage. Current terminology 

refers to them as composite watersheds. 

Composition What an ecosystem is composed of. Composition could include water, 

minerals, trees, snags, wildlife, soil, micro-organisms, and certain plant 

species.

Conifer A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree 

Connected Actions A connected action is one type of action considered in determining the 

scope of the Proposed Action. Connected actions are actions that closely 

relate and therefore should be discussed in the same EIS (40 CFR 

1508.29(i)(ii)(iii)). Actions are connected if they: 

(i) Automatically trigger other actions that may require environmental 

impact statements. 

(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously 

or simultaneously. 

(iii) Are interdependent parts of larger actions and depend on the larger 

action for their justification. 

Connectivity Condition in which the spatial arrangements of land cover types allows 

organisms and ecological processes (such as disturbance) to move across 

the landscape. Connectivity is the opposite of fragmentation. 

Connectivity (of 

habitats)

The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, 

corridors, or “stepping stones” of like vegetation. This term can also refer 

to the degree to which similar habitats are linked. 

Consumptive use Use of resources that reduces the supply, such as logging and mining 

Contour A line drawn on a map connecting points of the same elevation. 

Contrast The effect of a striking difference in the form, line, color, or texture of an 

area being viewed. 

Corridor Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside 

vegetation may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between 

meadows were wildlife feed. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-6

Term Definition 

Cost The negative or adverse effects of expenditures resulting from an action. 

Costs may be monetary, social, physical, or environmental in nature. 

Council on 

Environmental

Quality (CEQ) 

An advisory council to the President established by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their 

effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises 

the President on environmental matters. 

County Road A road under the jurisdiction of the county. 

Cover Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live 

vegetation, boulders, or undercut stream banks. Animals use cover to 

escape from predators rest, or feed. 

Cover type (forest 

cover type) 

Stands of particular vegetation types that are composed of similar species. 

Created opening An opening in the forest cover created by the application of even-aged 

silvicultural practices. 

Critical Habitat Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on 

which are found those physical and biological features (1) essential to the 

conservation of the species, and (2) that may require special management 

considerations or protection. Critical habitat shall not include the entire 

geographic area that can be occupied by the threatened and/or endangered 

species.

Crown The part of a tree or woody plant bearing live branches and foliage. 

Dominant–Trees with crowns extending above the general level of the 

main canopy of even-aged groups of trees, and receiving full light from 

above and partly from the sides. 

Co-dominant–Trees with crowns forming the general level of the main 

canopy in even-aged groups of trees, receiving full light from above and 

comparatively little from the sides. 

Intermediate–Trees with crowns extending into the lower portion of the 

main canopy of even-aged groups of trees, but shorter in height than the 

co-dominants. They receive little direct light from above and none from 

the sides. 

Overtopped (Suppressed)–Trees of varying levels of vigor that have their 

crowns completely covered by the crowns of one or more neighboring 

trees.

Cultural resource A definite location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable 

through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. The 

term includes archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or 

places with important public and scientific uses, and may include definite 

locations (sites or places) of traditional cultural or religious importance to 

specified social and/or cultural groups. 

Cumulative effects Effects on the environment that result from separate, individual actions 

that, collectively, become significant over time. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-7

Term Definition 

Cumulative Effects 

Analysis

An analysis of the effects of the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of a proposed action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal), or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative Impact The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects 

dbh Diameter at Breast Height: The diameter of a tree 41⁄2 feet above the 

ground on the uphill side of the tree. 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement–The draft version of the 

Environmental Impact Statement that is released to the public and other 

agencies for review and comment. 

Desired future 

condition

Land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 

Developed

Recreation 

Recreation that occurs where improvements have been added to enhance 

recreation opportunities and accommodate intensive recreation activities 

in a defined area. 

Diameter of Breast 

Height

The standard method for measuring tree diameter at 41⁄2 feet from the 

ground. Also known as dbh. 

Direct Effects Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and place as the 

initial cause or action. 

Dispersed

recreation 

Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, such as 

hunting, backpacking, and scenic driving. 

Displacement As applied to wildlife, forced shifts in the patterns of wildlife use, either 

in location or timing of use. 

Disturbance Any event, such as forest fire or insect infestations that alter the structure, 

composition, or functions of an ecosystem. 

Diversity (1) The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, 

communities, habitats, or habitat features per unit of area. 

(2) The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal 

communities and species within the area covered by a Land 

and Resource Management Plan. 

Draft

Environmental

Impact Statement 

(DEIS) A detailed written statement as required by Sec. 102 (2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
Appendix B – Glossary B-8

Term Definition 

Duration The length of time management activity and its impacts will be taking 

place.

EA Environmental Assessment 

EC Existing Conditions 

ECA Equivalent Clearcut Area 

Ecology The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their 

environment, or the study of these interrelationships. 

Ecosystem An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move 

among them. Living things include plants and animals. Non-living parts 

of ecosystems may be rocks and minerals. Weather and wildfire are tow 

of the forces that act within ecosystems. 

Ecosystem

management 

An ecological approach to natural resource management to assure 

productive, healthy ecosystems by blending social, economic, physical, 

and biological needs and values. 

Ecosystem

Structure

The physical arrangement of the various components. In addition, trophic 

(nourishing) structure; measured in standing crop or energy fixed per unit 

area per unit time. May be pyramids of numbers, biomass, or energy 

flows.

Edge The margin where two or more vegetation patches meet, such as a 

meadow opening next to a mature forest stand, or a ponderosa pine stand 

next to an aspen stand. 

Effects

(also see Impacts) 

Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or 

experienced) resulting from achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, 

indirect, and cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental. (See 

Impacts)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement (under NEPA) 

Endangered species A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the 

Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973. 

Endemic Restricted to a specified region or locality. 

Endemic

plant/organism 

A plant or animal that occurs naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited geographically. 

Enhancement A short-term visual resource management objective aimed at increasing 

positive visual variety where little variety now exists. 

Environmental

Analysis

An analysis of alternatives actions and their predictable short- and longterm environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, 

social, and environmental design factors and their interactions. 

Completion of this level of analysis may result in a Decision Notice (DN) 

and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 
Appendix B – Glossary B-9

Term Definition 

Environmental

Assessment (EA) 

A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or a finding of no significant impact. It includes a brief 

discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives considered, 

environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of 

agencies and individuals consulted. 

Environmental

Impact Statement 

(EIS)

A formal public document prepared to analyze and disclose the impacts 

on the environment of the proposed project or action and alternatives. 

Environmental

Justice

When environmental effects do not disproportionately affect minority or 

low-income communities. 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ephemeral Stream A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation and whose 

channel is at all times above the water table. 

Equivalent Clearcut 

Area

The total area in a watershed that does or would exist in a clearcut 

condition.

Erosion (1) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or 

other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. 

(2) Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, 

ice, or gravity. 

Erosion Hazard The probability of soil loss resulting from complete removal of vegetation 

and litter. It is an interpretation based on potential soil loss in relation to 

tolerance values. 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

Even-aged A stand of trees that originated at a single point in time, so that the 

individual trees are approximately the same age or a regeneration system 

designed to produce such a stand.

Even-aged

management 

Timber management actions that result in the creation of stands of trees in 

which the trees are essentially the same age. 

Executive Orders 

11990 and 11988 

The purpose of these executive orders is to avoid to the extent possible 

the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction 

or modification of wetlands and floodplains. 

Existing Old 

Growth 

Individual stands on a national forest currently recognized as meeting the 

parameters of the old-growth operational definitions.

Exotic Foreign, not native. 

Fauna The animal life of an area. 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FEIS Database See Fire Effects Information System
Appendix B – Glossary B-10

Term Definition 

Felling Cutting down trees. 

Final cut The removal of the last seed bearers or shelter trees after regeneration of 

new trees has been established in a stand being managed under the 

shelterwood or seedtree system of silviculture. 

Final

Environmental

Impact Statement 

(FEIS)

The final version of the public document required by NEPA. 

Fire Effects 

Information System 

(FEIS)

FEIS provides up-to-date information about fire effects on plants and 

animals. It was developed at the United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. 

The FEIS database contains literature reviews, taken from current 

English-language literature of almost 900 plant species, about 100 animal 

species, and 16 Kuchler plant communities found on the North American 

continent. The emphasis of each review is fire and how it affects each 

species. Background information on taxonomy, distribution, basic 

biology, and ecology of each species is also included. Reviews are 

thoroughly documented, and each contains a complete bibliography. 

Managers from several land management agencies (United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department 

of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service) identified the species to 

be included in the database. Those agencies funded the original work and 

continue to support maintenance and updating of the database. 

FEIS staff accessions current English-language literature for FEIS 

literature reviews by searching scientific abstracts including Agricola, 

Current Contents, Current Titles in Wildland Fire, Ecodisc, Ecological 

Abstracts, Forestry Abstracts, Georef, and Water Resources Abstracts. 

Tables of Content from reefed scientific journals and government 

publication lists are also regularly searched for pertinent literature. 

Fire Intensity A fire’s characteristics, or fire intensity, include flame length, rate of 

spread, amount and location of torching, distance a fire spots, and energy 

produced. This is the result of the interaction of the physical setting 

(composed of aspect, slope, drainage location and direction, and 

topographic position), weather, as well as vegetative structure, which can 

include homes. 

Fire regime The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, 

predictability, intensity, and seasonality of fire. 

Fire severity ratings Low Fire Severity: Low soil heating, or light ground char, occurs where 

litter is scorched, charred, or consumed, but the duff is left largely intact, 

although it can be charred on the surface. Woody debris accumulation are 

partially consumed or charred. Mineral soil is not changed. Fire severity 
Appendix B – Glossary B-11

Term Definition 

in forest ecosystems is low if the litter and duff layers are scorched or not 

altered over the entire depth. The surface is mostly black in a shrubland 

or grassland ecosystem, although gray ash can be present for a short time. 

Soil temperatures at 1 cm are less than 50 C. Lethal temperatures for soil 

organisms occur down to depths of about 1 cm. 

Moderate Fire Severity: Moderate soil heating, or moderate ground char, 

occurs where the litter on forest sites is consumed and the duff is deeply 

charred or consumed, but the underlying mineral soil surface is not 

visibly altered. Light colored ash is present. Woody debris is mostly 

consumed, except for logs, which are deeply charred. On shrubland or 

grassland sites, gray or white ash is present and char can be visible in the 

upper 1 cm of mineral soil, but the soil is not altered. Soil temperatures at 

the 1 cm depth can reach 100 to 200 C. Lethal temperatures for soil 

organisms occur down to depths of 3–5 cm. 

High Fire Severity: High soil heating, or deep ground char, occurs, where 

the duff is completely consumed and the top of the mineral soils is visibly 

reddish or orange on severely burned sites. Color of the soil below 1 cm 

is darker or charred form organic material. The char layer can extend to a 

depth of 10 cm or more. Logs can be consumed or deeply charred, and 

deep ground char can occur under slash concentrations or burned out 

logs. Soil texture in the surface layers is changed and fusion evidenced by 

clinkers can be observed locally. All shrub stems are consumed and only 

the charred remains of large stubs may be visible. Soil temperatures at 1 

cm are greater than 250 C. Lethal temperatures for soil organisms occur 

down to depths of 9–16 cm. 

(Debano et al., 1998) 

FISHSED Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields, commonly 

referred as FISHSED model. 

Fisheries Resident and anadromous fish species. 

Fisheries habitat Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish, or have the potential to 

support fish. 

Flood plain Lowland adjoining a watercourse. At a minimum, the area is subject to a 

1% or greater chance of flooding in a given year. 

Flora The plant life of an area. 

Forage All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife and livestock.

Forb A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it. 

Foreground One of the distance zones of a landscape being viewed. A distance that 

details can be perceived, normally within one quarter to one-half mile of 

the viewer. Must be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Forest An area of trees with overlapping crowns (generally forming a 60 to 100 

percent cover).

Forest cover type See Cover type.
Appendix B – Glossary B-12

Term Definition 

Forest health A measure of the robustness of forest ecosystems. Aspects of forest 

health include biological diversity; soil, air, and water productivity; 

natural disturbances; and the capacity of the rest to provide a sustaining 

flow of goods and services for people. 

Forest land Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly 

having had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest 

use. Lands developed for non-forest use include areas for crops, improved 

pasture, residential, or administrative areas, improved roads of any width, 

and adjoining road clearing and powerline clearing of any width. 

Forest Plan A comprehensive management plan prepared under the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 that provides standards and guidelines for 

management activities on the Forest. 

Forest Service (FS) The agency of the United States Department of Agriculture responsible 

for managing National Forests and Grasslands. 

Forest Supervisor The official responsible for administering National Forest lands on an 

administrative unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest 

Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester. 

Form The mass of an object or objects that appears visually unified. 

Formation A body of rock identified by lithic (stone) characteristics and stratigraphic 

(rock strata) position; it is prevailingly, but not necessarily tabular, and is 

mapable at the earth's surface or traceable in the subsurface. 

FP Forest Plan 

Fragmentation The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat, typically forest 

cover, but including other types of habitat. Habitat can be fragmented 

naturally or from forest management activities, such as clearcut logging. 

Fuel Model Fuel models are sets of parameters that describe physical fuel properties, 

including fuel loading, fuel bed depth, and moisture of extinction. Each 

fuel model is typically used to represent a range of conditions in which 

fire behavior may be expected to respond similarly to changes in fuel 

moisture, wind, and slope. Fuel models are used as input in fire behavior 

prediction models. 

Fuelbreak A linear corridor in which vegetation is modified to prevent fires from 

easily crossing. 

Fuels Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that are capable of 

burning.

Fuels management The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective fire 

management or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the 

amount of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor before the fuels 

become so heavy that a natural wildlife in the area would be explosive 

and impossible to control. 

Fuelwood Wood cut into short lengths for burning. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-13

Term Definition 

Function All the processes within an ecosystem through which the elements 

interact, such as succession, the food chain, fire, weather, and the 

hydrologic cycle. 

FWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Game species Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have 

been prescribed under state or federal laws, codes, and regulations, and 

that are normally harvested by hunting, trapping, and fishing. 

Geology The study of the planet Earth. It is concerned with the origin of the planet, 

the material and morphology of the Earth, and its history and the 

processes that acted (and act) upon it to affect its historic and present 

forms. 

Geomorphic

processes

Processes that change the form of the earth, such as volcanic activity, 

running water, and glacial action. 

GIS (geographic 

information 

systems)

GIS is both a database designed to handle geographic data as well as a set 

of computer operations that can be used to analyze the data. In a sense, 

GIS can be thought of as a higher order map. 

Goal A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved 

sometime in the future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms 

and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to be 

completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from which 

objectives are developed. 

Ground fire A fire that burns along the forest floor and does not affect trees with thick 

bark or high crowns. 

Ground water The supply of fresh water under the earth’s surface in an aquifer or in the 

soil.

Group selection A method of tree harvest in which trees are removed periodically in small 

groups. This silvicultural treatment results in small openings that form 

mosaics of age class groups in the forest. 

Guilds A group of organisms that share a common food resource. 

Habitat The physical and biological environment for a plant or animal in which 

all the essentials for its development, existence, and reproduction are 

present.

Habitat capability The ability of a land area or plant community to support a given species 

of wildlife. 

Habitat

Management Plan 

A BLM activity plan (HMP) for wildlife, fisheries, or ecological 

resources. The plan identifies purpose and need, objectives, management 

actions, and monitoring strategy. 

Habitat type A way to classify land area. A habitat type can support certain climax 

vegetation, both tree and undergrowth species. The habitat type can 

indicate the biological potential of a site. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-14

Term Definition 

Habitat Type Group An aggregation of habitat types with similar interpretative properties. 

Heterogeneity Dissimilar elements and non-uniform. 

Hiding cover Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an adult elk or deer from 

human view at a distance of 200 feet or less. 

High fire severity See Fire severity ratings

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code. See Hydrologic Unit 

Human

Environment

The factors that include, but are not limited to biological, physical, social, 

economic, cultural, and aesthetic factors that interrelate to form the 

environment. 

Hydrologic Unit A hierarchical coding system developed by the U.S. Geological Service 

to map geographic boundaries of watersheds of different sizes. 

Hydrology The science dealing with the study of water on the surface of the land, in 

the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere. 

ID Interdisciplinary 

Impact

(also see Effects)

Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or 

experienced) resulting from achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, 

indirect, and cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental. 

IMPLAN Pro An economic input / output model. 

Indicator Species A species of animal or plant whose presence is a fairly certain indication 

of a particular set of environmental conditions. Indicator species serve to 

show the effects of development actions on the environment. 

Indirect Effects Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or 

farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 

effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to 

induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth 

rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems. 

Instream flow The quantity of water necessary to meet seasonal stream flow 

requirements to accomplish the purposes of the National Forests, 

including, but not limited to fisheries, visual quality, and recreational 

opportunities.

Integrated pest 

management 

A process for selecting strategies to regulate forest pests in which all 

aspects of a pest-host system are studied and weighed. The information 

considered in selecting appropriate strategies includes the impact of the 

unregulated pest population on various resources values, alternative 

regulatory tactics and strategies, and benefit/cost estimates for these 

alternative strategies. Regulatory strategies are based on sound 

silvicultural practices and ecology of the pest-host system and consist of a 

combination of tactics such as timber stand improvement plus selective 
Appendix B – Glossary B-15

Term Definition 

use of pesticides. A basic principle in the choice of strategy is that it be 

ecologically compatible or acceptable. 

Interdisciplinary 

team

A team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuses 

on the same task or project. 

Intermittent stream A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives 

water from streams or from some surface source, such as melting snow. 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

(IRA)

Unroaded areas typically 5000 acres or more that meet criteria for 

wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and that were 

inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area and Review and 

Evaluation (RARE II) process, subsequent assessments, or forest 

planning.

Invertebrate An animal lacking a spinal column. 

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area 

Irregular

Shelterwood 

An irregular shelterwood system consists of individual leave-trees or 

small groups distributed throughout the stand, interspersed with small 

openings such that the adjacent trees provide shelter for various resource 

needs. The key characteristic of the irregular shelterwood is that, although 

prompt regeneration is an objective, residual trees are left for long periods 

beyond the regeneration phase (e.g., from 20% of the rotation to several 

rotations). Residual trees initiate new age classes of regeneration, 

accumulate wood volume increment and, if desired, achieve non-timber 

stand objectives. 

Irretrievable One of the categories of impacts mentioned in the National 

Environmental Policy Act to be included in statements of environmental 

impacts. An irretrievable effect applies to losses of production or 

commitment of renewable natural resources. 

Irretrievable Effect An irretrievable effect is one that is sustained for a certain period of time 

but is reversible. 

Irreversible A category of impacts mentioned in statements of environmental impacts 

that applies to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and 

archaeological sites. Irreversible effects can also refer to effects of actions 

that can be renewed only after a very long period of time, such as the loss 

of soil productivity. 

Irreversible Effects An irreversible effect is one that cannot be reversed. 

Issue A public or agency concern or controversy about a specific action or area 

that is addressed in the NEPA process.

km Kilometer 

Ladder fuels Vegetation located below the crown level of forest trees that can carry 

fire from the forest floor to tree crowns. Ladder fuels may be low 

growing tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-16

Term Definition 

Landing Any place where cut timber is assembled for further transport from the 

timber sale area. 

Late Seral 

(successional) Stage 

The stage of forest development during which the age of trees is usually 

greater than 80 years depending on the composition of tree species. Small 

gaps become more common as some trees die allowing full sunlight to 

reach the mid- and under stories. This stage contains the largest trees 

within a forest and provides the highest capability for large snags, large 

live cavities, and den tree production. The presence of large, downed, 

woody material is highest during this period. Old-growth forests occur 

during the later periods of the seral stage. 

Litter (forest litter) The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material on the 

forest floor. This layer in includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, 

and fruit. 

Logging slash The residue left on the ground after timber cutting. It includes unutilized 

logs, uprooted stumps, broken branches, bark, and leaves. Certain 

amounts of slash provide important ecosystem roles, such as soil 

protection, nutrient cycling, and wildlife habitat. 

Low fire severity See Fire severity ratings

LRMP Land & Resource Management Plan 

M Thousand. Five thousand board feet of timber can be expressed as 5M 

board feet. 

Management action Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of BLM land 

Management Area An aggregation of capability areas that have common management 

direction under the MFP and may be noncontiguous in BLM land. 

Consists of a grouping of capability areas selected through evaluation 

procedures and used to locate decisions and resolve issues and concerns. 

Management

Direction

A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated 

management practices identified by the BLM in the planning process. 

Management

practice

A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment. 

Mass

movement/wasting 

The down-slope movement of large masses of earth material by the force 

of gravity. Also called a landslide. 

Matrix The least fragmented, most continuous pattern element of a landscape; the 

vegetation type that is most continuous over a landscape. 

Mature timber Trees that have attained full development, especially height, and are in 

full seed production. 

MBF Thousand Board Feet 

MCF thousand cubic feet 

Mesic Pertaining to or adapted to an area that has a balanced supply of water; 

neither wet nor dry.
Appendix B – Glossary B-17

Term Definition 

MFP Management Framework Plan–this document guides the management of 

a particular BLM administrative area and establishes management 

standards and guidelines for all lands of that area. 

Microclimate The climate of a small site. It may differ from the climate at large of the 

area due to aspect, tree cover (or the absence of tree cover), or exposure 

to winds. 

Mid Seral 

(successional) Stage 

The stage of forest development during which distinct over story, mid 

story, and under story canopies are present. The age of trees range from 

about 20 years to about 90 years depending on the composition of tree 

species. The trees are usually greater than 10 inches in dbh. This stage 

provides capability for hard mast production, large standing snags, and 

live cavities. During this period, tree species reach economic maturity. 

Mineral soil Soil that consists mainly of inorganic material, such as weathered rock, 

rather than organic matter. 

Mitigation Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or rectify the impact of a land 

management practice. 

MM Million

MMBF Million Board Feet 

Moderate fire 

severity

See Fire severity ratings

Modification Fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. Therefore, a modification may 

include an exemption from or alteration to a stipulated requirement. 

Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not 

apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria 

apply.

Monitoring To watch, observe, or check, especially for a specific purpose, such as to 

keep track of, regulate, or control (Webster's dictionary). 

Monitoring and 

evaluation

The periodic evaluation of forest management activities to determine how 

well objectives were met and how management practices should be 

adjusted.

Montane Relating to the zone of relatively moist, cool, upland slopes characterized 

by the presence of large evergreen trees as a dominant life form. 

Mortality Trees that were merchantable and have died within a specified period of 

time. The term mortality can also refer to the rate of death of a species in 

a given population or community. 

Mosaic Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape, such as areas 

with trees and areas without trees occurring over a landscape. 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
Appendix B – Glossary B-18

Term Definition 

Mountain pine 

beetle

A tiny black insect, ranging from 1/8 to 3⁄4 inch in size, which bores 

through a pine tree’s bark. It stops the tree’s intake and transport of the 

food and nutrients it must have to stay alive, thus killing the tree. 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National

Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)

An act which encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between 

man and his environments; promotes efforts to prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and 

welfare of man; enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and 

natural resources important to the Nation; and establishes a Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

National Forest 

Management Act 

(NFMA)

A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of 

Regional and Forest plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that 

development. 

National Forest 

System (NFS) 

All National Forest System lands reserved or withdrawn from the public 

domain of the United States; all National Forest System lands acquired 

through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, and other lands, 

waters, or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service 

or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part 

of the system (16 U.S.C. 1609). 

National Forest 

System Road 

(NFSR)

A Forest road under jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

National Park 

Service

The agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for the 

administration of national Parks, Monuments, and Historic Sites. It is 

distinct form the USDA Forest Service both administratively and by 

mission. 

National Register of 

Historic Places 

(NRHP)

The National Register lists cultural properties found to qualify for 

inclusion because of their local, state, or national significance. The 

National Register of Historic Places is maintained by the Secretary of the 

Interior.

Native Species All animal and plant species originally occurring in the area. 

Natural disturbance See Disturbance.

Natural Integrity Roadless area characteristic defined as the extent to which long-term 

ecological processes are intact and operating. Impacts to natural integrity 

are measured by the presence and magnitude of human-induced change to 

an area. This change includes physical developments as well as activity in 

the area. 

Natural range of 

variability

See Range of variability.
Appendix B – Glossary B-19

Term Definition 

Natural resource A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human 

needs.

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

New Road 

Construction

Investment in construction of a road to provide access that adds new 

miles of road to the transportation system. 

NEZSED A predictive computerized model that estimates cumulative sediment production 

from road construction, fire, and timber harvest activities in forested watersheds.

NFMA National Forest Management Act–this law was passed in 1976 and 

requires the preparation of Regional Guides and Forest Plans. 

NFMP National Forest Management Plan 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

No Action 

Alternative 

The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely 

to exist in the future if the current trends and management would continue 

unchanged. Under NEPA, it means following the current approved MFP 

management direction and guidance. 

No Adverse Effect Undertaking is modified, conditions are imposed, or data recovered such 

that the characteristics of a cultural property that may qualify it for the 

National Register of Historic Places are preserved. 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

Nongame Wildlife species that are not hunted for sport. 

Notice of intent A notice in the Federal Register of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement on a proposed action. 

Noxious Weed According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-629), a weed that 

causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment and 

therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United 

States and to the public health. 

NPNF Nez Perce National Forest 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Objective A concise time-specific statement of measurable planned results that 

respond to pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further 

planning, to defining the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be 

used in achieving identified goals. 

Off Highway 

Vehicle

Any motorized vehicle designed for and/or capable of travel off roads. 

OHV Off-highway vehicle 
Appendix B – Glossary B-20

Term Definition 

Old growth Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in trees sizes 

and species, decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material. 

Old Growth Forests An ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. 

Old growth encompasses the later stages in a variety of characteristics 

including tree size, accumulation of large dead woody material, number 

of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function. Old 

growth is not necessarily virgin or primeval. It can develop over time 

following human disturbances, just as it does following natural 

disturbances. Old growth encompasses both older forests dominated by 

early seral species and forests in later successional stages dominated by 

shade tolerant species. 

ORV Off-road vehicles, such as motorcycles, 4-wheel drive vehicles, and 4-

wheelers

Overstory The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory. 

Ozone Ozone, the major constituent of smog, is formed through a complex series 

of chemical reactions and transformations in the presence of sunlight. 

Ozone is a strong irritant, which attacks the respiratory system, leading to 

lung tissue damage. Ozone also affects materials such as surface coatings, 

fabrics, and rubber. 

Parent materials The mineral or organic matter from which the upper layers of soil are 

formed. 

Partial retention A visual quality objective, which, in general, means man’s activities, may 

be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

Particulates Small particles suspended in the air and generally considered pollutants. 

Patch An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition. 

Perennial Stream A stream that flows continuously year round. 

Personal use The use of a forest product, such as firewood, for home use and not for 

commercial use. 

Planning area The BLM administrative area covered by a regional guide or MFP. 

Plant Community A group of individual plants of one or more species growing in a specific 

area in association with one another and with a complex of other plants 

and animals. 

PNV See Present net value.

Policy A guiding principle upon which is based a specific decision or set of 

decisions.

Population A group of individuals with common ancestry that are much more likely 

to mate with one another than with individuals from another such group. 

ppm part per million 
Appendix B – Glossary B-21

Term Definition 

Precommercial

thinning

Removing some of the trees from a stand that are too small to be sold for 

lumber or house logs, so the remaining trees will grow faster. 

Predator An animal the lives by preying on other animals. Predators are at or near 

the tops of food chains. 

Prescribed fire Fire set intentionally in wildland fuels under prescribed conditions and 

circumstances. Prescribed fire can reduce fuels, rejuvenate forage for 

livestock and wildlife or prepare sites for regeneration of trees. 

Prescription Management practices selected to accomplish specific land and resource 

management objectives. 

Prescription 

Watershed 

At the time of the BLM Management Framework Plan and Fishery/Water 

Quality Objective supplements (1981 and 1985), watersheds were 

referred to as prescription watersheds. Current nomenclature refers to 

those as subwatersheds. 

Present net value PNV—also called present net worth—the measure of the economic value 

of a project when costs and revenues occur in different time periods. 

Future revenues and costs are “discounted” to the present by an interest 

rate that reflects the changing value of a dollar over time. The assumption 

is that dollars today are more valuable than dollars in the future. PNV is 

used to compare alternatives that have different cost and revenue flows. 

Prevention of 

Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

A classification established to preserve, protect, and enhance the air 

quality in National Wilderness Preservation System areas in existence 

prior to August 1977 and other areas of National significance, while 

ensuring economic growth can occur in a manner consistent with the 

preservation of existing clean air resources. Specific emission limitations 

and other measures, by class, are detailed in the Clean Air Act. (42 U.S.C. 

1875 et seq.) 

Primitive (P) Those recreation activities that occur in areas characterized by an 

essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. 

Productive The ability of an area to provide goods and services and to sustain 

ecological values. 

Project Area Area of specific analysis for BLM Eastside Project. proposed leasing on 

Sioux Ranger District of the Custer National Forest. 

Proposed Action In terms of National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or 

action that a federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which 

is the subject of an environmental analysis. 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

psi pounds per square inch 

Public domain The territory ceded to the Federal government by the original thirteen 

states, plus additions by treaty, cession, and purchase. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-22

Term Definition 

Public involvement The use of appropriate procedures to inform the public, obtain early and 

continuing public participating, and consider the views of interested 

parties in planning and decision making. 

Public issue A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to 

management of the National Forest System. 

Range Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big 

game. 

Range of 

Alternatives 

The NEPA requires the proposed action, a no action alternative, and a 

reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action be addressed in an 

EIS.

Range of variability Also called the historic range of variability or natural range of variation. 

The components of healthy ecosystems fluctuate over time. The range of 

sustainable conditions in an ecosystem is determined by time, processes 

(such as fire), native species, and the land itself. For instance, ecosystems 

that have a 10-year fire cycle have narrower range of variation than 

ecosystems with 200–300 year fire cycles. Past management has placed 

some ecosystems outside their range of variability. Future management 

should move such ecosystems back toward their natural, sustainable 

range of variation. 

Raptor Birds of prey, such as owls, hawks, and eagles. 

RARE II Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. The national inventory of roadless 

and undeveloped areas within the National Forests and Grasslands. 

Reclamation Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated 

uses. This normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, 

revegetation, and other work such as fertilization and fencing necessary to 

restore it for use. 

Record of Decision 

(ROD)

A document separate from, but associated with, an environmental impact 

statement, that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official's 

decision on the proposed action. 

Recreation

Opportunities

The combination of recreation settings, activities, and experiences 

provided by an area. 

Recreation

Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) 

A system for planning and managing recreation resources that recognizes 

recreation activity opportunities, recreation settings, and recreation 

experiences along a spectrum or continuum of settings as follows: 

Primitive–Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment 

of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of 

other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from 

evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use is not 

permitted. 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized–Characterized by predominately natural 

or natural appearing environment of a moderate to large size. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-23

Term Definition 

Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls 

and restrictions may be present, but these are subtle. Motorized use is not 

permitted. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized–Characterized by a predominantly natural or 

natural appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Concentration 

of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is 

managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions 

may be present, but these are subtle. Motorized use is permitted. 

Roaded Natural–Characterized by predominantly natural appearing 

environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. 

Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. 

Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with the evidence 

of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices 

are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Motorized use is 

permitted. 

Rural–Characterized by substantially modified natural environment. 

Resource modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific 

recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and 

sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is 

often moderate to high. Facilities are often provided for special activities. 

Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. 

Urban–Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although 

the background may have natural appearing elements. Vegetative cover is 

often exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans on-site are 

predominant. 

Reforestation The restocking of an area with forest trees, by either natural or artificial 

means, such as planting. 

Regeneration The renewal of a tree crop by either natural or artificial means. The term 

is also used to refer to the young crop itself. 

Regional Forester The official of the USDA Forest Service responsible for administering an 

entire region of the Forest Service. 

Rehabilitation A short-term visual resource management objective used to restore 

landscapes containing undesirable visual or other resource impacts to the 

desired visual or other acceptable quality level. 

Remoteness A characteristic of an area defined as the perceived condition of being 

secluded, inaccessible, and "out of the way.” Topography, vegetative 

screening, distance from human impacts, distance from sights and sounds 

of man, and difficulty of travel all contribute to remoteness. 

Removal cut The removal of the last seed bearers or shelter trees after regeneration is 

established. 

Residual stand The trees remaining standing after an event such as selection cutting. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-24

Term Definition 

Resilience The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and 

ecological processes following a disturbance. 

Responsible line 

officer 

The Forest Service Bureau of Land Management employee who has the 

authority to select and/or carry out a specific planning action. 

Responsible official The Forest Service Bureau of Land Management employee who has been 

delegated the authority to carry out a specific planning action. 

Restoration (of 

ecosystems)

Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve a desired, healthy, and 

functioning condition. 

Restore To bring back to a former or original condition or appearance. 

Revegetation The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On 

disturbed sites, this normally requires human assistance such as seedbed 

preparation, reseeding, and mulching. 

Riparian Riparian areas consist of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, those lands in 

a position to directly influence water quality and water resources, whether 

or not free water is available. This would include all lands in the active 

flood channel and lands immediately upslope of stream banks. These 

areas may be associated with lakes, reservoirs, marshes, streams, bogs, 

wet meadows, and intermittent or permanent streams where free and 

unbound water is available. 

Riparian Area The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. 

Riparian Areas Geographically delineable areas with distinctive resource values and 

characteristics that comprise the riparian ecosystems. 

Riparian Ecosystem a) Ecosystems transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

Also streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent vegetation communities and 

their associated soils that have free water at or near the surface. 

b) Those assemblages of plants, animals, and aquatic communities whose 

presence can either be directly or indirectly attributed to factors that are 

water influenced or related. 

c) Interacting system between aquatic and terrestrial situations, identified 

by soil characteristics and distinctive vegetation that requires or tolerates 

free or unbound water. 

Riparian Zone An area of vegetation adjacent to an aquatic ecosystem. It has a high 

water table, certain soil characteristics, and some vegetation that requires 

free (unbound chemically) water or conditions that are more moist than 

normal. This zone is transitional between aquatic and upland zones. 

RN Roaded Natural 

Road A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and 

managed as a trail. A road may be permanent, or temporary. 

Road

Decommissioning

Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads 

to a more natural state. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-25

Term Definition 

Roaded Natural A recreation opportunity classification term for describing a land area that 

has predominately a natural appearing environment with moderate 

evidence of sights and sounds of humans. Concentration of users is 

moderate to low. Roads of better than primitive class are usually within 

0.5 mile. A broad range of motorized and non-motorized activity 

opportunities is available. Management activities are present and 

harmonize with the natural environment. 

Roadless Refers to the absence of roads that have been constructed and maintained 

by mechanical means to ensure regular and continuous use. 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Rotation The number of years required to establish and grow timber crops to a 

specific condition of maturity. 

Run-off The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open 

channels.

Sapling A loose term for a young tree more than a few feet tall and an inch or so 

in diameter that is typically growing vigorously. 

Scale In ecosystem management, it refers to the degree of resolution at which 

ecosystems are observed and measured. 

Scoping/Scoping

Process

An early and open public involvement process for determining the scope 

of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related 

to the proposed action. Identifying the significant environmental issues 

deserving of study and de-emphasizing insignificant issues, narrowing the 

scope of the Environmental Impact Statement accordingly. (Ref. CEQ 

Regulations, 40 CFR 1501.7.) 

Sediment Solid mineral or organic material that is transported by air, water, gravity, 

or ice. 

Seedtree A seed tree system is defined as a silvicultural system in which selected 

trees or tree groups are left standing after the initial harvest, to provide a 

seed source for natural regeneration. After natural regeneration is 

achieved, the seed trees may or may not be removed. 

Semi-primitive A recreation opportunity classification term for describing land areas that 

have very few management controls lying between 0.5 mile and 3 miles 

from the nearest point of motor vehicle access, excepting four-wheel 

drive roads and trails, with mostly natural landscapes and some evidence 

of other people. 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized (SPM) 

A land area classified as semi-primitive that may have primitive roads 

present and where motorized use is permitted. Settings, activities, and 

opportunities are affected accordingly though there is still a moderate 

probability of experiencing isolation from sights and sounds of humans. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-26

Term Definition 

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM) 

A land area classified as semi-primitive that has a natural environment 

and motorized use is not permitted. Non-motorized status increases the 

probability of experiencing isolation, independence, and closeness to 

nature. Challenge and risk are generally high. Resource management may 

be present; however, natural appearance is still maintained. 

Sensitive Species Plant or animal species susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or 

habitat alterations. Species that have appeared in the Federal Register as 

proposed for classification or are under consideration for official listing 

as endangered or threatened species. The sensitive species designation is 

normally used for species that occur on Bureau administered lands for 

which BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation 

status of the species through management. The State Director may 

designate additional categories of special status species as appropriate and 

applicable to his or her state's needs.

Seral The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is 

transitional. If left alone, the seral stage will give way to another plant or 

animal community that represents a further stage of succession. 

Shelterwood A cutting method used in a more or less mature stand, designed to 

establish a new crop under the protection of the old. 

Significant 

Impact/Effect

An impact or effect is significant when it is projected to meet or exceed 

threshold standards, while considering how substantial the impact or 

effect is, considering its context and intensity. 

Silviculture The art science that promotes the growth of single trees and the forest as a 

biological unit. 

Size class One of the three intervals of three stem diameters used to classify timber 

in the Forest Plan database. The size classes are: Seedling/Sapling (less 

than 5 inches in diameter); Pole timber (5–7 inches in diameter); Saw 

timber (greater than 7 inches in diameter). 

Skidding Hauling logs by sliding, not on wheels, from stump to a collection point. 

Skyline logging A logging system used to remove timber from steep slopes. Logs are 

brought up-slope on a suspended cable, or skyline. Since the weight of 

the log is completely or partially supported by the cable, there is little 

disturbance to soil or other vegetation. 

Slash The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or left after a storm, 

fire, or other event. Slash includes logs, uprooted stumps, broken or 

uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc. 

Slash filter windrow Woody debris (slash) placed along a slope to trap and hold sediment coming off 

a hill or road above.

Slope The amount or degree of deviation from the horizontal or vertical. 

Concerning visual or scenic resources, as slope increases, views into a 

site and the size of the disturbance increase. Generally, the steeper slopes 

are more visible due to their location in the landscape. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-27

Term Definition 

Slump A landslide where the underlying rock masses tilt back as they slide from 

a cliff or escarpment. 

Snag A standing dead tree. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species and their prey. 

Soil compaction The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy 

equipment on soils can compact the soil and thereby change it in some 

ways, such as in its ability to absorb water. 

Soil productivity The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop. Productivity depends on 

adequate moisture and soil nutrients, as well as favorable climate. 

Solitude A personal, subjective value and roadless area characteristic defined as 

isolation from the sights, sounds, presence of others, and the 

developments of man. A primitive recreation experience includes the 

opportunity to experience solitude, a sense of remoteness, closeness to 

nature, serenity, and spirit of adventure. 

Special Features Unique geological, biological, ecological, cultural, or scenic features 

located in a roadless area. Unique fish and animal species, unique plants 

or plant communities, potential Research Natural Areas, outstanding 

landscape features such as unique rock formations, and significant 

cultural resource sites are some of the items that should be considered 

when analyzing this element. 

Stand A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, 

age, and condition. 

Standards and 

guidelines

Requirements found in a forest plan which impose limits on natural 

resource management activities, generally for environmental protection. 

Stewardship Caring for the land and its resources to pass healthy ecosystems to future 

generations.

Stewardship 

Contracting 

The primary objective of a stewardship project is to achieve one or more 

of the land management goals that meet local and rural community needs. 

These goals, as identified in the authorizing legislation (Section 323 of 

Public Law 108-7), may include but are not limited to: 

x Road and trail maintenance or obliteration for improved water 

quality;

x Soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other resource 

values; 

x Setting of prescribed fires to improve composition, structure, 

condition, and health of stands or to improve wildlife habitat; 

x Removing vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forest 

stands, reduce fire hazards or achieve other land management 

objectives; 

x Watershed restoration and maintenance; 

x Restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and 
Appendix B – Glossary B-28

Term Definition 

x Control of noxious and exotic weeds and reestablishing native plant 

species.

Stewardship contracting projects are defined as those activities used to 

accomplish one or more of the goals noted above and where the BLM 

would enter into contract or agreement for services to achieve land 

management goals as well as meet local and rural community needs. In 

addition, a source for performance under a contract must be selected on a 

best value basis. The legislation authorizes trading goods for services, and 

multi-year contract authority greater than five years but not to exceed ten 

years.

Stocking level The number of trees in an area as compared to the desirable number of 

trees for best results, such as maximum wood production. 

Stream order A numbering system used to classify streams by their position relative to 

other streams. The Strahler system is the most commonly used. First 

order streams are the smallest unbranched tributaries. Second order 

streams are formed at the confluence of two first order streams. Third 

order streams are formed at the confluence of two second order streams. 

This pattern continues downstream until a stream enters an ocean or other 

sink. [Adapted from: American Geological Institute. 1962. Dictionary of 

Geological Terms.] 

Stringer A strip of vegetation different form surrounding vegetation, such as a 

stringer of aspen in an area of spruce. 

Structure How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and 

vertically. Structure might reveal a patter, or mosaic, or total randomness 

of vegetation. 

Subwatershed A subdivision within a watershed.

Succession The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. 

Conditions of the prior plant community (or successional stage) create 

conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. 

Successional stage A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare 

ground to climax. The grass-form stage of succession precedes the woody 

shrub stage. 

Suitability The appropriateness of certain resource management to an area of land. 

Suitability can be determined by environmental and economic analysis of 

management practices. 

Sustainability The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and 

functions, biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Sustainable The yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given 

intensity of management is said to be sustainable. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-29

Term Definition 

Sustained yield The yield that a renewable resource can produce continuously at a given 

intensity of management. 

Target The BLM’s annual goals for accomplishment for natural resource 

programs. Targets represent the commitment the BLM has with Congress 

to accomplish the work Congress has funded, and are often used as a 

measure of the agency’s performance. 

Temporary Road Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, 

or emergency operation, not intended to be part of the transportation 

system and not necessary for long-term resource management. 

Terrestrial Living or growing in or on the land. 

TES Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (Species) 

Texture Detail of landscape that varies with distance. 

Thinning A cutting made in an immature stand of trees to accelerate growth of the 

remaining trees or to improve the form of the remaining trees. 

Threatened Species Any species likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 

that has been designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the 

Interior as a threatened species. 

Tiering Refers to the elimination of repetitive discussions of the same issue by 

incorporating by reference the general discussion in an environmental 

impact statement of broader scope. For example, a project environmental 

assessment could be tiered to the Forest Plan EIS. 

Timber production The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of 

regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections 

for industrial or consumer use. For purposes of this subpart, the term 

"timber production" does not include production of fuelwood. 

Tractor logging A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag lots from the stump 

to a collection point. 

Treatment area The site-specific location of a resource improvement activity. 

TSI Timber Stand Improvement–Actions to improve growing conditions for 

trees in a stand, such as thinning, pruning, prescribed fire, or release 

cutting.

Unclassified Road Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of 

the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned 

travel-ways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and 

managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other 

authorization and were not decommissioned upon termination of the 

authorization.

Underburn A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and “ladder” 

fuels. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-30

Term Definition 

Understory The trees and other woody species that grow under a more or less 

continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the 

upper portion of adjacent trees and other woody growth. 

Uneven-aged A stand of trees in which the individual trees originated over a long 

period of time and, thus, differ widely in age; a regeneration system 

designed to produce such a stand.

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDI U.S. Department of Interior 

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

Vegetation

management 

Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation 

for multiple-use purposes. 

Vegetation

Response Unit 

(VRU)

Ecological land units that have unique patterns of habitat types groups 

(potential vegetation), terrain, and historic fire regimes. 

Vegetation type A plant community with distinguishable characteristics. 

Viability The likelihood of continued existence in an area for some specified period 

of time. 

Viable population The number of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the long-term 

existence of the species in natural, self-sustaining populations that are 

adequately distributed throughout their range. 

Viewshed A total landscape as seen from a particular viewpoint. 

Visual (or Scenic) 

Resource

The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, 

vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and 

influence the visual appeal of the unit. 

Visual Resource 

Management

(VRM)

A classification that establishes the "visual landscape" as a basic resource, 

treated as an essential part of the land. The visual resource management 

classification provides a framework to inventory the visual resource and 

provides measurable standards for its management. 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

Water table The upper surface of groundwater. Below it, the soil is saturated with 

water.

Water yield The runoff from a watershed, including groundwater outflow. 

Watershed The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir. More 

specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a 

stream that contributes water to the streamflow at that point. 

WEPP The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model is a process-based, 

distributed parameter, continuous simulation, erosion prediction model. 

Wetlands Areas that are permanently wet or are intermittently covered with water. 
Appendix B – Glossary B-31

Term Definition 

Wilderness An area of undeveloped federal land designated Wilderness by Congress, 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, protected and managed to preserve its 

natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work 

substantially unnoticeable, (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation, (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of 

sufficient size to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition, and (4) also may contain features that are of ecological, 

geological, scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. These 

characteristics were identified by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 

1964.

Wildfire Any wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire. 

Wildland Urban 

Interface

An area within or adjacent to an at-risk community identified within 

recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture in a Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan, OR 

In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

is not in effect: 

An area extending 1⁄2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; 

An area with 11⁄2 miles from the boundary of an at risk community, 

including land that 1) Has a sustained steep slope that creates the 

potential for wildland fire behavior endangering the at-risk community, 2) 

Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective firebreak, such 

as a road or ridgetop. 

Wildlife Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. 

Windthrow Trees uprooted by wind. 

Woodlands An open stand of trees with crowns not usually touching (generally 

forming a 25 to 60 percent cover). 

WUI See Wildland Urban Interface.

Yarding Moving the cut trees form where they fell to a centralized place (landing) 

for hauling away from the stand. 
Appendix C – References C-1

Appendix C – References 

Acheson, Ann, Charles Stanich, and Mark Story. 2000. Describing Air Resource Impacts from 

Prescribed Fire Projects in NEPA Documents for Montana and Idaho in Region 1 and Region 

4. USDA Forest Service. pp. 19–20. 

Adams, J.N. and R.L. Beschta. 1980. Gravel bed composition in Oregon coastal streams. Can. J. 

Fish, Aquat Sci, 37(10), 1514-1521 

Agee, J. K., 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington D.C. 

388–389.

Alexander, E.B., and R. Poff. 1985. Soil disturbance and compaction in wildland 

Altman, B. 1997. Olive-sided Flycatcher in western North America: Status review. USDI U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 59p. 

Anderson, Hal. E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA 

Forest Service, General Technical Report, INT-122, 22 p. Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf). 

Andrews, P. L. 1986. BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system–BURN 

subsystem, Part 1. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-194. 130 p. 

Bedunah, D. J. 1992. The Complex Ecology of Weeds, Grazing, and Wildlife. Western 

Wildlands. 8(2): 6–11. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North American. Monograph No. 6 (Bethesda, MD): 

American Fisheries Society. 275p. 

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. Free Press, Simon and Shuster, Inc. 

N.Y., N.Y. 359 p. 

Belsky, A. J and J. L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. A 

Scientific Report Published By The Oregon Natural Desert Association. Portland, Oregon. 

Belsky, A. J. and J. L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. 

A Scientific Report Published By The Oregon Natural Desert Association. Portland, Oregon. 

Belt. George H., 1980. Predicting Streamflow Changes Caused by Forest Practices Using the 

Equivalent Clearcut Model. University of Idaho. College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range 

Sciences. Bulletin Number 32. 

Bennett. 2002. Beetles, Fire and a Sustainable Community–Options for Managing the Elk City 

Township. Bennett Forest Industries, Grangeville, ID. 

Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fishery and forestry interactions. Pages 191-232 in E.O. Salo 

and T.W. Cundy (eds.), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contr. 

No. 57, Inst. Forest Resources, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Bjornn, T. C. 1969. Embryo survival and emergence studies. Pp. 21–22: In: Habitat requirements 

of anadromous salmonids. Reiser, D.W. and T. C. Bjornn (Idaho Cooperative Fishery 

Research Unit, University of Idaho). Meehan, W.R., Technical Editor. Influence of forest and 
Appendix C – References C-2

rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North American. USDA Forest 

Service Technical Report PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Portland, OR. 54 p. 

Bjornn, T. C. and Dw. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: 

Influences of rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. W. R. Meehan 

(ed). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. pp. 108 and 132. 

Bjornn, T. C., M. Brusven, M. P. Molnau, J. H. Milligan, T. Klamt, E. Chaco, and C. Schaye. 

1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and its effects on insects and fish. Office of 

Water Research and Technology, USDI, Washington, DC. Pp 11–40. 

Bonn, Joe and Richard Graves. 2005. Considerations of increased sediment production from road 

surfaces due to truck travel for the American and Crooked River project within the 

framework of sediment modeling. Unpublished report on file at the Nez Perce National 

Forest.

Brown, G.W. 1983. Forestry and water quality. P. 74. In: MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and 

R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on 

streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. EPA/910/9-91-001. 

Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and R.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the 

interior Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 55 pp. 

Bull, E.L. 2002. Seasonal and sexual differences in American marten diet in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwest Science. 74(3):186—191. 

Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers 

in northeastern Oregon. Res. Note. PNW-444. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 19 p. 

Burroughs Jr., E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report INT-264. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. Ogden, UT. pp. 1, 2, 6. 

Burton, T.A., G.W. Harvey, and M.L. McHenry. 1990. Protocols for assessment of dissolved 

oxygen, fine sediment, and salmonid embryo survival in an artificial redd. Water Quality 

Monitoring Protocols – Report No. 1. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, Division of 

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau. Boise, ID.25pp. 

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. 

Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. 

General Technical Report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp. 

Chalfant, Stuart A. 1974. Aboriginal Territory of the Nez Perce Indians: A report based on ethnohistoric research and field inquiry in reference to the Nez Perce Tribe of Indians vs. The 

United States, Docket 175, before the Indian Claims Commission. Garland Publishing 

Company, New York. 
Appendix C – References C-3

Chamberlin, R., D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed 

processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181–205. 

Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large 

salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 117, Number 1, January 

1988.

Chapman, D. W. and K. P. McCleod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the 

Northern Rockies Ecoregion, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report 910/9-87-

162, Washington, DC. 

Chapman, D. W., A. Giorgi, and M. Hill. 1991. Status of Snake River Chinook Salmon. Portland 

OR: Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee. 

Chatwin, S.C., D. E. Howes, J. W. Schwab, and D. N. Swanston. 1991. A guide for management 

of landslide-prone terrain in the Pacific Northwest. BC Ministry of Forests. Research Branch 

Cherry, J., and R.L. Beschta. 1989. Coarse woody debris and channel geomorphology: a flume 

study. P. 127. In: MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar (1991), Monitoring 

guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/910/9-91-001. 

Claire, C. 2004. Personal Communication. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID. 

Clearwater Basin Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team. 1998. South Fork Clearwater River 

Subbasin Bull Trout Problem Assessment. 

Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. 1990. Fish Habitat Characteristics, Riparian Conditions and 

Salmonid Abundance In The Crooked River Study Area, November, 1990 (fish habitat 

survey).

Cline, Richard, Gene Cole, Walt Megahan, Rick Patten and John Potyondy. 1981. Guide for 

Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. USDA Forest Service. Northern and 

Intermountain Regions. 

Cline, Richard, Gene Cole, Walt Megahan, Rick Patten and John Potyondy. 1981. Guide for 

Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. USDA Forest Service. Northern and 

Intermountain Regions. 

Clough, L. T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in WestCentral Montana. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. pg. 67–68 (87pp.). 

Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2000. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Evaluate 

Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho, Annual Report 2000. 

Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 00000090, Project No. 200002800. 

Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2001. Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the 

Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho. 2001 Annual Report, Project No. 200002800. 

Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2002. Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the 

Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho. 2002 Annual Report, Project No. 200002800. 

Cochnauer, Tim and Christopher Claire. 2003. Status and Distribution of Pacific Lamprey 

(Lampetra Tridentata) in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 
Appendix C – References C-4

Cohen, J. and R. Stratton. 2003. Home destruction within the Hayman Fire perimeter. In: 

Graham, Russel T. Tech. Ed. Hayman Fire Case Study. Gen Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. 

Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 262–292. 

Cohen, J.D. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to homes: where and how much? USDA

Forest Service Feneral Technical Report PSW – 173. Pacific Southwest Forest and Ranger 

Experiment Station pp. 189-195. 

Cole, Walter E., Gene D. Amman. 1980. USDA GTR INT-89. Mountain Pine Beetle Dynamics 

in Lodgepole Pine Forests, Part 1, 56 pp. 

Connor, W. P., H. L. Burge, R. Waitt, and T. C. Bjornn. 2002. Juvenile life history of wild fall 

Chinook salmon in the Snake and Clearwater rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries 

22:703–712.

Cook, M. J. and J. King. 1983. Construction Cost and Erosion Control Effectiveness of Filter 

Windrows on Fill Slopes. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-335, Ogden, UT. 

Copeland, Jeff and Hudak, Howard. 1995. Conservation Strategy for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in 

Idaho. Pages 97-111 IN: Habitat Conservation Assessments and Strategies for Forest 

Carnivores in Idaho. Prepared by Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game, Nez Perce Tribe, and 

Sawtooth National Forest. 126 pp. 

Crawford, R. C. 1980. Ecological Investigations and Management Implications of Six Northern 

Idaho Endemic Plants on the Proposed Endangered and Threatened Lists. Unpublished MS 

Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow ID. 

Crocker-Bedford, D. C., 1990. Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 18:262–269. 

Crockett, A. B. and H. H. Hadow. 1975. Nest site selection by Williamson and red-naped 

sapsuckers. Condor 77 (3): 365–368. 

Crockett, A. B., Jr. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the Williamson's Sapsucker in Colorado. 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. 137p. 

Cullen, S., C. Montaigne, and H. Ferguson. 1991. Timber harvest trafficking and soil compaction 

in western Montana. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Volume 55. Number 5. Pp 

1416-141.

Czaplewski, R.L., A.A. Leach, P.L. Patterson, and M.S. Williams. 2003. Application of forest 

inventory and analysis data to estimate amount of old growth forest and sange density on the 

Lolo National Forest. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collings, CO. 7pp. 

D’Antonio, Carla M. 2000. Fire, Plant Invasions, and Global Change. In Mooney, H. A. and R. J. 

Hobbs, Editors. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Wash. D.C. pp 65–93. 

Debano, L. F., D. G. Neary, and P. F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley 

and Sons, 333 p. 

DellsSala, Domininick A., and Evan Frost. An Ecologically Base Strategy for Fire and Fuels 

Management in National Forest Roadless Areas. Fire Management today, volume 61, No. 2, 

pages 16-17. 
Appendix C – References C-5

Dixon, Rita D. and Victoria A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker, Picoides arcticus. The 

Birds of North America, No. 509. 20 pp. 

Dobkin, D. S. 1994. Conservation and management of neoptropical migrant birds in the Northern 

Rockies and Great Plains. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 220 pp. p. 4–5. 

Dukes, J. S. and H. A. Mooney. 2001. Disruption of Ecosystem Processes in Western North 

America by Invasive Species. In Bradshaw, G. A., P. A. Marquet, and H. A. Mooney, 

Editors. How Landscape Change: Human Disturbance and Ecosystem Disruptions in the 

Americas. Springer-Verlag. 

Elliot, W., D.E. Hall, and D.L. Scheele. 2000. Disturbed WEPP (Draft 2/2000) WEPP Interface 

for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery, Technical 

Documentation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas 

Technology and Development Center. 

Elliot, W.J. and Robichaud, P.R. 2001. Comparing erosion risks from forest operations to 

wildfire. In: International Mountain logging and 11th Pacific Northwest skyline symposium. 

2001. Pp. 78-89. 

Elsensohn, Sister M. Alfreda. 1970. Idaho Chinese Lore. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell. p. 35. 

Espinosa, Al. 1992. DFC Fisheries Model and Analysis Procedures. Clearwater National Forest, 

Orofino, ID. 

Evans, D. M. and D. M. Finch. 1994. Relationships between forest songbird populations and 

managed forests of Idaho. P. 308–314 in W. W. Covington and L. F. DeBano (tech. coords.) 

Sustainable ecological systems: implementating an ecological approach to land management. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-247. 363 p. 

Evett, Mike. 2005. Personal communication. 

Farrell, A. P., A. K. Gamperl, J. M. T. Hicks, H. A. Shiels, and K. E. Jain. 1996. Maxium 

Cardiac Performance of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) at Temperatures 

Approaching Their Upper Lethal Limit. The Journal of Experimental Biology 199, pp 663–

672.

Finney, M. A. and J. D. Cohen. 2003. Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives. 

In P.N. Omi (ed.). Proc. Of Fire, Fuel Treatemnts, and Ecological Restoration, April 14–17, 

Ft. Collins CO. USDA For. Serv. Proceedings RNRS-P-29, 353–366. 

Finney, M. A., R. Bartlette., Bradshaw, K. Close, B. M. Collins, P. Gleason, W. M. Hao, P. 

Langowski, P., McGinely, J., McHugh, C.W., Martinson, E., Omi, P.N., Shepperd W., and 

Zeller, K. 2003. Fire behavior, fuels treatments, and fire suppression on the Hayman Fire.In 

Graham, Russel T. Tech. Ed. Hayman Fire Case Study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS_GTR-114. 

Ogden, UT, U.SDA Forest Service, Rocky Mt. Res. Station. 33-180 

Forcella, F. and S. J. Harvey. 1983. Eurasian Weed Infestations in Western Montana in Relation 

to Vegetation and Disturbance. Madrono, 30(2): 102–109. 

Froelich, H.A., R. W. Robbins, D. W. R., Miles, and J. K. Lyons. 1983. Monitoring recovery of 

compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Contract 43-0256-2-543. Report on file at Payette 

National Forest. McCall, Idaho. Page 1, 33,37. 
Appendix C – References C-6

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297–323. 

Gallaher, W. J. 1976. Report of a Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Elk City 

Planning Unit, Idaho County, Idaho. University of Idaho Anthropological Research 

Manuscript Series, No. 17. Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Garbutt, R. 1992. As cited in Natural Resources of Canada 2003 Impact of the western balsam 

bark beetle, Dryocoetes confuses Swaine (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). 

Garrison, M.T. and J.A. Moore, 1998. Nutrient management: a summary and review. 

Intermountain forest tree Nutrition cooperative. Supplemental Report 98-5. 48 pp. 

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid 

Landscape. Conservation Biology Vol 17:420–432. 

Gerhardt, Nick and Jack King. 1987. Predicted vs. Measured Natural Sediment Yield – Horse 

Creek. Unpublished report on file at the Nez Perce National Forest. 

Gerhardt, Nick. 2000. A Brief History of Water Yield and ECA Guidelines on the Nez Perce 

National Forest. Unpublished report dated April 11, 2000. 

Gerhardt, Nick. 2005. Summary of NEZSED Model Tests. Unpublished report on file at the Nez 

Perce National Forest. 

Gibson, K. 2003. Bark Beetle Conditions in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service 

Northern Region Forest Health Protection Missoula Field Office 35 pp. 

Gloss, Dave. 1995. Evaluation of the NEZSED Sediment Yield Model Using Data from Forested 

Watersheds in North-Central Idaho. MS Thesis. University of Idaho. 

Goggans, Rebecca, Rita D. Dixon, and L. Claire Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and 

black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. USDA Deschutes National 

Forest and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Project Number 87-3-02. 50 

pp. plus appendices. 

Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R. 1999. The effects of 

thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 27 p. 

Graham, R. T., T. B. Jain, and A. E. Harvey. 2000. Fuel: logs, sticks, needles, duff, and much 

more. In: Neuenschwander, Leon F., Ryan, Kevin C. Crossing the Millennium: Integrating 

spatial technologies and ecological principles for a new age in fire management, Joint fire 

science conference and workshop. Boise, ID. Spokane, WA: International Association of 

Wildland Fire. 189–194. 

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey and Theresa B. Jain, (technical editors). 2004. Science 

basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-120 Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 43 p. 

Gregory, S.V., G.A. Lambertti, D.C. Erman, (and others). 1987. Influences of forest practices on 

aquatic production. Pp. 233-256 In: Salo, E.O., T.W. Cundy eds. Streamside management: 
Appendix C – References C-7

forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution 57. Institute of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Griffith, J. S. 1988. Review of competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 4: 134–140. 

Groves, C. R., B. Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s 

Wildlife. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 372 pp. 

Gutsell, J.S. 1921. Danger to fisheries from oil and tar pollution of water. Bureau of Fisheries. 

Document 910. Appendix to Report of U.S. Commission of Fisheries. 

Hagle, S. K., S. Tunnock, K. E. Gibson, and C. J. Gillian. 1987. Field Guide to Diseases and 

Insect Pests of Idaho and Montana Forests. 37 pp. 

Hagle, S. K., T. L. Johnson, L. E. Stipe, J. W. Schwandt, J. W. Byler, A. J. Kegley, C. S. 

Randall, J. E. Taylor, I. B. Lockman, and N. J. Sturdevant. 2000. Suppression Functions of 

Forest Pathogens and Insects. 95 pp. 

Hankins, D. G. and G. H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in 

small streams based on visual estimation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 45(5):834-844. 

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones, M.G. Carl (et al.). 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. In: Quigley, 

T.M., S.J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior 

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR405. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Harris, et al. 1996. Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest–An Assessment of Small 

Communities in the Interior and Upper Columbia River Basins. University of Idaho, College 

of Forestry, Wildlife and Range, Moscow, ID. 

Haupt, Harold F. 1967. Unpublished memorandum from Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station dated January 16, 1967. 

Hayward, Gregory D. and Ron Escano, 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western 

Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91: 476–479. 

Hayward, Gregory D., Tom Holland, and Ron Escano. 1990. Goshawk habitat relationships. 

Pages 19–27 in N. Warren, editor. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the 

northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service. 

Heinemeyer, K. S. and J. L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management in the western United 

States: A literature review and adaptive management strategy. USDA Forest Service 

Northern Region, Missoula, MT. pgs. iii and 12 (108 pp.). 

Hejl, S. J., R. L. Hutto, C. R. Preston, and D. M. Finch. 1995. Effects of silvicultural treatments 

in the Rocky Mountains. P. 220–244 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch (eds.) Ecology and 

management of neotropical migratory birds; a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford 

Univ. Press. 409 p. 

Hejl, Sallie and Mary McFadzen. 1999. An assessment of the suitability of salvaged-logged 

burned forests for cavity-nesting birds in western Montana. Intermountain Journal of 

Sciences 5(1/4): 54. 
Appendix C – References C-8

Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, R. B. Salter, C. H. McNicoll, and W. J. 

1999. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458. 

Hobbs, Richard J. 1989. The Nature and Effects of Disturbance Relative to Invasion. In; Drake 

J.A. et al. Editors: Biological Invasion: A Global Perspective. John Wiley and Sons 

Publisher. pp. 389–405. 

Hobbs, Richard J. 2000. Land-Use Changes and Invasions. In Mooney, H. A. and R. J. Hobbs, 

Editors. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Wash. D.C. pp. 55–64. 

Hornocker, Maurice G., and Howard S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern 

Montana. Can. Journal Zool. 59:1286-1301. 

Hungerford, R. D., M. G. Harrington, W. H. Frandsen, K. S. Ryan, and G. J. Niehoff. 1991. 

Influence of fire on factors that affect site productivity. In Harvey, Alan, E. and 

Neuenshwander, Leon F., comp. Proceedings-management and productivity of westernmontane forest soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 32–50. 

Hutto, R. L. 1995. USFS Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program: Distribution and 

Habitat Relationships. USFS Contract #R1-95-05, University of Montana, Missoula, 120pp. 

Hutto, Richard L. and Jock S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern 

Region, USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-32. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Nez Perce Tribe and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 2004. South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment and Total 

Maximum Daily Loads. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1992. Anadromous fish management plan 1992–

1996. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1995. Draft Habitat Conservation Assessment for 

the Fisher (Martes pennanti) in Idaho. 24 pp. 

Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, version 1.0. Idaho Partners in 

Flight, Hamilton, MT. 166 pp. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1998. Elk Creek drainage bull trout investigations. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID. 

Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, USDA Forest Service – Nez Perce National Forest, USDI Bureau 

of Land Management. 1996-2003. Bull Trout Investigations, South Fork Clearwater River 

Drainage.

Jackman, Siri M. 1975. Woodpeckers of the Pacific Northwest: their characteristics and the 

forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 147 p. M.S. Thesis. 

Jackson, W.L., and R.L. Beschta. 1982. A model of two-phase bedload transport in an Oregon 

Coast Range Stream. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, V. 7, 517-527. 

Johnson, S. R. 1995. Factors Supporting Road Removal and/or Obliteration. USDA Forest 

Service, Kootenai National Forest, white paper, Libby Montana. 
Appendix C – References C-9

Johnson, C. 1993. Assessment of dissolved oxygen, fine sediment, and salmonid embryo survival 

in artificial redds. Unpublished report. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood, 

Resource Area, Cottonwood, ID. 

Jones, J. A., F. J. Swanson, B. C. Wemple, and K. U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of roads on 

hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation 

Biology: Volume 14, No. 1. Pp. 76–85. February 2000. 

Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fishers in north central Idaho. M.S. thesis, Univ. Idaho, 

Moscow. 147 pp. 

Kaufman, K. 1996. The lives of North American birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New 

York. 765p. 

King, J. G. 1993. Sediment production and transport in forested watersheds in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. Pp. 13-18 in Proceedings of the technical workshop on sediments. Terrene 

Institute, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 

King, John G. 1989. Streamflow Responses to Road Building and Harvesting: A Comparison 

with the Equivalent Clearcut Area Procedure. Intermountain Research Station Research Paper 

INT-401.

Klamt, R. 1976. The effects of coarse granitic sediment on the distribution and abundance of 

salmonids in the central Idaho batholith. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 85p. 

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north 

central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 845-851. 

Koehler, Gary M., and J. David Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and 

snowshoe hares. Journal of Forestry, October:10-14. 

Koehler, G. M., and K. B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74–98 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. 

W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (tech eds). The scientific basis for conserving 

forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. 

USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. 

Lacey, J. R., C. B. Marlow, and J. R. Lane. 1989. Influence of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa) on Surface Runoff and Sediment Yield. Weed Technology, 3:627–631. 

Leege, T. A. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in northern 

Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 11. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Lichthardt, J. 1995. Conservation Strategy for Allotropa Virgata (candystick), U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 

Conservation Data Center, Boise, ID. 

Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition is spawning gravels, North Coastal 

California. Water Resources Research, Vol. 25, No. 6, 1303-1319

Luce, C. H. 1997. Effectiveness of Road Ripping in Restring Infiltration Capacity of Forest 

Roads. Restoration Ecology 5(3): 265-270. 
Appendix C – References C-10

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate 

effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/910/9-91-001. 

management. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. Earth Resources 

Marcus, W. A., G. Milner and B. Maxwell. 1998. Spotted Knapweed Distribution in Stock 

Camps and Trails of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Great Basin Naturalist. Vol. 58 (2): 

156–166.

Marshall, Alan G. 1977. Nez Perce Social Group: An Ecological Interpretation. Unpublished 

Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. 

McCuddin, M. E. 1977. Survival of salmon and trout embryos and fry in gravel-sand mixtures. 

Pp. 21–22. In: Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. Reiser, D. W. and T. Bjornn 

(Idaho Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of Idaho). Meehan, W. R., Technical 

Editor. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western 

North American. USDA Forest Service Technical Report PNW-96. Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 54 p. 

McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee (and others). 1990. Source distances for coarse 

woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. 20: 326-330. 

McGinely, J., C. W. McHugh, E. Martinson, P. N. Omi, W. Shepperd, and K. Zeller. 2003. Fire 

Behavior, Fuel Treatments, and Fire Suppression on the Hayman Fire. In Graham, Russell T., 

Tech. Ed. Hayman Fire Case Study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. Ogden, UT: USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 33–180. 

McGrath, M. T., S. DeStefano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit 

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife 

Monograph 154. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 63 pp. 

Medin, D. E. 1985. Breeding bird responses to diameter-cut logging in west-central Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper INT-355. 12 p. 

Medin, D. E., and G. D. Booth. 1989. Responses of birds and small mammals to single-tree 

selection logging in Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research 

Paper INT-408. 11p. 

Megahan, W.F., and R.A. Nowlin. 1976. Sediment storage in channels draining small forested 

watershed. P. 128. In: MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar (1991) Monitoring 

guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/910/9-91-001. 

Megahan, W. F., J. G. King, and K. A. Seyedbagheri. 1995. Hydrologic and erosional responses 

of a granite watershed to helicopter logging and broadcast burning. Forest Science 44:777-

795.

Mihursky, J.A., and V.S. Kennedy. 1967. Water temperature criteria to protect aquatic life. P. 43. 

In: Overton, K.C., J.D. McIntyre, R. Armstrong, S.L. Whitewell, and K.A. Duncan. 1995. 

User’s guide to fish habitat: Descriptions that represent natural conditions in Salmon River 
Appendix C – References C-11

Basin, Idaho. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-322. Intermountain 

Research Station. 

Mitchell, J. L. 1994. Commercial Thinning of Mature Lodgepole Pine to Reduce Susceptibility 

to Mountain Pine Beetle. Special Report SR-94. FERIC, Vancouver, BC. 

Monograph 8. Pp 30- 32. 

Montana Partners in Flight. 2000. Montana Bird Conservation Plan. MT. 

Mote, Philip W., Edward A. Parson, Alan F. Hamlet, William S. Keeton, Dennis Lettenmaier, 

Nathan Mantua, Edward L. Miles, David W. Peterson, David L. Peterson, Richard Slaughter 

and Amy K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for Climatic Change: The Water, Salmon, and Forests 

of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61: 45-88, 2003. 

Murphy, E. C. and W. A. Lenhausen. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers 

following a stand-replacement fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1359–1372. 

Murphy, L. and H. Metsker. 1962. Inventory of Idaho streams containing anadromous fish, 

including recommendations for improving production of salmon and steelhead–Part II, 

Clearwater River Drainage. Funded by USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Contract 

Number 14-19-001-431. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda (and others). 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically 

healthy watershed in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregions. Pp. 127-188. In: Naiman, R.J., 

ed. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. New York, 

NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Nelson, R. L., L. J. Wagoner, D. C. Burns, D. D. Newberry, and J. Lund. 1997. Deposition of 

fine sediment in selected streams on the Payette and Boise Nations Forests, Idaho. 

Unpublished paper, Payette National Forest, McCall, ID. 

NOAA-NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries 

Service). 1995. Biological Opinion on the Land and Resource Management Plans for the 

Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests. 

NOAA-NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries 

Service). 1998. Endangered Species Act–Section 7 Consultation–Biological Opinion. 

NOAA-NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Marine Fisheries 

Service) and other agencies. 1998. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed 

Condition for Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull Trout. Local Adaptation for the Clearwater Basin 

and Lower Salmon. 

Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest chemicals. American Fisheries Society 

Special Publication 19: 207-296. 

Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connel, and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning: 

Habitat Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington D.C., and 

Covelo, California. 246 pp. 
Appendix C – References C-12

Novinger, D. C. and F. J. Rahel. 1999. Exploring Competitive Mechanisms that Allow Nonnative 

Brook Trout to Displace Native Cutthroat Trout in a Rocky Mountain Stream. American 

Fisheries Society 129th Annual Meeting Abstracts. Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibian and reptiles of the Pacific 

Northwest. Univ. Press of Idaho. 332 pp. 

Omi, Philip N. and Erik J. Martinson. 2002. Final Report, Effects of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire 

Severity. Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board, Western Forestt 

Fire Research Center 

Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash-influenced soil in northern Idaho to 

mechanical compaction. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 

Research Note INT-409. page 1. 

Parendes, L. A. and J. A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic 

Plant Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, 

Oregon. Conservation Biology. 14(1) pp. 64–75. 

Parker, Ingrid M. 2001. Safe Site and Seed Limitation in Cytisus scoparius (Scotch Broom): 

invasibility, disturbance, and the role of cryptogams in a glacial outwash prairie. Biological 

Invasions 3: pp323–332. 

Patla, S. (team leader), K. K. Bates, M. Bechard, E. Craig, M. Fuller, R. Howard, S. Jefferies, S. 

Robinson, R. Rodriguez, and B. Wall. 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and strategy for 

the northern goshawk for the State of Idaho, March 3, 1995. 35 pp. 

Pauchard A., P. B. Alaback, and E. G. Edlund. 2003. Plant Invasions in Protected Areas at 

Multiple Scales: Linaria Vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae) in the West Yellowstone Area. Western 

North American Naturalist. 63(4) pp. 416–428. 

Peterson, J. L. 2001. Regulations for Smoke Management. Pages 61–74 in Smoke Management 

Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, 2001 Edition. C. C. Hardy, R. D. Ottmar, J. L. 

Peterson, J. E. Core, and P. Seamon, eds. National Wildfire Coordination Group, PMS-420-2. 

Pfankuch, D.J. 1978. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. R1-75-002, USDA 

Forest Service, Northern Region. 

Pierce, J. D. and J. M. Peek. 1984. Moose habitat use and selection patterns in north-central 

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(4):1335–1343. 

Plotnikoff, M., M.Schmidt, C.Bulmer, and M.Curran. 1999. Forest productivity and soil 

conditions on rehabilitated landings: interior British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of 

Forests Research program. Extension Note 40. Pp 6-8. 

Potyondy, J.P. 1988. Boise National Forest cobble embeddedness baseline inventory: Results and 

relationship to management activities. Unpublished Report, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID. 

Powell, Hugh D. W. 2000. The influence of prey density on post-fire habitat use of the blackbacked woodpecker. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 99 pp. 

Prichard, D., P. Clemmer, M. Gorges, G. Meyer, and K. Shumac. 1996. Riparian Area 

Management. Technical Reference 1737-12, USDI Bureau of Land Management, National 

Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO. 
Appendix C – References C-13

Quigley, T. M., R. W. Haynes, and R. T. Graham Tech. Eds. 1996. An Integrated Scientific 

Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. 303 pp. 

Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide (tech. eds.). 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components 

in the interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service. Volumes I–V. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. 303 pp. 

Raymond, Crystal L., and David L. Peterson. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in 

a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 2981–2995. 

Reinhardt, E. 2003. Using FOFEM 5.0 to estimate tree mortality, fuel consumption, smoke 

production, and soil heating from wildland fire. USDA Forest Service, Missoula Fire 

Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT. 6pp. 

Reinhardt, E. D., R. E. Keane, and J. K. Brown. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 

4.0 User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical 

Report INT-GTR-344. 65pp. 

Reinhardt, Elizabeth and Nicholas L. Crookston (tech. eds). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension 

to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, 

Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 209 p. 

Reynolds, R. T., D. A. Boyce, R. T. Graham, and H. Reiser. 2001. Review of Supplemental 

Information Relevant to Habitat Management for the Northern Goshawk in Southwestern 

United States. Northern Goshawk Scientific Committee Report - USDA Forest Service, 

Southwest Region, Albuquerque, N.M. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. Hildegard, and others. 1992. Management recommendations 

for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM217. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 90 pp. 

Roehl, J. W., 1962. Sediment source areas, delivery ratios and influencing morphological factors. 

International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Commission of Land Erosion. Publication 

59. pp. 202-213. 

Roni, P., T.J. Beechie, R.E. Bilby, F.E. Leonetti, M.M. Pollock, and G.R. Pess. 2002. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1-20, 2002. 

Rosentreter, R. 1994. Displacement of Rare Plants by Exotic Grasses. In; Monsen, S.B. and S.G. 

Kitchen, editors: Proceedings-Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands, General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-313, Ogden, Ut., USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station, 170–175. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, copyright by Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-143. Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Odgen, UT. 
Appendix C – References C-14

Rowland, Mary M., Wisdom, Michael J.,. Johnson, Douglas H., Wales, Barbara C. ,. Copeland, 

Jeffrey C, and Edelmann, Frank B. 2003. Evaluation of Landscape Models for Wolverines in 

the Interior Northwest, United States of America. Journal of Mammology, 84(1):92-105. 

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, 

Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick 

Wenger, and A1 Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 

pp., pp. 7–10. (http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/reports/lcas.pdf).

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The 

scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine 

in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-254. 184 pp. 

Saha, M.K., and S.K. Konar. 1986. Chronic effects of crude petroleum on aquatic systems. 

Environmental Ecology 4:506-510. 

Sanborn, P., C. Bulmer, D. Coopersmith, A. Dale, and D. Erikson. 1999a. Soil rehabilitation 

research at the Aleza Lake Research Forest: techniques for restoring productivity to finetextured soils. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program. Note PG-18. 8 pp. 

Sanborn, P, M. Kranabetter, and C. Bulmer. 1999b. Soil rehabilitation in the Prince George 

Forest region: a review of two decades of research. British Columiba Ministry of 

Forests Research Program. Note PG-16. 6 pp. 

Sandberg, D. V., R.D. Ottmar, J. L. Peterson, and J. Core. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: 

Effects of Fire on Air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42 vol. 5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79p. 

Schmitz, R.F. and Gibson, K.E. 1996. Douglas-fir beetle. USDA For. Serv. Forest Insect and 

Disease Leaflet 5. 8 p. 

Schoen, D., R.M. Jones, and P.K. Murphy. 1999. Comprehensive State Water Plan for the South 

Fork Clearwater River. Idaho Water Resource Board, Boise, Idaho. 

Scrivener, J.C. and M.J. Brownlee. 1981. A preliminary analysis of Carnation Creek gravel 

quality data, salmon spawning gravel: A renewable resource in the Pacific Northewest? Rep. 

39. State of Wash. Water Res. Center, Seattle, WA. 195-226. 

Shepard, B., B. May, W. Urie, C. Corsi, K. McDonald, R. Snyder, T. Unterwegner, J. Uehara, 

and K. Walker. 2003. Status of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhychynchus clarki lewisi) in 

the United States: 2002. Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, MT, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 

MT, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, ID, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, OR, 

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, WA. 92p. 

Shiach, William S., H. Averill, and J. Henderson. 1903. An Illustrated History of North Idaho, 

embracing Nez Perces, Idaho, Latah, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties. Western Historical 

Publishing Company, Chicago. 

Sidall, P. 1992. South Fork Clearwater River Habitat Enhancement Project. Project 84-5, 

Agreement No. DE-A179-84BP16475. 
Appendix C – References C-15

Smith, B. and D. Prichard. 1992. Riparian Area Management–Management Techniques in 

Riparian Areas. Technical Reference 1737-6, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Service 

Center, Denver, CO. 

South Fork Clearwater River Watershed Advisory Group. 2006. South Fork Clearwater River 

TMDL Implementation Plan. 104 p. 

(http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/clearwater_river_sf/clear

water_river_sf_plan.pdf)

Squires, J. R. and L. F. Ruggerio. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in 

southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60:170–177. 

Stednick, J. D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176:79-95. 

Steinblums. I. 1977. Streamside buffer strips: survival, effectiveness, and design. Master’s 

Thesis, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 181p. 

Stone, W. E. 1995. The impact of a mountain pine beetle epidemic on wildlife habitat and 

communites in post-epidemic stands of a lodgepole pine forest in northern Utah. A 

dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of 

Philosophy in Wildlife Ecology. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 229 pp. 

Stowell, R., A. Espinosa, T. Bjornn, W. Platts, D. Burns, and J. Irving. 1983. Guide for 

Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields Idaho Batholith Watersheds. USDA 

Forest Service Northern and Intermountain Regions. 

Sullivan, K., T.E. Lisle, C.A. Dolloff, G.E. Grant, and L.M. Reid, 1987. Stream channels: the 

link between forests and fishes. Pp. 39-97. In: Streamside management: forestry and fishery 

interactions. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (eds.) University of Washington Institute of Forest 

Resources. Contribution No. 57. 

Suttle, K., M. Power, J. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How Fine Sediment in Riverbeds 

Impairs Growth and Survival of Juvenile Salmonids. Ecological Applications 14(4). Pp. 969–

976.

Swanson, F.J., and G.W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical consequences of large organic debris in 

Pacific Northwest streams. P. 127. In: MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar 

(1991), Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/910/9-

91-001.

Sylte, T. and C. Fischenich. 2003. An evaluation of techniques for measuring substrate 

embeddedness. In: Stream Notes–October, 2003, Stream Systems Technology Center. 

USDA, Rock Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Sylte, T. L. and J. C. Fischenich. 2002. Techniques for measuring substrate embeddedness. 

EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-36), U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Tausch J. R., T. Svejar, and J. W. Burhardt. 1994. Patterns of annual Grass Dominance onAnaho 

Island; Implications for Great Basin Vegetation Management. In; Monsen, S.B.and S.G. 

Kitchen, editors: Proceedings-Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands, General 
Appendix C – References C-16

Technical Report INT-GTR-313, Ogden, UT, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station, 120–131. 

Thomas, Robert and John G. King. 2004. Sediment Yield and Model Test in Main and South 

Forks of Red River – Water Years 1986 to 2001. Unpublished report on file at the Nez Perce 

National Forest. 

Tobalske, B. W., R. C. Shearer, and R. L. Hutto. 1991. Bird populations in logged and unlogged 

western larch/Douglas-fir forest in northwestern Montana. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper INT-442. 12 pp. 

Troendle, C.A. and R.M. King. 1987. The Effect of Partial and Clearcutting on Streamflow at 

Deadhorse Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology 90: 145-157. 

Trombulak, S. and C. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology: Volume 14, No. 1. February. 18–30. 

Tyser, R.W. and C.H. Key. 1988. Spotted Knapweed in natural Area Fescue Grasslands: An 

Ecological Assessment. Northwest Science, 62:(4) 151–160. 

USDA Forest Service. 1974. Northern Region. Forest Hydrology Part II – Hydrologic Effects of 

Vegetation Manipulation. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987a. Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Nez Perce National Forest. 

Grangeville, Idaho 

USDA Forest Service. 1987b. 1987 Nez Perce National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Appendices. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987c. Soil Survey, Nez Perce National Forest Area. USDA Forest 

Service, Northern Region, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID. pp 333–409 

USDA Forest Service. 1988. First annual monitoring and evaluation report. Page 31. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Third annual monitoring and evaluation report. Page 51. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Fifth annual monitoring and evaluation report. Page 78. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Monitoring strategy for landslide prone terrain. Report on file at 

Forest headquarters. 8 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998a. South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment. Nez Perce 

National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. Volumes I and II. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998b. South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment, Wildlife 

Technical Report,–Fisher, goshawk, marten, pileated woodpecker. Nez Perce National 

Forest/Clearwater National Forest/Bitterroot National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999a. South Fork Clearwater River Biological Assessment. Nez Perce 

National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Nez Perce National Forest 12th Annual Forest Plan Monitoring 

and Evaluation Report. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID. p 39. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment 

(Volume 1: Narrative), Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 447 pp. 
Appendix C – References C-17

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Red River Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. Nez Perce 

National Forest. Grangeville, Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Draft soil monitoring study: Mackay Day soil timber sale. On file 

at Nez Perce Forest Headquarters. 12 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003c. Soil monitoring and soil improvement inventory data on file at 

Nez Perce National Forest Headquarters. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003d. Slims Fire Incident Command Team, Structure Protection 

Contingency Plan for the Elk City Township and Red River Area, Nez Perce National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003e. Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Nez Perce NF, Habitat-based Terrestrial Vertebrate Populations 

Viability related to the American/Crooked River Project (see project file). 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. FS 15th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report Draft for 2002; 

Northern goshawk monitoring data, Item 10–Population Trends of Indicator Species. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Fire Effects Information–Plant Species Life Form. Electronic 

document/database, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants, accessed December 10, 2004. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004d. Draft Forest Plan 15th Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report–

FY 2002, Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004e. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 2003. 

USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Washington, D.C., p. 54. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/annual_i_d_conditions/ConditionsReport_03_

final.pdf we don’t need to keep this in the document, but it will be useful for printing the 

record). 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. American and Crooked River Project – Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Red River Ranger District, Nez 

Perce National Forest. Grangeville, ID. 452 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Red Pines – Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest. 

Grangeville, ID. 

USDA-USDI. 2002. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1981a. Chief Joseph Planning Unit Management 

Framework Plan (MFP). Coeur d’Alene District, Cottonwood, Idaho. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1981b. North Idaho Timber Management Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Coeur d’Alene District, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 124 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives and Sediment 

Budgets–Chief Joseph Planning Unit Management Framework Plan Refinement. USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d’Alene District, Cottonwood Resource Area, 

Cottonwood, ID. 
Appendix C – References C-18

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1986. BLM Manual Rel. 8-30. Handbook H-8410-1, Visual 

Contrast Rating. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1988. North Idaho Range Management Program Summary 

Report. USDI-BLM Coeur d’Alene District, Idaho. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1989a. BLM Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives by 

Prescription Watershed, Addendum 1 - Supplement to Chief Joseph Planning Unit 

Management Framework Plan Refinement Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives and Sediment 

Budgets (1985). USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d’Alene District, Cottonwood 

Resource Area, Cottonwood, ID. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1989b. Interim Fish Habitat Characteristics for Evaluating 

Fish Habitat Objectives/Desired Future Condition for Bureau of Land Management 

Prescription Watersheds in the Cottonwood Resource Area, Addendum 2 - Supplement to 

Chief Joseph Planning Unit Management Framework Plan Refinement Fisheries/Water 

Quality Objectives and Sediment Budgets (1985). USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 

Coeur d’Alene District, Cottonwood Resource Area, Cottonwood, ID. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2005a. North Idaho Fire Planning Unit Fire Management 

Plan (FMP). Coeur d’Alene District, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 20005b. Biological Assessment of South Fork Clearwater 

River Restoration Projects for Federally Listed and BLM Sensitive Species. BLM Coeur 

d’Alene District, Cottonwood Field Office Cottonwood, ID. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Biological Assessment of American River Restoration 

Projects for Federally Listed and BLM Sensitive Species. BLM Coeur d’Alene District, 

Cottonwood Field Office Cottonwood, ID. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Wildlife 

Services. 2005. Rocky Mountain 2004 Annual Report. D. Boyd, ed. USDI U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, MT. 72 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Notice of 12-month petition finding (goshawk). Federal 

Register: June 29, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 124), pp. 35183–35184. 

USDI-USDA. 1995. Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in 

eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of California (PACFISH). USDI Bureau 

of Land Management and USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, 

western Cascades, Oregon. MS thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 68-

69.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing Fire Frequencies on Snake River Plains: Ecological and 

Management Implications. In; McArthur, E.D., et al, editors: Proceedings-Symposium on 

Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. 

General Technical Report INT-276 Ogden, Ut., USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, pp. 4–10. 
Appendix C – References C-19

Willard E. K., D. J. Bedunah, and C. L. Marcuey. 1988 Impact and potential impacts of spotted 

knapweed on forest rangelands in western Montana. Final Report. University of Montana. 

264 p. 

Woodbridge, B. and P. J. Detrich. 1994. Territory Occupancy and Habitat Patch Size of Northern 

Goshawks in the Southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16:83–87. 

Young, J.S. and R.L. Hutto. 1999. Habitat and landscape factors affecting cowbird distribution in 

the Northern Rockies. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 18:41-51. 

Young, J.S., and R.L. Hutto. 2002. Use of a landbird monitoring database to explore effects of 

partial-cut timber harvesting. Forest Science 48(2):373-378. 
Appendix D – Treatments by Alternative 

Appendix D – Treatments by Alternative __________________________The following tables represent the units for the project area. The unit is the number assigned to the stand being treated. The 

prescription type. The codes are: Table D.1 

T Code Treatment

4113 Clearcut 4114 Clearcut with reserves 4131 Shelterwood Cut 4133 Irregular shelterwood 4134 Seed tree cut with reserves 4220 Thinning 4230 Sanitation (Salvage) 4260 Human caused fire 

Table D.2 

Abbreviation Fuels Treatment 

Ex. Pile Excavator piling of fuels thro

unit in preparation for burnin

Underburn

A light broadcast burn under forest canopy, with limited dexisting trees 

Broadcast

A prescribed burn with no pirowing and limited concern fexisting vegetation 

Hand Pile Hand piling of fuels through

preparation for burning 
Appendix D – Treatments by Alternative 

The percent (%) stands for canopy cover removed that was used for ECA and NEZSED modeling. Type = the logging systmay occur in excavator pile units, lessoning the amount of excavator piling needed. The alternatives are the associated actiand the acres column is the size of the unit. If there is a blank in the Unit row under the alternative, this means that unit wil

that alternative. Table D.3 

Alternative B Alternative C Altern

Unit T Code Type % Fuels Acres Unit T Code Type Fuels Acres Unit T Code Typ

1 4131 Helicopter 80 Hand Pile 11 1 4131 Helicopter Hand Pile 11 2 4220 Ground 70 Ex. Pile 14 2 4220 Ground Ex. Pile 14 3 4131 Cable 80 Underburn 10 3 4131 Cable Underburn 10 4 4134 Ground 80 Underburn 4 4 4134 Ground Underburn 4 5 4134 Cable 80 Underburn 5 5 4134 Cable Underburn 5 6 4220 Ground 70 Ex. Pile 16 6 4220 Ground Ex. Pile 16 7 4131 Cable 80 Underburn 8 7 4131 Cable Underburn 8 8 4134 Cable 80 Underburn 11 8 4134 Cable Underburn 11 9 4134 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 61 9 4134 Ground Ex. Pile 61 9 4134 Grou

10 4131 Cable 80 Underburn 23 10 4131 Cable Underburn 23 10 4131 Cab11 4134 Ground 80 Underburn 27 11 4134 Ground Underburn 27 11 4134 Grou12 4134 Cable 80 Underburn 16 12 4134 Cable Underburn 16 12 4134 Cab13 4230 Ground 50 Ex. Pile 32 13 4230 Ground Ex. Pile 32 13 4230 Grou14 4230 Ground 50 Ex. Pile 68 14 4230 Ground Ex. Pile 68 14 4230 Grou15 4230 Ground 50 Ex. Pile 9 16 4220 Ground 70 Ex. Pile 45 16 4220 Ground Ex. Pile 45 16 4220 Grou18 4131 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 60 18 4131 Ground Ex. Pile 60 18 4131 Grou19 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 28 19 4133 Helicopter Underburn 28 19 4133 Helico
Appendix D – Treatments by Alternative 

Alternative B Alternative C Altern

Unit T Code Type % Fuels Acres Unit T Code Type Fuels Acres Unit T Code Typ

20 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 26 20 4133 Helicopter Underburn 26 20 4133 Helico21 4220 Helicopter 70 Hand Pile 24 21 4220 Helicopter Hand Pile 24 21 4220 Helico22 4220 Ground 70 Ex. Pile 24 22 4220 Ground Ex. Pile 24 22 4220 Grou23 4133 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 18 23 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 18 23 4133 Grou24 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 40 24 4133 Helicopter Underburn 40 24 4133 Helico25 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 10 25 4133 Helicopter Underburn 10 25 4133 Helico26 4133 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 6 26 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 6 26 4133 Grou27 4134 Helicopter 80 Hand Pile 19 27 4134 Helicopter Hand Pile 19 27 4134 Helico28 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 25 28 4133 Cable Underburn 25 29 4134 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 9 29 4134 Ground Ex. Pile 9 29 4134 Grou30 4133 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 21 30 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 21 30 4133 Grou31 4134 Cable 80 Underburn 8 31 4134 Cable Underburn 8 31 4134 Cab32 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 7 32 4133 Cable Underburn 7 32 4133 Cab33 4133 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 41 33 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 41 33 4133 Grou34 4131 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 57 34 4131 Ground Ex. Pile 57 34 4131 Grou35 4131 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 3 35 4131 Ground Ex. Pile 3 36 4260 90 Broadcast 6 36 4133 Helicopter Broadcast 6 37 4260 90 Broadcast 25 37 4133 Helicopter Broadcast 25 37 4133 Helico38 4260 90 Broadcast 57 38 4133 Helicopter Broadcast 57 38 4133 Helico39 4134 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 35 39 4134 Ground Ex. Pile 35 39 4134 Grou40 4133 Ground 100 Ex. Pile 14 40 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 14 40 4133 Grou41 4131 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 60 41 4131 Ground Ex. Pile 60 41 4131 Grou42 4131 Cable 80 Underburn 40 42 4131 Cable Underburn 40 42 4131 Cab
Appendix D – Treatments by Alternative 

Alternative B Alternative C Altern

Unit T Code Type % Fuels Acres Unit T Code Type Fuels Acres Unit T Code Typ

43 4131 Cable 80 Underburn 12 43 4131 Cable Underburn 12 43 4131 Cab44 4134 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 49 44 4134 Ground Ex. Pile 49 44 4134 Grou45 4133 Ground 100 Ex. Pile 28 45 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 28 45 4133 Grou46 4134 Cable 80 Underburn 18 46 4134 Cable Underburn 18 46 4134 Cab47 4133 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 59 47 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 59 47 4133 Grou48 4133 Cable 90 Underburn 11 48 4133 Cable Underburn 11 48 4133 Cab49 4134 Ground 80 Ex. Pile 24 49 4134 Ground Ex. Pile 24 49 4134 Grou50 4133 Ground 90 Ex. Pile 17 50 4133 Ground Ex. Pile 17 50 4133 Grou51 4260 90 Broadcast 52 51 4133 Helicopter Broadcast 52 51 4133 Helico

Eastside Total Acres 1293 Eastside Total Acres 1284 Eastside Total Acre

Table D.4 

Totals by T Code 

Alt B Alt C Alt D 

4113 Clearcut 4114 Clearcut with reserves 4131 Shelterwood Cut 284 284 252 4133 Irregular shelterwood 351 491 460 4134 Seed tree cut with reserves 286 286 266 4220 Thinning 123 123 93 4230 Sanitation (Salvage) 109 100 100 4260 Man caused fire 140 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-1 

Appendix E – Monitoring Plan __________________________ 

Regeneration and Survival Success Monitoring _____________________________ 

Program: Forest Management 

Monitoring Item: Artificial regeneration 

Objective: To assess the survival and stocking rates following tree planting in 

regeneration units. 

Parameters: Regeneration establishment and survival checks. 

Methodology: Install and measure 1/100 acre plots per standard protocols. 

Frequency/Duration: First, third, and fifth year following planting 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Silvicultural and reforestation reports 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Forestry staff 

Cost: Average $30/acre times the number of acres planted 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-2 

Fuel Condition _________________________________________________________ 

Program: Fuels Management 

Monitoring Item: Fuel condition; burn unit design; biomass utilization 

Objective: To assess the implementation of fuel reduction objectives, keeping 

prescribed fire within designated unit boundaries, and reducing excavator 

piling resulting from biomass utilization. 

Parameters: Post treatment fuel model; burned area survey; acres excavator-piled 

Methodology: Install and measure fuel inventory plots per standard protocols, patrol 

unit firelines, and observe and map actual burned area, evaluate biomass 

opportunities.

Frequency/Duration: 30 days following treatment 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Fuel reduction accomplishments (NFPORS) 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Fuels Staff 

Cost: Average $30/acre times the number of acres planted
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-3 

Vegetation ____________________________________________________________ 

Program: Noxious Weeds 

Monitoring Item: Inventory activity areas for weed occurrence 

Objective: To survey and document new and spreading populations of noxious 

weeds in the treatment area. 

Parameters: Weed occurrence 

Methodology: Visual survey of disturbed areas for weed occurrence 

Frequency/Duration: Two years following treatment 

Data Storage: Field Office Files 

Analysis/Report:

Priority: High 

Personnel: All field staff 

Cost: Average $30/acre times the number of acres planted 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-4 

Water Quality __________________________________________________________ 

Program: Water Quality 

Monitoring Item: Implementation of BMPs, project design features and mitigation 

Objective: To determine if stated measures were implemented and if they were 

effective as designed. 

Parameters: Were the BMPs, PDFs, and mitigation implemented and effective 

feedback information to IDTs for future project design? 

Methodology: Site visit, pre- and post-monitoring of site conditions 

Frequency/Duration: Before, during, and post implementation. Post implementation should 

continue for up to five years to track effectiveness. 

Data Storage: Field Office Files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Hydrologist, Biologist 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-5 

Water Quality __________________________________________________________ 

Program: Water Quality 

Monitoring Item: Temperature; turbidity; active erosion/sediment 

Objective: To determine change in condition over time. 

Parameters: Use standard DEQ protocol for monitoring turbidity at mixing zone. 

Methodology: Regularly record temperatures and prepare trend analysis for riparian 

restoration projects. During project implementation that involves actions 

below mean high water or instream activities that may affect turbidity, 

monitor during project implementation, and pre- and post-project 

turbidity levels. Monitor activities within riparian habitats where project 

related soil/vegetation disturbance has potential to reach water. Monitor 

implementation and effectiveness of erosion control design features. 

Continue monitoring existing permanent monitoring stations; install 

temporary monitoring stations for periodic evaluation. Document erosion 

control implementation and effectiveness. 

Frequency/Duration: Temperature is recorded daily and data retrieved monthly (summer 

months). Monitoring should continue for foreseeable future to discern 

trends. Turbidity monitoring conducted during, pre-, and post-project 

construction periods. Erosions control implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring conducted during project implementation and post-project 

monitoring as needed until appropriate site stabilization is achieved. 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports to track changes resulting and trend for project 

design and compliance with water quality standards. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Fisheries Biologist 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-6 

Roads ________________________________________________________________ 

Program: Restoration 

Monitoring Item: Decommissioned roads and fish habitat 

Objective: To ensure decommissioned roads are removed to designed standards and 

are, in fact, no longer passable, and to assess changes to fish habitat 

conditions and document trend. 

Parameters: Percent woody material on former surface, depth of decompaction, 

recontouring percent complete (if applicable) 

Methodology: On-site measurements and visual observation 

Frequency/Duration: Post implementation 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. Provide 

feedback to regulatory agencies on effectiveness of treatments. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Contract Administrator 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-7 

Cultural _______________________________________________________________ 

Program: Cultural Resource Protection 

Monitoring Item: Installation of protective measures at ditch crossings, recording features 

prior to implementation 

Objective: To protect documented resources. 

Parameters: Parameters are provided in the design feature table. 

Methodology: Visual observation 

Frequency/Duration: During and post implementation 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. Provide 

feedback to regulatory agencies on effectiveness of treatments. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Archeologist, Contract Administrator 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-8 

Fish Habitat ___________________________________________________________ 

Program: Fish Habitat 

Monitoring Item: Fish habitat features: cobble embeddedness; LWD; pool:riffle; surface 

fines; width:depth 

Objective: To assess changes to fish habitat conditions and document trend. 

Parameters: Parameters are identified for each feature in the Matrix and Pathways of 

Indicators.

Methodology: Use standard protocols for each monitoring type. 

Frequency/Duration: Before, during and post implementation. Post implementation should 

continue for up to five years to track effectiveness. 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. Provide 

feedback to regulatory agencies on effectiveness of treatments. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Fisheries Biologist 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-9 

Fish Habitat ___________________________________________________________ 

Program: Fish Habitat 

Monitoring Item: Stream channel morphology, stream bank condition, and riparian revegetation attributes following crossing replacement or ford 

decommissioning and restoration 

Objective: To assess changes to fish habitat conditions and document trend. 

Parameters: Parameters are identified for each feature in the Matrix and Pathways of 

Indicators.

Methodology: Use standard protocols for each monitoring type. 

Frequency/Duration: Post implementation. Monitoring should continue periodically for up to 

ten years to track effectiveness. 

Data Storage: Field Office Files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. Provide 

feedback to regulatory agencies on effectiveness of treatments. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Fisheries Biologist 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-10 

Fisheries ______________________________________________________________ 

Program: Fish Genetics 

Monitoring Item: Genetic testing of isolated/semi-isolated Westslope cutthroat trout 

populations

Objective: To assess the genetic composition and any changes that occur through 

following reconnection of the Queen creek channel to American River. 

Parameters: Parameters are identified for collection of genetic material. 

Methodology: Use standard protocols for each monitoring type. 

Frequency/Duration: Pre- and post-implementation. Post-implementation should continue 

periodically to assess changes over time. 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. Provide 

feedback to regulatory agencies on documented impacts. 

Priority: Moderate 

Personnel: Fisheries Biologist 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-11 

Wildlife Habitat_________________________________________________________ 

Program: Wildlife Habitat 

Monitoring Item: Green tree, snag replacement, snags and down woody retention 

guidelines

Objective: To assess changes to forest structure and assure conformance with 

developed guidelines. 

Parameters: Green tree retention parameters vary by treatment unit and would be 

derived from the silvicultural prescription. Snags guidelines are included 

in the MFP. Down woody material is based on recommendations in the 

Soils Section. 

Methodology: Use standard protocols for each monitoring type. 

Frequency/Duration: Post implementation 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports and recommendations to IDTs developing 

future projects to ensure continually improving project design. 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Forester 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-12 

Wildlife Habitat_________________________________________________________

Program: Wildlife Habitat 

Monitoring Item: Road restrictions for temporary roads 

Objective: To ensure gates, signs, and closures are effective to restrict public vehicle 

use or other non-authorized uses of temporary roads during the duration 

of the contract. 

Parameters: Document that gates are installed immediately after temporary roads are 

constructed. Monitor road closure facilities (gates, signs) are in place and 

functional during project duration. 

Methodology: Documentation of gate installation and effectiveness in project 

inspector’s field notes/diary. 

Frequency/Duration: Project implementation 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Provide summary reports of gate/closure construction and periodic 

monitoring.

Priority: High 

Personnel: Forester, Biologist 
Appendix E – Monitoring Plan E-13 

TES Plants ____________________________________________________________ 

Program: Threatened and Endangered Species 

Monitoring Item: Retention of live lodgepole pine near candystick populations 

Objective: To ensure habitat components are retained. 

Parameters: Green lodgepole pine retention should be implemented near documented 

populations or any newly discovered populations. 

Methodology: Visual observation 

Frequency/Duration: During and post implementation 

Data Storage: Field office files 

Analysis/Report: Monitoring report to FWS 

Priority: High 

Personnel: Forester, Botanist/Ecologist 
Appendix F – Descriptions of Fuel Models F-1 

Appendix F – Descriptions of Fuel Models__________ 

Fuel Model descriptions taken from Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior by 

Hal E. Anderson, 1982. Each fuel model is typically used to represent a range of fuel conditions in which 

fire behavior may be expected to respond similarly to changes in fuel moisture, wind, and slope. 

Fuel Model 1: Fire spread is governed by the fine herbaceous fuels that have cured or are nearly cured. 

Fires move rapidly through cured grass and associated material. Very little shrub or timber is present, 

generally less than one-third of the area. 

Fuel Model 2: Fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. These are 

surface fires where the herbaceous material, in addition to litter and down-down stemwood from timber 

overstory contributes to the fire intensity. Such stands may include clumps of fuels that generate higher 

intensities and that may produce firebrands. 

Fuel Model 3: Fires in this fuel are the most intense of the grass group and display high rates of spread 

under the influence of wind. The fire may be driven into the upper heights of the grass stand by the wind 

and cross standing water. Stands are tall, averaging about 3 ft., but may vary considerably. Approximately 

one-third or more of the stand is considered dead or cured, and maintains the fire. 

Fuel Model 4: Fire intensity and fast-spreading fires involves the foliage and live and dead fine woody 

material in the crowns of a nearly continuous secondary overstory. Besides flammable foliage, dead 

woody material in the stands significantly contributes to the fore intensity. 

Fuel Model 5: Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made up of litter cast by the shrubs, 

and the grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally not very intense because surface fuel 

loads are light, the shrubs are young with little dead material, and the foliage contains little volatile 

material. Shrubs are generally not tall, but have nearly total coverage of the area. 

Fuel Model 8: Slow-burning ground fires with low flame heights are the rule, although the fire may 

encounter an occasional “jackpot” or heavy fuel concentration that can flare up. Only under severe 

weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidities, and high winds do the fuels pose fire 

hazards. Closed canopy stands of short-needle conifers or hardwoods that have leafed out support fire in 

the compact litter layer. This layer is mainly needles, leaves, and some twigs since little undergrowth is 

present in the stand. 

Fuel Model 10: The fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire intensity than the other 

timber litter models. Dead down fuels include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger limbwood resulting 

from overmaturity or natural events that create a large load of dead materiel on the forest floor. Crowning 

out, spotting, and torching of individual trees is more frequent in this fuel situation, leading to potential 

fire control difficulties. Any forest type may be considered if heavy down material is present; for example 

insect or disease ridden stands, wind-thrown stands, overmature stands with deadfall, and aged slash from 

light thinning or partial cutting. 

Fuel Model 12: The visual impression is dominated by slash and much of it is less than 3 inches in 

diameter. Fires are rapidly spreading with high intensities capable of generating firebrands. When a fire 

starts, it is generally sustained until a fuel break of change in fuels is encountered. 
Appendix G – Modeling Assumptions G-1 

Appendix G – Modeling Assumptions _____________ 

Site-specific activities can readily be evaluated using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and the Fuel 

and Fire Effects extension (FFE) of FVS to quantify vegetation and fuel succession following fire or fuels 

treatments. 

The following excerpt has been adapted from the Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify 

Wildfire Behavior and Severity (Graham, McCaffrey and Jain 2004). It gives a good description of the 

predictive strengths and weaknesses associated with Modeling. These are applicable to the use of the 

FFE-FVS modeling done on the Eastside Project. 

Uncertainties in Predicting Fire Behavior 

While we have a good general understanding of the factors that govern fire behavior, the interactions 

among these factors and the way in which fire behaves on the landscape are highly complex. As a result, 

fire behavior and severity can be understood and predicted in general terms, but exact predictions are not 

possible. Different models have been developed that are widely used and useful to assist in managing 

fires and developing fuel treatment plans. However, there are key uncertainties in how the simplifying 

assumptions of models affect their accuracy and as well as uncertainties that result from difficulties of 

providing adequate input data to operate the models. The limitations to predictions using models can be 

categorized as: 

x Model assumptions and limitations. Because all models are abstractions of reality and not 

reality itself, there are many limitations to the predictions resulting from the models. By 

necessity, models simplify much of what really happens in order to facilitate the user’s 

understanding of the process. In addition, many models are developed to reflect weather 

conditions that are “normal” and not extreme; therefore, their predictions do not reflect these 

types of events (Albini 1976, Van Wagner 1977, Rothermel 1983, Andrews 1986). 

x Unknowable fire environment at the time wildfires encounter treatments. Even if models 

were nearly perfect, we would never be able to predict the exact conditions of a wildfire that 

would encounter a fuel treatment and serve as the performance measure. For example, the 

weather and wind conditions at a particular time, the attendant ignition location and direction of 

fire movement through the treatment, the degree of variability in the treatment conditions at the 

time of the fire—all these determine the performance of a fuel treatment in terms of the changes 

to fire behavior and effects. 

x Coarse data descriptions of fuels and environmental conditions. The data for model input for 

the Eastside Project came from stand exam data which is better than most fuels maps. Even so 

this scale is still too coarse to reflect variability within some of the area, such as heavy fuel 

concentrations or thickets of trees. Such fine-scale variability could be important and may have 

important consequences to fire growth over landscapes, but it is unknowable for fire modeling. 

Our fuel data today tend to smooth out variation in order to represent the “average” condition. 

However, the average fuel condition does not produce the average fire behavior response because 

fire behavior responds nonlinearly to changes in fuels and weather. 

A key area of uncertainty is in how to determine thresholds of treatment for different fuels when they are 

encountered by wildfire. Even though models cannot predict how a given structure created by a fuel 

treatment will fare when a wildfire encounters it, they can predict a range of conditions under which fuel 

conditions will modify fire behavior and/or severity. In general, models are effective in showing the 

contributions to the fire hazard made by the different fuel strata—that is, the surface fuels, ladder fuels, 

and crown fuels. However, each stratum affects fire behavior differently and there is uncertainty about 

how much treatment is needed in each stratum to achieve desired results. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-1 

Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed 

and Fisheries Analysis __________________________ 

Introduction

The following support information for the watershed and fisheries analysis includes information specific 

to the Eastside Project and where appropriate support documentation from the American and Crooked 

River Project (USDA-FS 2005). 

Fisheries/Water Quality Objectives 

The Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan (USDI-BLM, 1981) and supplement guidance (USDIBLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b) identifies fisheries/water quality objectives by prescription watersheds for 

the Cottonwood Field Office management area. Figure H.1 below, and the following Table H.1 identifies 

eight prescription watersheds that would be affected by the proposed actions. The Elk Creek prescription 

watershed (17060305-05-17) is primarily private lands and did not meet criteria for a BLM prescription 

watershed (USDI-BLM, 1989a), however, it does occur in the composite watershed for Lower American 

River (see Figure H.1), which will be assessed for cumulative affects. 

Fish/water quality objectives displayed on the following page provide management direction in terms of 

maximum sediment yield over baseline conditions that can be approached or equaled for a specified 

number of years per decade, ranging from one to three times. Watersheds with fish/water objectives of 80 

or 90 percent are allowed one entry per decade and those with 70 percent are allowed three entries per 

decade. All objectives are relative to full habitat potential of 100 percent. 

Since 1992 additional standards and guidelines have been developed, primarily as a result of the various 

listing of anadromous and resident fish. NFMS (1996) has developed a matrix of pathways and indicators 

of watershed conditions that have been modified and locally adapted by the Central Idaho Level 1 team 

for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM, 1998) 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-2 

Table H.1 Fisheries and Water Quality Objectives for Prescription Subwatersheds within the Eastside 

Project Analysis Area 

Prescription 

Watershed

Prescription 

Watershed

Name

Beneficial

Use1

Current

Fishery 

Habitat

Condition

(%) 

Fishery/ 

Water

Quality 

Objective

(% Habitat 

Potential)3

Sediment

Yield

Guideline

(% Over 

Baseline)

Entry

Frequency 

Guideline

(Per

Decade)

17060305-05-06 Middle American 

R. A 65%2

 80% 30%4 1 

17060305-05-16 Lower American 

R. A 60%2

 80% 30%4 1 

17060305-05-10 E. Fk. American R. A 80%2 90% 30%4 1 

17060305-05-12 Whitaker Creek R 70% 70% 60% 3 

17060305-05-13 Queen Creek R 70% 70% 60% 3 

17060305-05-15 Box Sing Creek A 65%2 70% 60% 3 

17060305-05-11 Kirks Fork A 75%2 80% 30% 1 

17060305-05-05 Little Elk Creek A 60%2 80% 30% 1 1

 A = Anadromous Fishery; R = Resident Fishery; MW = Municipal Watershed 2

 These streams are below carrying capacity because of a lack of diversity and/or instream cover. This problem may be 

attributed to dredge mining, livestock grazing, and or excessive sediment from roads, timber harvest, or development. 

Timber management and other land uses can occur in these drainages, concurrent with habitat improvement efforts, as long 

as habitat improvement efforts show a positive upward trend. 

Within the project area, legacy effects from some land uses, such as historic dredge mining and roading have resulted in 

adverse impacts to stream channels, riparian habitats, and floodplains. Recovery is often slow and long term, and in some 

cases will require significant habitat improvement efforts. The BLM has been implementing a variety of land management 

and restoration actions to support improving trends within the American River drainage. BLM past, present, and actions 

identified for the foreseeable future have included instream restoration, riparian restoration, culvert replacements, road 

restoration, improved livestock management. 3

 All objectives are relative to full biological potential of 100 percent in reference to pristine conditions. 4

 These prescription watersheds, unlike most, are not true watersheds. By definition, a true watershed includes all the lands 

draining through a stream reach. These footnoted watersheds drain only part of such a hydraulic unit and generally contain 

the downstream reaches of relatively large streams. For sediment yield analysis on these downstream reaches, all upstream 

prescription watersheds are combined into a true watershed. Sediment yield guidelines (Column 6) apply only to true 

watersheds. Entry frequency guidelines (Column 7) apply to prescription watersheds regardless of whether they are true 

watersheds.

The watershed numbering and nomenclature system has evolved over the past twenty years. At the time 

of the BLM Management Framework Plan and Fishery/Water Quality Objective supplements (1981 and 

1985), the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system was nationally coordinated to the 4th code HUC (e.g. 

South Fork Clearwater River subbasin = 17060305). Efforts are currently underway to nationally 

coordinate HUCs to the 6th code level. This analysis relies on the older codes. 

At the time of the BLM Management Framework Plan and Fishery/Water Quality Objective supplements 

(1981 and 1985), watersheds were referred to as prescription watersheds. Current nomenclature refers to 

those as subwatersheds. 

Prescription watersheds such as Lower American River and Middle American River pose a unique 

situation in that they are not a single complete drainage (see footnote above). Current terminology refers 

to them as composite watersheds. The maps below show how composite and pure watersheds are related 

in the project area.
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-3 

Figure H.1 Composite v, Pure Watersheds – American River 

For purposes of water yield (ECA) and sediment yield (NEZSED) analysis, composite watersheds are 

compiled into larger pure watersheds. This is done in order to maintain integrity with the assumptions 

used to develop the ECA and NEZSED procedures. Both of these models assume the water yield and 

sediment yield reflect the conditions in the entire pure watershed above the analysis point (also known as 

pour point). 

Each of the maps above shows the relationship between composite and pure watersheds for American 

River watersheds. Using Lower American River as an example, when ECA or NEZSED results are 

reported, they include all of the shaded subwatersheds. For more detail on the watershed boundaries and 

associated stream systems, see Maps 14 and 17. 

Upward Trend 

The Chief Joseph Management Framework Plan (USDI-BLM 1981) and supplement guidance (USDIBLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b) provide direction that timber harvest in sediment-limited watersheds that 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-4 

do not meet their Fisheries/Water Quality objectives, as listed in above in Table H.1, would occur only 

where concurrent watershed improvement efforts result in a positive upward trend in habitat condition. 

Many of the area streams do not meet their objectives and are in this category. Those are the watersheds 

with footnote 2 in Table H.1 above. 

An upward trend can be supported by limiting new disturbances, allowing natural recovery to occur, 

restricting or modifying existing land uses, and/or implementing restoration activities that would improve 

aquatic and/or riparian habitats. In addition to Eastside Project restoration actions, upward trend can also 

be supported by other ongoing and planned BLM management actions (See Table H.5 FEIS) The FS also 

has conducted or is proposing a variety of projects that support improvement of water quality and aquatic 

habitats in the upper South Fork of the Clearwater River and American River. 

BLM land ownership within many subwatersheds often comprise a small percentage of the total acreage, 

consequently, restoration opportunities may be very limited. In such watersheds, Eastside Project 

proposals are designed so that such would minimize impacts to aquatic habitats and water quality, and not 

preclude achievement of long term improving trends (attributed to BLM management actions) in 

subwatersheds that are below identified objectives. 

The Desired Future Condition (DFC) Tables 

To estimate natural fish habitat potential and quantify existing stream conditions as required by the 

Management Framework Plan, the Cottonwood Field Office is using Desired Future Condition (DFC) 

tables (USDI-BLM, 1989b) which have been further adapted from a model developed on the Clearwater 

National Forest (Espinosa, 1992). The DFC tables identify specific conditions and channel types found 

within the Cottonwood Field Office management area using a habitat quality index. Values for the habitat 

parameters are quantified in a set of desired future condition (DFC) tables. The DFC tables list the 

specific fish habitat parameter and a value or range that a stream should have in order to be at a given 

percentage of the streams potential and to meet the fisheries objectives for that watershed. The DFC 

values, habitat parameter data and their relationships are stratified by channel types and fish species. The 

values for the fish habitat parameters listed in the DFC tables are considered achievable for streams under 

natural conditions in the absence of major disturbances or are reflective of what good fish habitat should 

be. Most of the habitat parameters are consistent for each species, and they vary slightly by channel type. 

Past work has shown a need to adjust some of the elements to better-fit natural conditions and what is 

achievable. The DFC for acting and potential woody debris in a low gradient meadow channel is often 

used as an example of this. Under natural conditions trees may not be common along the channel and 

active and potential large woody debris may not be prevalent along specific stream reaches. Natural 

deposited sediment may also be at higher levels because of the existing soil and substrate conditions 

stream channel type, parent geologic material, and landscape characteristics. 

PACFISH (1995) Supplement to BLM Management Framework Plan 

The PACFISH Environmental Assessment (USDI-USDA 1995) supplemented the BLM Management 

Framework Plan. PACFISH establishes riparian goals, riparian management objectives (RMOs), and 

defines riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). It includes specific direction for land management 

activities within riparian areas adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands, and landslide-prone terrain. Riparian 

goals establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and 

fish habitat. The goals direct the BLM to maintain or improve habitat elements such as water quality, 

stream channel integrity, instream flows, riparian vegetation, and several others. 

Riparian management objectives (RMOs) for stream channel condition provide the criteria against which 

attainment, or progress toward attainment, of the riparian goals is measured. They include habitat 

attributes such as number of pools, amount of large wood in the channel, stability of the stream banks, 

and width-to-depth ratio. The areas adjacent to streams and wetlands (RHCAs) were established in 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-5 

PACFISH to maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Healthy riparian areas are essential to 

maintaining or improving the quality of fish habitat in streams. This analysis will use a combination of 

DFC and RMO values to define desired and existing conditions in watersheds where activities occur. 

Direction in PACFISH specific to Timber Management/Silviculture includes the following: 

Prohibit timber harvest, including fuel woodcutting, in RHCAs, except in the following 

conditions:

x Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in 

degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuel wood cutting in RHCAs only where 

present and future debris needs are met, where cutting would not retard or prevent attainment 

of RMOs, and where adverse effects on anadromous fish can be avoided. 

x Apply silviculture practices for RHCAs to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where 

needed to attain RMOs. Apply silviculture practices is a manner that does not retard 

attainment of RMOs and that avoid adverse effects on listed anadromous fish. 

Direction in PACFISH specific to Fire/Fuels Management and relevant to this project includes the 

following:

x Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as not to 

prevent attainment of RMOs, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and 

vegetation.

x Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances 

where fire suppression or fuel management actions could perpetuate or be damaging to longterm ecosystem function, listed anadromous fish, or designated critical habitat. 

Direction in PACFISH specific to Roads Management and relevant to this project includes the 

following:

x For each existing or planned road, meet the RMOs and avoid adverse effects on listed 

anadromous fish by: (a) completing Watershed Analyses prior to construction of new roads or 

landings in RHCAs, (b) minimizing road and landing locations in RHCAs, (c) initiating 

development and implementation of a Road Management Plan or a Transportation 

Management Plan, and (d) avoiding sediment delivery to streams from the road surfaces. 

x Determine the influence of each road on the RMOs. 

x Construct new, and improve existing culverts, bridges, and other stream crossing to 

accommodate a 100-year flood, including associated bedload and debris, where those 

improvements would/do pose a substantial risk to riparian conditions. 

x Provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing 

streams. 

Direction in PACFISH specific to Recreation Management and relevant to this project includes the 

following:

x Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, including trails and dispersed sites, in a 

manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs and avoids adverse effects on 

listed anadromous fish. Relocate or close recreation facilities where RMOs cannot be met or 

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish avoided. 

x Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of 

RMOs or adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Where adjustment measures such as 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-6 

education, use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of 

facilities, and/or specific site closures are not effective in meeting RMOs and avoiding 

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish, eliminate the practice or occupancy. 

Direction in PACFISH specific to Fisheries/Wildlife Restoration includes the following: 

x Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement actions in a 

manner that contributes to attainment of RMOs. 

Channel Morphology and Sediment Routing 

Stream gradient is an important parameter that has implications for sediment transport and deposition. It 

is also related to fish habitat quality, since many species prefer lower gradient stream reaches for certain 

life stages. Lower gradient reaches on 3rd to 5th order streams in the project area are particularly wellsuited for chinook salmon and steelhead spawning. The data below were compiled with GIS methods 

using the 1:24,000 scale NHD stream layer and 30 meter DEM data. 

Table H.2 Percent Stream Length by Gradient Classes – American River 

Watershed Name Stream Miles <2% 2-4% 4-10% 10-20% 20-40% >40% 

Middle American River1 12.8 45 12 34 9 0 0 

East Fork American River1 19.6 12 12 28 39 9 0 

Whitaker Creek 4.6 6 2 46 33 12 0 

Queen Creek 4.8 6 12 67 16 0 0 

Box Sing Creek 4.1 11 6 36 46 0 0 

Kirks Fork 26.8 8 8 37 35 11 1 

Lower American River1 17.7 53 4 12 29 2 0 1

Data compiled for composite watersheds, not pure watersheds 

Sediment Routing 

Sediment routing considers the disposition of sediment within the watershed system, including processes 

of erosion, deposition, storage and transport. It includes upslope and instream components. The upslope 

component includes initial detachment, erosion and delivery efficiency. The instream component includes 

suspended and bedload sediment yield, as well as substrate deposition and composition. The instream 

component also includes consideration of streamflow and channel morphology, both of which influence 

the capability of the stream to transport or deposit sediment. 

Erosion and Delivery Processes 

The erosion process initiates with detachment of material. Detachment can occur through weathering 

processes such as frost heave or raindrop impact. Erosion can occur as dry ravel, surface erosion (e.g., 

sheet, rill and gully) and mass erosion (e.g. debris avalanches, slumps and earthflows). The rate of each is 

dependent on climate, landforms, geology, soils and exposure of mineral soil. For freshly exposed 

materials, surface erosion is probably the dominant process in the American River landscape. Transport 

occurs when rainfall or snowmelt generate water in sufficient quantities to carry the detached materials. 

In most cases, a large proportion of eroded material is stored on the landscape without being delivered to 

the channel system. Storage can take place in hollows and flats or behind obstructions. It can also occur 

on slopes if the water transporting the material infiltrates. Delivery efficiency has been estimated for each 

landtype on the NPNF, which is also applicable to the Eastside Project. Sediment is considered to be 

delivered to the channel system when it reaches a stream with defined bed and banks. Within the sediment 

model, this is assumed to occur at a catchment area of 1 mi2

 (USDA-FS, 1981). 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-7 

Instream Processes 

Once sediment is delivered to the channel system, it is subject to transport or deposition. Transport can 

occur as suspended or bedload sediment. Fine materials, such as clay, silt and fine sand are transported in 

the water column as suspended sediment. This material usually travels through the system rapidly and 

only deposits in still water. It contributes to the turbidity that is seen during runoff events. During active 

runoff periods the travel time of suspended sediment through the American River watershed and out of 

the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin is less than 24 hours. Monitoring at gauging stations in nearby 

Red River indicated that suspended sediment constitutes about 40 percent to 60 percent of the annual 

sediment yield (Gloss, 1995). Recent analyses with a larger dataset suggest that suspended sediment may 

be a higher proportion of total sediment yield. 

Bedload sediment moves along the channel bottom and typically consists of medium and coarse sand, 

gravel and cobble. Boulders may occasionally move as bedload, but only for short distances in any given 

event. Bedload transport and deposition is a complex and intermittent process. It is highly dependent on 

stream energy in terms of streamflow and channel morphology. Under given conditions of streamflow, a 

river could transport or deposit bedload sediment in different reaches or habitat units, depending on 

gradient and cross-sectional characteristics. Bedload transport is an episodic process that occurs at higher 

streamflows, with the majority occurring at discharges approaching bankfull and above. Under low and 

moderate flow conditions, very little if any bedload is in transport. 

Materials of various sizes are deposited between episodes of transport. Deposition can involve fines 

(i.e. sand) intruding into coarse substrates or covering the stream bottom. When large amounts of coarse 

substrates are deposited, aggradation and changes in bedforms can result. In some cases this can lead to 

further adjustments, such as bank erosion and changes in channel morphology. Storage of deposited 

sediment within a given habitat unit or reach may be relatively short, for example between flow events or 

seasons. In other cases, storage can be on the order of years to indefinitely. 

Stream gradients for the American River watershed are described above in Tables E.3 and E.4. Lower 

gradient reaches are particularly susceptible to sediment deposition and relatively long term storage. With 

regard to sediment deposition and transport, one classification system suggests that channels with <3 

percent gradient can be considered response reaches and channels with >3 percent gradient can be 

considered either transport or source reaches (Montgomery and Buffington, 1993). 

In subwatersheds affected by project activities in American River, Middle American and Lower American 

both have >45 percent of their channel system with gradient <2 percent. Conversely, the other 

subwatersheds all have >60 percent of their channel system with gradient >4 percent. 

Flow Regime 

The flow regime for American River is similar to the upper South Fork Clearwater River. The data 

represented below were collected by the USGS just upstream of the mouth of Crooked River. Though 

discontinued in 1974, this stream gage was re-established in 2002 and is currently in operation. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-8 

S FK Clearwater River nr Elk City 

1945-1974

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Oct Nov Dec1-1Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

CFS

Median Daily Flow Min Daily Flow Max Daily Flow

Figure H.2 Annual Hydrograph 

Aquatic Model Disclosures 

This section discloses the assumptions, limitations, management thresholds, and field tests associated 

with the three aquatic effects models used in the Eastside project analysis. The models are Equivalent 

Clearcut Area (ECA), NEZSED, and FISHSED. 

Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) 

The ECA model procedures are derived from Forest Hydrology, Part II (USDA-FS, 1974). Equivalent 

Clearcut Area (ECA) analysis is a tool used to index the relationship between vegetation condition and 

water yield from forested watersheds. The basic assumptions of the procedure are that removal of forest 

vegetation results in water yield increases and that ECA can be used as an index of these increases. 

Depending on the interaction between water yield, sediment yield, and stream channel conditions, such 

increases could have impacts on stream channels. 

Water yield increases can be directly modeled, but equivalent clearcut area (ECA) is often used as a 

surrogate. The ECA model is designed to estimate changes in mean annual streamflow resulting from 

forest practices or treatments (roading, timber harvest, and fires), which remove or reduce vegetative 

cover, and is usually expressed as a percent of watershed area (Belt, 1980). The index takes into account 

the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery through regrowth of vegetation since the initial 

disturbance. For purposes of this assessment, ECA will be used to index changes in water yield through 

time based on timber harvest and roading disturbances. 

There are a number of physical factors that determine the relationship between canopy conditions and 

water yield. These include interception, evapotranspiration, shading effects and wind flux. These factors 

affect the accumulation and melt rates of snow packs and how rainfall is processed. The ECA analysis 

takes into account the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery through vegetative re-growth 

since the initial disturbance in the case of timber harvest or fire. Within the habitat types being treated 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-9 

under this project, the time frame for complete ECA recovery to occur is estimated to be 65 to 85 years 

(USDA-FS, 1974). 

Additional factors affecting water yield include compacted surfaces due to roads, skid trails, and landings. 

Existing and new roads are considered as permanent openings in the ECA model. Decommissioned roads 

are considered as openings, so the road decommissioning projects do not contribute to reductions in ECA. 

The ECA model does not directly account for the effects of peak flows. Peaks flows in the project area are 

nearly always associated with spring snowmelt, at times accompanied by rainfall. This can be seen in 

Figure H.2. Winter rain-on-snow events are historically rare and only infrequently exceed the spring 

runoff peak. About 3 percent of annual peak flow events have occurred during the winter months of 

November through March (USDA-FS, 1998). The effects of peaks flows are considered using stream 

channel and streambank evaluations and professional judgment in the interpretation of ECA effects on 

stream channels. 

Various ECA thresholds of concern have been in use in the Northern Region since the 1960s (Gerhardt, 

2000). Early cutting guides recommended a limit of 20-30 percent ECA within a watershed (Haupt, 

1967). More recently, ECA thresholds have been rejuvenated through consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Recently, concern over water yield changes relative to stream channel condition has focused on smaller 

headwater catchments. Research in the nearby Horse Creek watershed study have demonstrated 

instantaneous peak flow increase up to 34 percent and maximum daily flow increases up to 87 percent, 

resulting from road construction and timber harvest in small catchments (King 1989). Recent observations 

have suggested that channel erosion from these streams may be contributing to increased bedload 

sediment in the 3rd order receiving channel (Gerhardt, 2002). 

The studies by Belt (1980) and King (1989) have also served as field tests of the ECA procedure. Belt 

concluded that the ECA procedure is a rational tool for evaluation of hydrologic impacts of forest 

practices. King recommended local calibration of the model and a greater emphasis on conditions in 1st

and 2nd order headwater streams. 

Water yield analysis was conducted in smaller drainages (i.e., 1st and 2nd order streams) for several 

reasons:

1. To compare with findings from King (1993) and Troendle and King (1987); 

2. To focus and conduct analyses in drainages that have proposed management activities; 

3. Often smaller 1st and 2nd order stream may be potential source areas for sediment and are A type 

streams. Consequently, stability evaluation of these channel types is important for analyses 

purposes.

ECA levels above 25 percent were used to determine potential damage to stream channels as a result of 

increase water yield from timber harvest. This was then compared with respective channel types and 

channel stability ratings to determine the likelihood of observable channel change. ECA levels above 40 

percent were determined to likely have observable channel changes. The 40 percent is based on the Idaho 

State Cumulative Effects Process hydrologic rating. (Idaho Department of Lands 1995) 

The percent increase in ECA levels was used to determine an increase in risk, relative to each alternative, 

of causing channel changes as a result of timber harvest or other activities that increase ECA. The relative 

ECA risk is also assessed in conjunction with respective channel types and channel stability rating 

NEZSED 

Sediment yield is defined as the movement of sediment past a point in the stream system over a certain 

time period. Sediment yield can be sampled in the field utilizing a variety of methods. The most common 

method consists of sampling suspended sediment, bedload sediment, and stream discharge. Sediment 

yield can also be modeled using one of several approaches. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-10 

NEZSED is a computer model tiered to the R1R4 guidelines (Cline et al., 1981), developed by 

hydrologists and soil scientists from the Intermountain Research Station and the Northern and 

Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service. The model estimates the average annual natural or base rate 

of sediment yield, and surface erosion sediment yield produced from roads, logging, and fire. The model 

is limited in that it does not consider the effects of activities on mass erosion greater than 10 cubic yards. 

It also does not include the effects of grazing and most instream and mining activities. Effects of land 

uses other than roads, logging and fire are analyzed using other information and techniques. 

For this analysis, NEZSED was used to model timber harvest, temporary road construction, 

reconstruction of existing roads and road decommissioning. Activities under this project that are not 

modeled are riparian restoration and streambank, recontouring, and construction of a re-connect channel 

for Queen Creek. The effects of these other activities were considered in the overall aquatic analysis and 

conclusions.

Though the model shows annual variations in response to land use, it does not estimate variations due to 

climate or weather events. NEZSED is not an event-based model in that sediment yield does not vary in 

accordance with specific assumed runoff or erosion events. It estimates average annual sediment yields. 

However, modeling coefficients are the result of a research base that includes the cumulative result of 

individual storm and runoff events. Thus, the effects of storm events are incorporated into the model 

coefficients, though the model results are expressed in terms of average annual yields. 

Though NEZSED does not model large activity-related mass erosion events, effects of such events are 

considered in the effects analysis. This is done through mapping of landslide prone terrain and avoidance 

of areas deemed to possess high hazard and mitigation of areas deemed to possess moderate hazards. 

Mass erosion occurrences were also noted during field inventories. 

Routing of sediment through the stream channel system is a known limitation of the R1R4 Guidelines, 

including the NEZSED application. The routing procedure in R1R4 is an adaptation of empirical 

relationships derived by Roehl (1962). It reduces the percentage of sediment to a point in the channel 

through application of a channel sediment routing coefficient. The sediment yield rate decreases with 

increasing watershed area. This simplification of a complex process is overcome through application of 

professional judgment and interpretation. Also, when used in conjunction with the FISHSED model, 

sediment routing is empirically considered, since the calibration of FISHSED was done by regressing 

measured sediment substrate values against modeled sediment yields. 

Management thresholds for sediment yield were established in the Chief Joseph Management Framework 

Plan (USDI-BLM, 1981) and supplement guidance (USDI-BLM, 1985, 1989a, and 1989b). These include 

sediment yield guidelines, expressed as peak year percent over base sediment yield, and entry frequency 

guidelines, expressed as the number of times per decade that sediment yield guidelines can be equaled. 

For the Eastside project, these guidelines are found in Table H.1 above. 

NEZSED has been tested against field sampled data in several studies at three scales of watersheds across 

the Nez Perce National Forest (Gerhardt, 2005). The first study compared measured and modeled natural 

sediment yields at fifteen small watersheds that are tributaries to Horse Creek, which is a tributary of the 

Meadow Creek watershed draining into the Lower Selway Subbasin (Gerhardt and King, 1987). These 

watersheds ranged in size from 0.08 to 0.57 square miles. Annual sediment yield was sampled with 

sediment detention basins, suspended sediment samples, and streamflow gauging. Of the fifteen 

tributaries sampled, the model over-predicted sediment yield on nine sites and under-predicted on six 

sites. The mean result was that the model over-predicted by about 23 percent. 

The second study evaluated data from eight stream gauging stations on the Nez Perce National Forest, 

ranging in size from 5.7 to 113 square miles. Three of these were located within the South Fork 

Clearwater Subbasin (Gloss, 1995). At six stations, the field data consisted of suspended and bedload 

sediment samples, along with streamflow gauging. At two stations, sediment yield was estimated through 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-11 

the use of sediment detention basins and streamflow gauging. This study found that NEZSED underpredicted sediment yields at six stations and over-predicted at two stations, when compared to observed 

data from field sampling during water years 1986 through 1993. For the three stations within the South 

Fork Clearwater Subbasin, field-sampled sediment yields averaged about 30 tons/mi2/yr. and modeled 

sediment yields averaged about 12 tons/mi2/yr. In general, the model predicted better in average to below 

average water years, and more significantly under-predicted in above average water years. 

A third study to test the NEZSED model compared field sampled and modeled sediment yield at the 

subbasin scale, using data from the South Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers. Sampling in both rivers 

occurred between 1988 and 1992 and consisted of 52 suspended sediment samples. The South Fork data 

were collected at the Mt. Idaho Bridge, near the forest boundary where the watershed area is about 830 

square miles. When calculated as annual sediment yield, these data suggest an annual sediment yield at 

this site of 17,880 tons/year, or about 22 tons/mi2/yr. Sediment yield predictions at this site, based on 

NEZSED, were estimated to be 15,080 tons per year, or about 18 tons/mi2/yr (USDA-FS, 1998). 

The Selway River data were collected at the USGS gage near Ohara Creek, where the watershed area is 

about 1910 square miles. When calculated as annual sediment yield, these data suggest a sediment yield at 

this site of 54,900 tons/year, or if adjusted to the mouth, 55,700 tons/year. The watershed area at the 

mouth is 1974 square miles, so the sediment production is 28 tons/mi2/yr. Sediment predictions based on 

modeled sediment at the mouth of the Selway River were 54,400 tons/year or about 27.5 tons/mi2/yr 

(USDA Forest Service 2001). 

A fourth study (Thomas and King 2004) tested NEZSED against measured data at stream gages in Red 

River and South Fork Red River. Results showed that NEZSED predicted 74 percent and 89 percent, 

respectively, of field-sampled sediment yield over a 16-year period at these two gauging stations. The 

model results were closer to measured values at these two stations than found in the Gloss study. 

FISHSED

The Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in Idaho Batholith Watersheds (Stowell, 

et.al., 1983, aka the FISHSED model) has been used in this project to predict the effect of sediment yields 

on stream habitat and fish populations. This model is based on assumptions and has limitations. 

The assumptions of the FISHSED model are listed in Appendix A of the model documentation (Stowell 

et al., 1983). Some of the key assumptions with influence on the limitations of this model include: 1) on 

those Management Units or Forests in which mass erosion is a significant hazard, predicted sediment 

yield will include a mass erosion component. The Eastside Project does not occur in a landscape where 

mass erosion is a significant hazard; 2) The relative response of salmonid fish populations to increased 

levels of sediment and percent fines in the substrate as depicted in laboratory studies approximates the 

response under natural conditions. The model documentation (p. 6) describes studies that support this 

assumption and others that show some differences. 

The FISHSED model has other recognized limitations including: 1) the model simplifies an extremely 

complex physical and biological system and is developed from limited scientific knowledge (p. 2). The 

complex sequence of sediment movement, from the slopes to the channel, transport down, and deposition 

in a channel reach, and its effect on fish habitats and populations, have not been fully described (p. 5); 

2) the method was developed for watersheds and fish species associated with the Idaho Batholith (p. 4), 

using data from the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forest. Given the source of the original data, the 

model is applicable to the Eastside Project; 3) the specific fish response curves in this model were 

partially developed from laboratory experiments and may constitute only partial simulation of natural 

conditions (p. 6); 4) the model evaluates embryo survival, winter carrying capacity, and summer rearing 

capacity. While invertebrate insect abundance may be directly affected by sediment, the relationship 

between sediment deposition and invertebrate production is not included in the model (p.10); 5) the 

utilization of channel types to stratify fish response, particularly with respect to the modeling of “A” 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-12 

channel types, may not realistically represent changes in fish habitat (p. 21); 6) the model does not 

include a “recovery function” that predicts the changes in substrate condition based on natural flow 

events; 7) the model was calibrated to the original Nez Perce Forest sediment model and landtypes, which 

have been updated since model development. Limited testing and validation of the model has been 

conducted by the Cottonwood Field Office; and 8) the model outputs are reasonable estimates, but are not 

absolute numbers of high statistical precision (p. 6). As appropriate given this limitation, the model 

outputs have been used by the fisheries biologists in this project in combination with sound biological 

judgment. 

WEPP

Disturbed WEPP (Elliott et al. 2000) is an interface to the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) soil 

erosion model to allow users to easily describe numerous disturbed forest and rangeland erosion 

conditions. The interface presents the results as a summary and extended WEPP outputs, and also 

presents the probability of a given level of erosion occurring the year following a disturbance. Disturbed 

WEPP is linked to the Rock:Clime climate generator with a database of climate statistics for more than 

2600 weather stations. 

Disturbed WEPP is one in a series of the USDA Forest Service's Internet-based computer programs based 

on the Agricultural Research Service's WEPP model. Disturbed WEPP is designed to predict runoff and 

sediment yield from: 

x young and old undisturbed forests 

x prescribed and wild forest fires 

x skid trails and harvested forests 

x rangelands with short grass, tall grass, and shrub plant communities 

x any condition with little soil disturbance (no tillage) but a definable amount of soil residue cover 

(such as parks, pastures, no till agriculture) 

Disturbed WEPP is not intended for: 

x tilled agricultural conditions (use USDA-ARS templates (WEPP 1999)) 

x sites where soil is severely disturbed or compacted, such as roads and trails (use WEPP:Road), 

construction sites, heavily-used playgrounds or trampled rangelands, 

Disturbed WEPP allows the user to specify the characteristics of the site in terms of 

x climate 

x soil texture 

x local topography 

x plant community 

x surface residue cover 

Forest Erosion Processes: Forests generally have very low erosion rates unless they are disturbed. 

Common disturbances include prescribed and wild fire, and harvesting operations. The impact of these 

operations, however, last only for a short time, perhaps one or two years. After that, the rapid regrowth of 

vegetation soon covers the surface with plant litter, and potential erosion is quickly reduced. In one study, 

Robichaud and Brown (1999) reported that erosion rates dropped from almost 40 Mg ha (40,000 kg ha; 

19.6 tons acre) the first year after a fire to 2.3 Mg ha (2,300 kg ha; 1.1 tons acre) the second, and 1 Mg ha 

(1000 kg ha; 0.5 ton acre) the third year. The regrowth of vegetation and subsequent increase in canopy 

and ground cover overshadow any differences due to climate variation among the years. For any one of 

the given years, however, the potential erosion depends on the climate.

If the year is normal or dry, then it is unlikely for there to be any significant erosion. If the year has above 

average precipitation, however, then there could be significant soil erosion. With such variation from one 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-13 

year to the next, the concept of "average annual erosion" is not appropriate as there is no such thing as an 

"average" year. The erosivity of a given year is either above average, or below average. A more 

appropriate analysis of soil erosion following a forest disturbance may be the probability of a given level 

of erosion occurring. For example, some recent estimates of runoff and erosion after a wild fire required 

an estimation of a 5-year return period event (an exceedance probability of 0.20). 

The WEPP model (Flanagan and Livingston, 1995) is a physically-based soil erosion model that can 

provide estimates of soil erosion and sediment yield considering the specific soil, climate, ground cover, 

and topographic conditions. It was developed by an interagency group of scientists including the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Forest Service, and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service; and the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management and Geological 

Survey. 

WEPP simulates the conditions that impact erosion--such as the amount of vegetation canopy, the surface 

residue, and the soil water content for every day in a multiple-year run. For each day that has a 

precipitation event, WEPP determines whether the event is rain or snow, and calculates the infiltration 

and runoff. If there is runoff, WEPP routes the runoff over the surface, calculating erosion or deposition 

rates for at least 100 points on the hillslope. It then calculates the average sediment yield from the 

hillslope.

The WEPP model allows a hillslope to be divided into segments with similar soils and vegetation, called 

overland flow elements. Disturbed WEPP assumes there are two overland flow elements. This allows 

users to specify a buffer strip below a skid trail, prescribed fire, or harvesting activity in forests. In 

rangelands, the user may wish to describe different vegetation in the riparian area than in the upland 

areas.

Disturbed WEPP Assumptions: Because WEPP is process-based, it can be applied to conditions where 

the necessary input data are known. WEPP is difficult to apply, however, because of the amount of input 

data required. To simplify the application of WEPP to forest and rangeland conditions anywhere in the 

U.S., a custom interface was developed. 

Soil properties are based on research findings from Forest Service research (Robichaud, 1996) and USDA 

Agriculture Research Service (ARS) (Flanagan and Livingston, 1995, Franks et al., 1998). The soil file 

database includes four textural categories. Within each of these categories, there is a separate set of 

erodibility values for each of the eight types of vegetation or disturbance. Thus, the database has a total of 

32 soil/vegetation conditions. 

Disturbed WEPP gives both an average annual erosion, as predicted by most USLE-based erosion 

technologies, and the probability of a given annual erosion rate following a disturbance. The average 

annual erosion is more appropriate for application to rangelands, whereas the probabilities of annual 

erosion are more applicable to disturbed forest conditions, where a forest quickly revegetates following a 

disturbance.

To estimate an average annual erosion, Disturbed WEPP generates a stochastic climate for the climate 

selected, for the number of years specified. The WEPP model then runs a daily simulation for the 

specified period of time, and calculates the average annual runoff, erosion, and sediment yield values. 

To determine the probability values, Disturbed WEPP is run for the number of years requested, and the 

annual values of runoff, erosion, and sediment yield are generated by WEPP. Disturbed WEPP then sorts 

the annual values by magnitude. 

For a 50-year run, the largest values estimate a 50-year return period (or 0.02 probability of occurring) 

value; the second largest, a 25-year return period; the fifth largest a ten-year return; and the 20th largest a 

2.5-year return period. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-14 

The average value is the same as a 2-year return period regardless of the number of years of simulation 

selected. 

Forest Assumptions: For forest conditions, there are two levels of forest age: 5-year-old and 20-year-old. 

By the time a forest reaches 20 years of age, the impact of the canopy and residue accumulation is 

sufficient to provide as much erosion protection as can be achieved from vegetation. 

The 5-year-old forest is considered a reasonable condition to describe a forest that has been heavily 

logged, leaving some side trees and considerable groundcover, or to describe a forest one to two years 

after a prescribed fire, or two to three years after a wild fire. 

The skid trail condition describes a compacted, bladed skid trail with very little cover. 

The prescribed burn and wildfire conditions contain soil properties similar to those observed in research 

(Robichaud, 1996). 

Climate: Several climates (Birmingham, AL; Flagstaff, AZ; Mount Shasta, CA; Denver, CO; Moscow, 

ID; and Charleston, WV) are listed in the climate list as stock climates for Disturbed WEPP. These 

climates are provided to allow the user to quickly select a regional climate for an initial run. 

Most users will prefer to use the Rock:Clime weather generator to select desired climates from the 2,600 

sets of climate statistics in the database. 

Users may select several nearby climates to determine the sensitivity of their site to climate effects. Up to 

five sets of custom climate statistics may be selected for the Disturbed WEPP interface. 

Thirty years of simulation is generally adequate for average values, and 50 or 100 years for Return Period 

Analyses. 

The user must specify the number of years of simulation. For climates with more than 500 mm of 

precipitation, 30 years of simulation is generally adequate to obtain an estimate of the average annual 

erosion, and 50 years is adequate for the probability distribution of erosion. 

For drier climates, 50 or more years of simulation may be needed to achieve an average value, and 

100 years for the probability of a given amount of erosion occurring. In dry climates, there are more years 

with little or no erosion, so a greater total number of years is necessary to ensure that there have been an 

adequate number of wet years for the analysis. The maximum number of years in Disturbed WEPP is 200. 

Users may wish to carry out some preliminary runs for some typical local climates to determine how 

many years of run are necessary for their conditions to ensure a stable average erosion value. 

The ARS CLIGEN weather generator uses the climate statistics from the selected station to generate a 

daily weather sequence for the number of years specified. The WEPP model reads the generated daily 

weather to predict the erosion for the specified conditions. 

Soil Texture: The erosion potential of a given soil depends on the vegetation cover, the surface residue 

cover, the soil texture, and other soil properties that influence soil strength. Because research in forest and 

range conditions is limited and data are not available to support a detailed database, only four soil textures 

(sand, silt, clay, and loam) are listed for Disturbed WEPP. The specific soil properties associated with 

each selection can be seen by selecting the desired soil and vegetation, and clicking the Soil Texture title. 

As new information is accumulated, the values of the soil parameters and new soil options may be added 

to the database. 

To fully describe each set of soils for WEPP requires 24 soil parameter values. Further details describing 

these parameters are available in the WEPP Technical Documentation (Alberts et al., 1995). 

Vegetation Treatment: There are eight categories of vegetation or treatment. A default cover is associated 

with each vegetation treatment, but users are encouraged to alter this value to suit site conditions. The 

vegetation treatments are: 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-15 

x Twenty-year old forest 

x Five-year old forest 

x Shrub dominated rangeland 

x Tall-grass dominated rangeland 

x Short-grass dominated rangeland 

x Low severity fire 

x High severity fire 

x Skid trail 

These categories can describe a wide range of forest and rangeland conditions. The selection of a given 

vegetation treatment alters these key input values for the WEPP model: 

x Plant height, spacing, leaf area index and root depth 

x Percent of live biomass remaining after vegetation 

x Soil rill and interrill erodibility and hydraulic conductivity 

x Default radiation energy to biomass conversion ratio 

The user has the option to alter the desired amount of cover, which increases the range of conditions that 

can be described. Disturbed WEPP is very sensitive to cover, so this value should be carefully selected. 

The user may wish to consider several cover amounts to understand the impacts of varying cover on the 

resulting soil erosion. 

Predicting Erosion from Regeneration: After a disturbance in a forest, the vegetation regenerates. The 

vegetation treatments in Disturbed WEPP allow users to analyze the erosion in the years following 

regeneration.

Cover (%): The percent cover for a given vegetation is predicted by the WEPP model as a function of a 

biomass conversion ratio, the percent of biomass remaining after senescence, and the residue 

decomposition rate. These values are stored in the Disturbed WEPP database, and are entered in the 

WEPP management file for each WEPP run. The biomass conversion ratio is estimated from the percent 

cover by the relationship: 

Ratio = 8.17 * exp(0.031 * Cover - 0.0023 * Precipitation) 

where Ratio is the biomass conversion ratio in the WEPP Management input file for the respective 

overland flow element, between 1 and 1,000; Cover is the percent cover entered on the input screen, with 

a maximum value of 100 percent; and Precipitation is the average annual precipitation for the selected 

climate in mm, with a maximum value of 450 mm. 

The percent cover also varies with the distribution of precipitation, daily temperature values, and soil 

water content throughout the growing season. In some cases, average cover may be over-predicted, in 

others under-predicted. The predicted cover for a given set of conditions can be observed by selecting the 

desired vegetation, entering the desired cover, specifying at least 10 years of simulation. The WEPP 

model will then be run for the specified number of years, the average erosion values calculated, and the 

average above ground live biomass and percent cover determined from the daily values. 

If the resulting average cover is too low or too high, the value entered on the input screen can be adjusted 

by trial and error until the desired cover is predicted by WEPP. The user should make a note of the input 

value necessary to achieve the desired cover for his/her conditions. 

Topography – Slope: The topographic input for Disturbed WEPP includes two gradient or slope entries 

for the top element and two for the bottom. If the first element starts at the top of the hill, the first slope is 

zero. The final slope is the steepness at the bottom of the hillslope. The other two slopes are the steepness 

at the centers of the respective elements. Disturbed WEPP calculates an average of these two values for 

the steepness where the two elements intersect. Generally, WEPP is not real sensitive to detailed 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-16 

variations in slope. The overall average slope, and the slope at the bottom of the hill are the two most 

important variables that impact slope. 

Area and Width: The area of the slope is also required by Disturbed WEPP. The program divides this area 

by the length of the hill to estimate an average width of hillslope. The predicted soil erosion rates are 

presented in tonnes per hectare (tons per acre), so the total erosion, or total sediment delivery from the 

hillslope is the result of these predictions multiplied by the area. 

Aquatic Trend Analysis 

Introduction to Trend Analysis 

To assess the expected trend in aquatic habitat condition, from the variety of influences both quantitative 

and qualitative, the activities and their expected contribution to aquatic condition are summarized in a 

table below. The following table H.3 is a summary of the expected influence of the alternatives on the 

aquatic conditions in the American River watersheds respectively. It does not represent an assessment of 

cumulative effects, or expected trend within specific subwatersheds. Various activities are considered 

with respect to the variety of aquatic processes that they potentially affect. For additional information and 

specific summary of restoration projects refer to Appendix I – Watershed and Fisheries Restoration. 

The contribution to the overall aquatic condition is estimated in terms of positive influence (denoted by 

“+”) where the activity is expected to contribute to an improvement in condition, and a negative influence 

(denoted by “-”) where the activity is expected to contribute to degradation in aquatic condition. The 

amount of influence a specific activity is expected to have on the overall aquatic condition (either positive 

or negative) is represented by a ranking of high (H), moderate (M), or low (L). Activities rated “High” are 

those that are expected to have potential for detectable effect at the watershed scale (considering both 

scope and magnitude). Those rated as “Moderate” are those activities that are expected to have a 

measurable or detectable local effect (i.e. at the subwatershed or stream reach scale), but result in a 

negligible effect at the watershed scale. Those activities rated “Low” are expected to have only a 

negligible effect at the stream reach, subwatershed, and watershed scale. 

All of the processes potentially affected by an activity are listed in the table. No ranking represents “no 

expected” influence on conditions from this project. A negligible positive influence (denoted by 

“+Negl.”) where the activity is expected to contribute minimal or minor improvement in condition, and a 

negligible negative minor influence (denoted by “-Negl.”) where the activity is expected to contribute to 

minimal or minor degradation in condition. The expected contribution of a specific activity on aquatic 

condition is considered both in terms of short-term and long-term. Short-term influence is judged to be 

the immediate results of implementing the activity, generally expected to be around a 5-year timeframe. 

Long-term influence is judged to be the influence the activity will have on aquatic condition as a result of 

changes in processes and resource conditions that will over time result in changes in aquatic habitat 

condition. The timeframe for this influence is greater than 5 years. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-17 

Table H.3 American River Aquatic Trend Analysis

Action Process Affected Characteristic Indicator Alt. A Short Term Alt. A Long Term Alt. B Short Term Alt. B Long Term Alt. C Short Term Alt. 

Long T

Surface Erosion Sediment -L -L -L Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 -L -L -L 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 +L +L 

Vegetation Treatments 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD +L +L 

Surface Erosion Sediment -M -L Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 -L -L 

Riparian Shade Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

Temporary Road Construction 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L +L -L +L Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

Fish Passage Habitat 

Availability 

Riparian Shade Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

Road Improvement andMaintenance 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L -L Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 -L -L 

New Road Construction and Bridge 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 -Negl. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-18 

Action Process Affected Characteristic Indicator Alt. A Short Term Alt. A Long Term Alt. B Short Term Alt. B Long Term Alt. C Short Term Alt. 

Long T

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD -Negl. 

Watershed and Fisheries Restoration 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L -L +L -L +M Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 -L +L +L +L +M 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 +L +M 

Road Decomm. 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD +L +M 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L +M -L +M Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 +L +M +L +M 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 +M +M 

American River Vehicle Road Relocation & Road Decomm. in Riparian 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD +M +M 

Surface Erosion Sediment -M +M -M +M Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 -L +L -L +L 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 +L -L +M -L +M 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD +L +M +M 

Riparian Restoration 

Fish Disturbance & Aquatic Habitat 

Habitat Use and Quality 

-Negl. -Negl. 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L +L -L +L Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 -L +L -L +L 

Road to ATV TrailConversion (includes closing fords and ATV Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 +L +L 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-19 

Action Process Affected Characteristic Indicator Alt. A Short Term Alt. A Long Term Alt. B Short Term Alt. B Long Term Alt. C Short Term Alt. 

Long T

bridges) LWD Recruitment Potential LWD +L +L 

Fish Disturbance & Aquatic Habitat 

Habitat Use and Quality 

 +L +L +M +M 

Surface Erosion Sediment +L +L Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 . +Negl. +Negl. 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

 +Negl. +Negl. 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD +Negl. +Negl. 

Hardening Ford and Meadow Restoration 

Fish Disturbance & Aquatic Habitat 

Habitat Use and Quality 

 +L +L 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L +L -L +L Mass Failure Risk Sediment Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

 +Negl. +Negl. +Negl. +Negl. 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

Mine Reclamation 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD 

Surface Erosion Sediment -L -L Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD Fish Disturbance & Aquatic Habitat 

Habitat Use and Quality 

Fish Passage Habitat 

Availability & Aquatic Integrity1

 +M +M +M +M 

Queen Creek Channel Re-connect

Non-native competition and/or hybridization 

Native Species Viability1

 -L -L 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-20 

The expected short-term consequences of the Eastside project on aquatic condition in American River are 

fairly balanced between positive and negative influences. The factors contributing to a short-term effects 

to aquatic condition are primarily related to short term increases in sediment generated from the 

implementation of the action (timber harvest, temporary road construction, new permanent road 

construction, new vehicle bridge construction, road decommissioning, road reconstruction and 

improvement). The temporary road construction and new road construction and bridge are judged to be 

the largest contributor to this influence, followed by the harvest activities, road decommissioning, and 

road improvements. The consequences of the Eastside Project on aquatic condition in American River is 

to generally have short-term negative influences, but positive influences in the long term. Short-term 

increases in sediment would primarily be attributed to projects such as temporary road construction, new 

road construction, and riparian restoration actions that would require bank recontouring and would be 

followed by vegetation treatments. Primary long-term benefits to aquatic conditions would occur from 

riparian restoration, decommissioning roads within riparian areas, decommissioning of fords, and 

reconnecting Queen Creek with American River. 

Reduction of road densities, particularly in riparian habitats would reduce chronic “press” sources of 

sediment. Riparian restoration actions would improve streambank and channel conditions, reduce 

potential for bank erosion, and provide for large woody debris recruitment in the long term. Reduction of 

chronic sediment sources and improvement of shading would help support achievement of the South Fork 

Clearwater River TMDL for sediment and water temperature in the long term. 

The expected long-term consequences of the Eastside project on aquatic condition in the American River 

watershed is over-all positive. The road decommissioning, riparian restoration, road relocations out of 

riparian areas, and Queen Creek channel re-connect and improved habitat accessibility are judged to be 

the largest contributors to long-term improved aquatic conditions. The reduction in chronic sediment and 

improved hydrologic process from the road decommissioning, road improvement, and soil restoration are 

the other contributors to this expected improvement. The amount of the improvement associated with this 

later group of activities is rated low due to the amount of this work being completed with this project with 

respect to the remaining amount of degraded mainstem habitat, roads and compacted soils in the 

American River watershed. These will continue to contribute negatively to these aquatic processes. BLM 

lands comprise a relatively small percentage of the total ownership in the watershed, and actions 

identified in the Eastside Project would reduce negative effects attributed to BLM lands and support 

upward trends. Additional planned Bureau of Land Management work in this drainage will further 

improve in channel and riparian conditions along the mainstem as well as tributary streams. The Forest 

Service has also identified watershed restoration measures that will support long term improvements to 

aquatic conditions. 

The above ratings by activity can be summarized by the effect pathways by assigning a value to the Low, 

Moderate, and High ranking (L=1, M=2, H=3). Table H.4 below summarizes an overall comparison of 

the alternatives by the effect pathway for short term and long term. 

The No Action alternative in American River suggests no change in the short term, but a slight negative 

trend in the long term related to fire risk associated with untreated stands, and long term slight positive 

trends for potential LWD and improving riparian conditions with riparian successional advancement 

towards mid and late seral stages. Alternatives B, C, and D suggest a short term negative effect, followed 

by long term improving trend. 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-21 

Table H.4 American River Aquatic Trend Summary

Action Process Affected Characteristic Indicator Alt. A Short Term Alt. A Long Term Alt. B Short Term Alt. B Long Term Alt. C Short Term Alt. 

Long T

Surface Erosion Sediment 0 -2 

(-2, +0) 

-10 (-11, +1) 

+9(-0, +9) 

-10 (-10, +0) 

+8(-1, +9) 

Mass Failure Risk Sediment 0 0 

(-0, +0) 

0(-0, +0) 

0(-0, +0) 

0(-0, +0) 

0(-0, +0) 

Infiltration, Runoff, Peaks 

Hydrologic Process

0 -2 

(-2, +0) 

-2(-4, +2) 

+5(-0, +5) 

-3(-5, +2) 

+5(-1, +6) 

Riparian Shading Riparian Condition 

& Water Temp. 

0 +1 

(-0, +1) 

-1(-1, +0) 

+7(-0, +7) 

-1(-1, +0) 

+8(-0, +8) 

LWD Recruitment Potential LWD 0 +1 

(-0, +1) 

0(-0, +0) 

+7(-0, +7) 

0(-0, +0) 

+8(-0, +8) 

Fish Disturbance & Aquatic Habitat 

Habitat Use and Quality 

0 0 

(-0, +0) 

+1(-0, +1) 

+1(-0, +1) 

+2(-0, +2) 

+2(-0, +2) 

Fish Passage Habitat 

Availability & Aquatic Integrity 

0 0 

(-0, +0) 

+2(-0, +2) 

+2(-0, +2) 

+2(-0, +2) 

+2(-0, +2) 

Summary 

Non-Native Competition and/or Hybridization 

Native Species Viability 

0 0 

(-0, +0) 

0(-0, +0) 

-1(-1, +0) 

0(-0, +0) 

-1(-1, +0) 

Total 0 (-0, +0) -2 (-4, +2) -10 (-16, +6) +31 (-1, +32) -10 (-16, +6) +32 (-3, 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-22 

Effectiveness Monitoring and Trend 

BLM has an active monitoring program as shown in Table H.5. This monitoring is done to: 

validate models and assumptions; validate the effectiveness of restoration efforts and BMPs; 

assess existing conditions and trends; apply adaptive management for changes to existing 

management if warranted; and provide baseline data for decision making and management of 

resources.

Trend analysis of aquatic habitats, water quality, and riparian conditions in the Eastside Project 

area is important because it provides documentation in regards baseline conditions, comparison 

to desired conditions, and long term changes. Trend monitoring data is especially valuable for 

assessments of ongoing and new management actions occurring on public lands, because streams 

within the project area provide habitat for federally listed and BLM sensitive species and MFP 

requirements related to upward trend requirements for below objectives streams. 

Trend monitoring is accomplished through three primary methods, which includes: (1) 

Monitoring of specific aquatic and/or riparian characteristics at permanently established 

monitoring stations; (2) conducting stream reach specific surveys which characterize and 

evaluate habitat and resource conditions; and/or (3) watershed evaluations and assessments. 

Following is a list of primary data which is utilized for trend assessments. 

x Deposited Sediment/Substrate Monitoring 

x Riparian/Stream Channel Monitoring 

x Stream Reach Surveys and Evaluations 

x Water Temperature, Water Quality, and Discharge Monitoring 

x Fish Population Monitoring and Distribution Surveys 

x Watershed Evaluations and Assessments 

Table H.5 illustrates trend monitoring in the Eastside Project Area. 

Table H.5 BLM Trend Monitoring – Eastside Project Area

Watershed 

Substrate 

Monitoring

Riparian/Stream Channel Monit. 

(Livestock Grazing Summary) 

Subbasin Fish 

Habitat 

Survey 

Water 

Temperature 

& Discharge 

Lower American River Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Middle American River Yes Yes Yes Yes 

East Fork American River Yes No 

(Not Leased for Grazing) 

Yes Yes 

Whitaker Creek Yes No 

(Not Leased for Grazing) 

Yes Yes 

Queen Creek Yes No 

(Not Leased for Grazing) 

Yes Yes 

Box Sing Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Kirks Fork Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Elk Creek Yes Yes 

(Elk Creek Fenced to Exclude Grazing) 

Yes Yes 

Little Elk Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes 

South Fork American 

River 

Yes No 

(Not Grazed by Livestock) 

No Yes 

Additionally, the BLM has established fish population snorkeling stations in all prescription 

watersheds in the Eastside Project. Population monitoring has been sporadic or very limited 

consequently; limited population trend data is available. However, the monitoring does provide 

species presence/absence and general population data that provides baseline population 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-23 

information. Population data may not always be directly correlated with aquatic habitat 

conditions, particularly with anadromous fish (i.e., chinook salmon, steelhead trout), because 

returning adult fish numbers fluctuates annually.

Other monitoring information is available. American River is monitored annually (1981 – 2006) 

by IDFG for chinook redds and 2006 counts totaled 59 redds. During 2006, the BLM started 

monitoring the South Fork Clearwater River for chinook redds (Crooked River to American/Red 

Rivers) and counts totaled 2 redds. The BLM is planning to monitor this segment of the South 

Fork Clearwater River annually. 

Deposited Sediment Trend Monitoring 

For the substrate monitoring shown in Table H.4, a minimum of two years of data collection has 

occurred, and has ranged to a high of eleven years (occurring from 1980s – 2006). The primary 

“reference monitoring station” occurs in lower American River, below the mouth of Buffalo 

Gulch, and has been monitored eleven times. Substrate monitoring includes cobble 

embeddedness, surface fines, fines by depth, pebble count, and free matrix. Substrate monitoring 

protocols and methods are on file at the BLM Cottonwood Field Office.

The period between the earliest and most recent substrate monitoring is generally over ten years. 

Some stations may have limited trend implications because of limited monitoring data and/or 

statistical implication. Analysis of all collected deposited sediment data during a given year (e.g., 

cobble embeddedness, surface fines, core sampling of spawning gravels, pebble counts etc.) may 

provide some inference of trend conditions when compared to previous monitoring efforts 

conducted 5 or more than 10 years apart. However, comparison of this various deposited data 

may not always result in definitive trend direction. Sampling error may have occurred, but long 

term data collection is continuing to provide for improved trend analysis capability. It is difficult 

to display a statistically significant change in deposited sediment from the current data however; 

following is a summary of inference of trend. 

Lower American River – Appears to have a stable to slight upward trend for deposited 

sediment. 

Middle American River – Very limited data, but suggested trend at a minimum appears to be 

at least stable, if not slightly upward. 

East Fork American River - Limited data, but trend appears to be stable. Elevated deposited 

sediment levels noted despite little development in watershed; attributed to natural conditions 

(i.e., channel type, parent material, land types). 

Whitaker Creek – Monitoring station is located immediately upstream from private property 

(i.e., stream mile 0.4). Limited data, but trend appears to be stable. 

Queen Creek – Limited data, but trend appears to be stable. 

Box Sing Creek – Limited data, but trend appears to be stable.

Kirks Fork – Limited data, but trend appears to be stable. Elevated deposited sediment levels 

noted despite little development in watershed; attributed to natural conditions (i.e., channel 

type, parent material, land types).

South Fork Clearwater River – No definitive trend conclusions made. Various fluctuations 

between yearly monitoring results and various deposited sediment parameters do not support 

valid conclusions. Some monitoring inconsistencies noted. 

Desired range of cobble embeddedness is 20 – 30 percent or less. Monitoring data for 

prescription subwatersheds has documented cobble embeddeness levels that range from 30 

percent to above 50 percent. Changes to deposited sediment may not be apparent or expected for 

many years (e.g., decades), even with minimal land uses and active restoration actions. Some 

channels have been severely altered by dredge mining activity, and expected changes would be 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-24 

very slow. Some drainages have elevated levels, even with minimal current or historic land uses 

taking place. 

Deposited Sediment Monitoring Limitations: The analysis and comparison of deposited sediment 

data between watersheds needs to be used with caution and proper professional judgement. 

Deposited sediment (e.g., cobble embeddedness) exhibits high spatial and temporal variability in 

both natural and disturbed streams, consequently sampling must be intensive to detect changes 

(Sylte and Fischenich 2003). Many studies compare sites with different stream power and bed 

roughness, so they cannot distinguish management effect from effects of local hydraulic 

conditions unless the management effects are significant. Lisle (1989) identifies that the size of 

sediment in transport can change with discharge because of size-dependent entrainment 

thresholds [Jackson and Beschta 1982]. Changes in bed topography can alter transport vectors 

and local shear stress and thereby cause sediment that is coarser or finer than was present before 

in a local area to deposit. As a consequence, the spatial distribution of bed material size in 

natural gravel channels in undisturbed watersheds can vary considerably over time [Adams and 

Beschta 1980; Scrivener and Brownlee 1981].

Trend Indicators and General Observations 

All prescriptions watersheds and fish bearing stream segments have had various surveys 

conducted, which provide trend data when repeated. One of particular importance is the BLM 

subbasin fish habitat survey, using a modified Hankin and Reeves (1998) survey methodology, 

which provides good baseline data in regards to important fish habitat factors, such as pool/riffle 

ratios and large woody debris, see Table 3.6.6 for summaries of such data. These surveys were 

conducted during 1991 and 1992. Repeating these surveys provides good data in regards to 

changes in fish habitat conditions and trends.

Streams surveys (BLM subbasin surveys) were not recently conducted for all fish bearing 

streams in the project area. However, all fish bearing stream reaches within the project area were 

recently evaluated by BLM Fisheries Biologist (2004–2006), some general trend observations 

were noted from such evaluations. Such observations are in regards to changes and trends 

occurring over past two decades on stream segments occurring on BLM lands, and are 

summarized as follows: 

x LWD is increasing in all fish bearing stream reaches; 

x Creation of pools and instream cover conditions are also improving for all fish bearing 

stream reaches, which is attributed to increases in LWD; 

x Natural succession and no new (or minimal) development activity within RHCAs is 

supporting improving riparian conditions and streambank stability; 

x Instream restoration efforts in dredge mined reaches of American River resulted in major 

improvements to pool habitats and LWD; 

x Improved livestock management and reduction of riparian and stream channel impacts 

effects;

x Fish passage improvement effort are providing for improved adult and juvenile access to 

several streams; and 

x East Fork American River and Kirks Fork have low levels of human disturbance, 

however, elevated levels of deposited sediment occur. Trends probably stable to slightly 

upward.

A variety of restoration and management activities support upward trend within the project and 

analysis area, and include BLM Eastside Project restoration actions identified in Appendix I, FS 

restoration actions (see FEIS American and Crooked River Project), and past and planned BLM 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-25 

restoration actions. Table H.6 is a brief summary of BLM restoration actions which have recently 

taken place (within one to three years) or are proposed (foreseeable future) to support upward 

trend in the American River watershed and the South Fork of the Clearwater River. 

Table H.6 Additional Key BLM Actions Supporting Upward Trend Within Project and Analysis 

Area

Watershed Action 

Key Indicator 

Affected 

(BLM Project or 

Natural Recovery) Implementation

Create pool habitat in 2.1miles of 

American R. 

Pools

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

2007–2009 

Install LWD and habitat rocks in 

2.1 miles of American R. 

LWD 

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

2007–2009 

Replaced three barrier culverts in 

Buffalo Gulch 

Fish passage – improved 

distribution 

(Buffalo Gulch Culvert 

Replacement Project) 

2005 

Construct reconnect channel for 

Telephone Creek 

Fish Passage – improved 

distribution 

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

2007–2008 

Road restoration and obliteration 

Buffalo Gulch 

Sediment 

(Buffalo Gulch Road 

Obliteration) 

2007 

Convert Telephone Creek road to 

ATV trail, rehab. fords, improve 

stream channel conditions. 

Sediment 

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

2007–2008 

Lower American 

River 

Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

Create pool habitat in 1.3 miles of 

American R. 

Pools

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

2007–2009 

Install LWD and habitat rocks in 

1.3 miles of American R. 

LWD 

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

2007–2009 

Middle 

American River 

Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

Replaced barrier culvert with 20 

foot wide bridge. 

Fish Passage – Improved 

Distribution 

(American River 

Restoration Projects) 

E. Fk. American 2006 

River 

Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

Whitaker Creek Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

Queen Creek Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

Box Sing Creek Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

Kirks Fork 

Creek

Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD, Pools 

N/A

South Fork 

Clearwater River 

Riparian restoration and reconnect 

of perennial stream. 

Riparian/Water 

Temperature 

(South Fork Clearwater 

2007–2008 
Appendix H – Support Information for the Watershed and Fisheries Analysis H-26 

Watershed Action 

Key Indicator 

Affected 

(BLM Project or 

Natural Recovery) Implementation

River Restoration 

Project)

Decommisioning of road 

segments and improved drainage 

on ATV trail. 

Sediment 

(South Fork Clearwater 

River Restoration 

Project)

2007–2008 

Maintenance and improvement of 

two South Fork Clearwater River 

side channels. 

Fish Habitat – Side 

Channels 

(South Fork Clearwater 

River Restoration 

Project)

2007–2008 

Natural Recovery Sediment, Riparian, 

LWD 

N/A

Natural recovery is taking place with the primary benefits to riparian conditions, bank stability, 

shading, LWD, and pools. Expected trends for these changes are long term improvement in 

conditions with slightly improving trends. With natural succession, riparian habitat consisting of 

mixed conifer types are advancing to mid-age to mature overstory trees, subsequently improving 

riparian shading and conditions. Dead and dying lodgepole pine will contribute to increased 

levels of LWD and subsequent improvement of instream cover conditions and creation of pool 

habitat.
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-1 

Appendix I – Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat 

Improvements _________________________________ 

Introduction

Watershed, riparian, and fish habitat improvement projects are part of each alternative. The projects are 

designed to achieve and support the fisheries upward trend requirements of the addendums and 

supplements to the BLM Management Framework Plan (USDI-BLM 1981, 1989a, and 1989b), achieve 

recovery of important habitats to ESA-listed fish and BLM sensitive fish, improve aquatic habitats for 

BLM sensitive species, and meet Clean Water Act requirements, including TMDLs. The Eastside Project 

summaries will identify projects specific to alternatives and other ongoing and foreseeable future BLM 

projects that support upward trend and are planned to take place within Eastside Project subwatersheds 

during the duration of the Eastside Project. Refer to Table I.1 below for a summary of restoration projects 

by subwatershed and alternative. 

Table I.1 Summary of Restoration Projects by Alternative and Subwatershed

BLM Alternative 

No. Activity (Project No.)1

Project

Descrip. Subwatershed B C D

T25 Convert road to ATV Trail (#1)–East Side 1.36 miles Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

T25 Convert road to ATV Trail (#1)–West Side 0.07 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

--- American River ATV Bridge RM 6.3 (#1) 1 Bridge Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

--- Decommission/Obliterate American R. Ford (#1) 1 Ford Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

--- Kirks Fork ATV Bridge–Mouth (#1) 1 Bridge Kirks Fork Yes Yes Yes 

--- Decommission/Obliterate American R. Ford (#1) I Ford Kirks Fork Yes Yes Yes 

T25C

Decommission Road Paralleling American 

River. (New ATV Trail would utilize existing 

toeslope road #1B -0.34 mile). 

0.32 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

T25D New ATV Trail would Utilize Existing Toeslope 

Road (#1B) 0.34 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

T25 A Decommission Existing Road–South of Ford 0.04 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

T25B Decommission Existing Road - South of Ford 0.04 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2544 

G1 Convert road to ATV trail (#2) 0.06 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2544 G2 Convert road to ATV trail (#2) 0.13 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2541 

R11 Decommission (abandon) existing road. 0.12 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2541 R4 Decommission existing road (helicopter landing 

access road). 0.07 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2541 R6 Decommission existing road, tailing road below 

bridge. 0.21 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2541 R8 Decommission (abandon) existing road. 0.06 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2541 R9 Decommission existing road. 0.03 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2544 G2 Decommission existing road. 0.03 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2544 G3 Decommission existing road. 0.08 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes Yes 

2541 R1 

Relocate American River road (south road 

segment) to toeslope, new road construction 

(#3). 

0.22 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes No 

2541 R5 Decommission American River within riparian 

area (#3) 0.24 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes No 
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-2 

BLM Alternative 

No. Activity (Project No.)1

Project

Descrip. Subwatershed B C D

2541 R2 

Relocate American River road (north road 

segment) to toe slope, new road construction 

(#4). 

0.35 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes No 

2541 R4 Decommission American River within riparian 

area (#4) 0.29 mile Lower American R. Yes Yes No 

2541 

R10 Decommission (abandon) existing road. 0.27 mile Queen Creek Yes Yes Yes 

--- 

Construct a reconnect channel to Queen Creek to 

provide for fish passage. Increased fish access 

1.4 miles. 

Fish access 

1.4 miles Queen Creek Yes Yes Yes 

2541 

R12 Decommission road. 0.11 mile Middle American R. Yes Yes Yes 

--- Harden and stabilize upper American River ford 

(RM ) (#5). 1 ford Middle American R. Yes No No 

2541 B 

Improve and gravel road crossing meadow, 

rehabilitate off road vehicle use in meadow area 

(#5). 

0.12 mile Middle American R. Yes No No 

--- Decommission and rehabilitate upper American 

River Ford (#6 and #7) 1 ford Middle American R. No Yes Yes 

2541 B 

Decommission road crossing meadow area and 

rehabilitate off road vehicle use in meadow (#6 

and #7). 

0.12 mile Middle American R. No Yes Yes 

2541 Decommission road that is adjacent to American 

River (#6). 0.77 mile Middle American R. No Yes No 

2541 Convert road to ATV trail (#7) 0.77 mile Middle American R. No No Yes 

T2541 

Construct new ATV trail so that American River 

ford and road crossing meadow can be 

decommissioned (#7). 

0.3 mile Middle American R. No No Yes 

2543 G1 

Construct new permanent road (west side 

American River) to provide additional access 

from the north for the American River 

subdivision. Road would connect with Ericson 

Ridge road (#6 and #7). 

0.46 mile Middle American R. No Yes Yes 

2543 G2 

Construct new permanent road (east side of 

American River) to provide additional access 

from the north for the American River 

subdivision (#6 and #7). 

0.1 mile Middle American R. No Yes Yes 

--- 

Construct a new vehicle bridge across American 

River to provide additional access from the north 

for the American River subdivision (#6 and #7). 

1 Vehicle 

Bridge Middle American R. No Yes Yes 

2541 A 

Decommission existing road adjacent to 

American River, new road construction for 

subdivision access will bi-pass this segment (#6 

and #7). 

0.12 mile Middle American R. No Yes Yes 

1 Several restoration projects are directly interrelated with other projects and all would not take place with out several 

other actions; for example a road to ATV trail project may include other actions such as, decommissioning and 

restoration of fords, construction of new bridges, and decommissioning of unneeded road/trail segment. Projects 

that are directly interrelated would have the same project number (#). 

A summary of restoration estimated costs are identified in Section 3.13, Socio Economic section. 

The following Table I.2 summarizes restoration projects by alternative. 
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-3 

Table I.2. Summary and Comparison of Restoration Projects by Alternative. 

Proposed Restoration Activity Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Miles of decommissioned roads 

(miles of new permanent road) 

1.9 miles 

(0.6 miles) 

3.0 miles 

(1.1 miles) 

1.5 miles 

(1.2 miles) 

Miles of road to ATV trail conversion 1.6 miles 1.6 miles 2.6 miles 

Ford armoring and restoration 1 ford 0 ford 0 ford 

Ford obliteration and restoration 2 fords 3 fords 3 fords 

Miles or riparian plantings. 4.8 miles 4.8 miles 4.8 miles 

Miles of streambank recontour and restoration 1.6 miles 1.6 miles 1.6 miles 

Queen Creek reconnect and miles of increased fish 

access

1.4 miles 1.4 miles 1.4 miles 

Acres of mine site restoration 0.5 acre 0.5 acre 0.5 acre 

Description of Restoration Projects 

Road Decommissioning: The objectives of road decommissioning are to reduce negative resource 

impacts and reduce maintenance costs by removing roads that are not needed for access. The impacts that 

would be eliminated or reduced include adverse effects from erosion, sediment, and road encroachment in 

riparian habitats (for roads that occur in riparian areas). Direct and indirect long term benefits would be 

realized to aquatic resources and improvements to watershed and hydrologic conditions from reduced 

road densities. Reduced road densities would also have direct and indirect effect beneficial effects to 

wildlife security and habitat quality, with reduced human related disturbances. 

In the context of watershed improvement projects, road decommissioning applies to existing roads and 

can include treatments ranging from abandonment to re-contouring. The selection of treatment type is 

based on the condition of the road, existing cut and fill of the road, proximity to streams, cost, and other 

factors. Most of the roads planned for decommissioning within this project were identified through a 

roads analysis process. Some roads were added or deleted based on field reconnaissance. These were 

screened with Field Office personnel to ensure that future access needs were being met. 

Decommissioning of roads would include appropriate blockage and restriction of motorized vehicle 

access, de-compaction of the road surface, seeding, mulching, and placement of woody debris and/or 

rocks. Restriction of vehicle access may be accomplished by a variety of methods, such as full or partial 

obliteration of the road, placement of logs, or strategic location of boulders. De-compaction would be 

accomplished by ripping the road to a minimum depth of 20 inches. As needed, disturbed soil/vegetation 

sites would be seeded primarily with native species. Mulching would also be used to provide for seed 

cover and prevention of adverse soil erosion. Seeding and plantings would take place during favorable 

periods, generally during wet conditions occurring during the fall or spring. Appropriate seed mixes and 

species are identified in Table I.3 for upland sites and Table I.4 for riparian sites (included in following 

Riparian Plantings Section), which may be changed based on seed availability or site specific conditions. 
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-4 

Table I.3 Upland Typical Seeding Mixture for Disturbed Soil/Vegetation Sites1

Grasses Forbs

Species Rate Lb./Acre Species Rate Lb./Acre 

Mountain Brome “Bromar” 

(Bromus marginatus) 8 Western Yarrow 

(Achillea millefolium) 2

Hard Fescue “Durar” 

(Festuca ovina) 4 Golden Pea 

(Thermopsis Montana) 2

Annual Rye 

(Lolium multiflorum) 3 

Tufted Hairgrass

(Deschampsia caespitosa) 2 

1

Forest seed mix for stabilization of roads, cuts, fills, and primary skid trails. 

Placement of woody debris (generally 1 to 12 inches in diameter) would occur on over 50% of the 

decommissioned road surface. 

Temporary roads constructed and decommissioned as part of this project are not considered to be 

watershed improvements and are not listed in this appendix. However, decommissioning (i.e. obliteration) 

of temporary roads would be similar as described in this section. 

Road Abandonment: Road closure or abandonment would occur on roads which have naturally 

stabilized and have been determined to be not needed for future long term management. These roads are 

generally in a stable condition and are not experiencing active erosion/sediment delivery to stabilized. 

Vegetation cover of the road, fill, and cut bank is adequate to prevent adverse erosion/sediment. No 

administrative or public vehicle use would be authorized on these roads. An inspection of the road has 

determined that discountable erosion/sediment is attributed to this road and no additional restoration 

measures are needed. 

Relocating Roads Out of Riparian Areas: The American River road (BLM No. 2541 R1 and R2) 

provides access to private lands and homes along American River. It is proposed to decommission two 

segments (see Road Decommissioning Section above) of the existing road which are adjacent to American 

River and construct a new road in the toe slope area. Existing buried utility lines would be moved and 

located adjacent to the new road. The new road would be all weather surfaced. 

Stream Ford Obliteration/Restoration: The project objective is to prevent adverse erosion, sediment, 

turbidity, and fish disturbance/displacement/mortality from use of fords. As needed, the ford approaches 

would be obliterated. The road would be ripped to a minimum depth of 20 inches, seeded and planted 

with suitable riparian species (see Riparian Seeding and Plantings Section below). As needed, mulching 

would be used to provide for seed cover and prevention of adverse soil erosion. Erosion control measures 

such as sediment traps or sediment fence would be used to prevent adverse erosion/sediment from 

reaching stream. Placement of boulder and woody debris would be placed to discourage future 

unauthorized use of ford. 

Hardening or Armoring Ford: The project objective is to prevent adverse erosion, sediment, turbidity, 

and fish disturbance and mortality from use of an American River ford (river mile 12.8). The approaches 

to the ford would be reconstructed (re-contoured) and stabilized. The road crossing would be “hardened” 

with the placement of concrete planks or suitable substrate that would be secured to bottom and 

streambanks so that vehicle use or high flows would prevent movement or scouring of the instream 

“hardened” ford crossing. The material used for hardening or armoring of ford crossing would prevent 

adverse erosion, sediment, and turbidity from vehicle use of the crossing. The size and placement of the 

material would be designed to discourage use of the ford by spawning fish. Annual monitoring after high 

flow periods would be conducted to insure that ford is functional and would be maintained as needed. The 

approaches to the ford would be graveled a minimum 50 feet on each side. 
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-5 

Road to ATV Trail Conversion Projects: The project objective is to reduce existing road related 

adverse erosion, sediment, and stream channel/riparian encroachment; while still providing for public 

ATV use of the road/trail. The project would convert and restore segments of existing roads occurring 

adjacent to American River to an ATV trail. Some segments of road occurring adjacent to American 

River may be obliterated when an existing toeslope road may be used for the ATV trail. Minor trail 

reconstruction or construction may occur in localized areas, generally to avoid riparian habitats or stream 

channel encroachment. 

The current road width would be reduced to 60 inches. A 60 inch wide trail would remain within the 

existing road prism. Road segments with a defined cut and fill would have trail developed after the initial 

outsloping of the road prism by not ripping the outside (fill-slope side) 60 inches. This would be 

accomplished by ripping the surface to 16 inches or the depth of compaction to increase water infiltration 

and percolation and to provide a seedbed. In areas that are relatively level (e.g., cut and fill areas not 

evident or limited), the maintained trail tread would be located on the upslope side of road and ripping 

outside of road segment (nearest creek). Placement of rock or slash would be conducted to limit ATV use 

to the 60 inch wide trail and to provide growing micro-sites for native vegetation. As needed erosion 

control and restoration measures would be conducted to minimize potential for adverse erosion or 

sediment. 

ATV Bridges: The project objective is to replace two existing ATV bridges so that two existing fords can 

be obliterated (see Ford Obliteration/Restoration Section above), which would reduce adverse erosion, 

sediment, turbidity and fish disturbance from motorized vehicle use of the fords. One of the ATV bridges 

is unauthorized (American River ATV bridge–stream mile 6.3) and the other ATV bridge is nonfunctional (Kirks Fork ATV bridge - mouth). 

Replacement bridges would be designed to provide for public hiking, ATV, and horse use. Replacement 

bridges would designed to reduce adverse erosion, sediment, and channel encroachment, and be sized to 

handle high flow events (i.e., 100 year). During installation, erosion and sediment control measures would 

be implemented. 

ATV Trail Construction: The project objective is to construct an ATV trail so that an American River 

ford crossing (river mile 12.8) and road segment crossing a meadow could be decommissioned (and still 

provide ATV use of road/trail). Implementation of this project would prevent adverse erosion, sediment, 

turbidity, and instream disturbance to fish utilizing the American River ford crossing. This project would 

also allow for obliteration and restoration of a road segment crossing a meadow that is adjacent to 

American River that is severely rutting and eroding. 

Riparian Seeding and Plantings: Riparian planting is done to improve streamside shade, restore bank 

stability, and improve aquatic ecological function. It is done using adapted native species and would 

include the seeding or planting of grasses, sedges, forbs, shrubs, or trees. Streambank and other disturbed 

areas would be seeded and planted primarily with native species (see Table F.4 for a list of preferred 

species). Seedings and plantings would take place during favorable wet conditions during the fall or 

spring. As needed, mulching would be used to provide for seed cover and prevention of adverse soil 

erosion. Because of the following variability of site characteristics within the project area: soil, current 

vegetation, availability of native species, and species suitability, each site would be evaluated prior to 

seeding or planting. Sedges and rushes planted would use “mats or plugs” with a minimum of six to eight 

inches of root mass and soils, and would typically be planted in areas below mean high water. Shrubs and 

trees that are planted would be seedlings or small saplings (typically 2–6 feet in height). Annual rye 

(Lolium multiflorum), a non-native species, would be included in the seed mix to provide for early erosion 

control ground cover. 
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-6 

Table I.4 Preferred Plant Species for Riparian Areas 

Grasses and GrassLike Forbs Shrubs Trees

Mountain brome 

Bromus marginatus 

Arrowleaf groundsel 

Senecio triangularis

Rocky mountain 

maple 

Acer glabrum 

Grand-fir

Abies grandis

Water sedge 

Carex aquatilis

Mountain alder 

Alnus incana 

Subalpine fir 

Abies lasiocarpa 

Beaked-sedge

Carex rostrata

Wavy-leaved alder 

Alnus sinuate sinuata

Engelmann spruce 

Picea engelmannii 

Tufted hairgrass 

Deschampsia caespitosa 

Red osier dogwood 

Cornus stolonifera

Lodgepole Pine 

Pinus contorta

Dagger-leaf rush 

Juncus ensifolius

Drummond’s willow 

Salix drummondiana

Douglas-fir

Pseudotsuga

menziesii

Small-fruited bulrush 

Scirpus microcarpus

Streambank wheatgrass 

Agropyron riparium 

Red top

Agrostis alba var. alba

Streambank Re-contouring: Streambank re-contouring would include the creation of a small terrace or 

floodplain (approximately 8–10 feet in width), immediately adjacent to or above mean high water level. 

As needed, over steepened streambanks may be excavated and re-contoured to have a slope of 2:1. 

Placement of up to 6 inches of top soil may occur on re-contoured gravel/cobble dredge tailings to 

facilitate seeding and/or placed in holes dug for seedlings and saplings. 

Improved Fish Passage: The objective of the Queen Creek channel reconnect project is to improve fish 

passage for aquatic organisms, particularly for special status fish. The Queen Creek re-connect 

channel would include constructing approximately 100 feet of new channel and installation of a 

seven foot diameter culvert (partially buried 35%) at the American River road crossing. The 

culvert size will be large enough to handle at a minimum 100 year flow events. The new culvert 

would simulate a natural stream bottom throughout its length. As needed, placement of suitable 

sized substrate (1 – 6 inches) material would take place throughout the length of the culvert. 

During channel construction and culvert installation, the channel would not have flowing water 

and the new channel would not be connected to the existing channels (i.e., Queen Creek and 

American River) until work was completed. As needed, excessive subsurface flows would be 

pumped to an off channel settling basin and filtered through straw and natural vegetation before 

reaching the stream. The settling basin would consist of straw bales and straw laid out on the 

ground so water can filter through the straw to prevent sediment from reaching the stream 

channel

Soil Restoration: No specific soil restoration units are planned for the Eastside Project, and soil 

restoration actions are primarily associated with road decommissioning efforts, temporary roads, and 

landings. Soil restoration treats areas that have negative impacts to soil productivity or stability. 

Objectives of soil restoration include improvement of soil productivity and reduction of adverse effects to 

hydrologic function. Treatments can include soil de-compaction, recontouring of excavated skid trails and 
Appendix I–Watershed, Riparian, and Fish Habitat Improvements I-7 

landings, replacing surface soil and organic material, stabilization of erosion features such as rills and 

gullies, and revegetation. 

Road Improvements: Several roads were identified as having improvement needs due to adverse effects 

on aquatic resources. The proposed work would improve drainage and reduce erosion from these roads. 

Techniques could include adding drainage structures, shaping the road, and adding rock surfacing in 

places. In general, roads being reconstructed primarily for timber haul purposes are not listed as 

watershed improvements. These exceptions consist of roads that require reconstruction or reconditioning 

for timber haul purposes, and the treatment activities are deemed to be a benefit to watershed health. 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table ______________________

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Alt B Upgrade Alt C&D 

Decommission Existing 

Rd

BLM 2541 0.12 Rock 6" or Varied YES YES 

Alt B&C Decommission 

Alt D Existing Use BLM 2541 R 4 0.29 Varied or Maintain YES YES 

Alt B&C Decommission 

Alt D Existing Use BLM 2541 R 5 0.24 Varied or Maintain YES YES 

Alt C Decommission, Alt 

D Convert to Trail BLM 2541 0.77 Varied or Reduce Running Surface to 55" NO YES 

Convert to Trail Existing 

Rd BLM 2544 G 1 0.06 Reduce Running Surface to 55" YES YES 

Convert to Trail Existing 

Rd BLM 2544 G 2 0.13 Reduce Running Surface to 55" YES YES 

Convert to Trail Existing 

Rd BLM T25 1.36 Reduce Running Surface to 55" YES YES 

Convert to Trail Existing 

Rd BLM T25 0.07 Reduce Running Surface to 55"" YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 0.12 Varied YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 10 0.27 Abandon YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 11 0.12 Abandon YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 12 0.11 Varied YES YES 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 3 0.07 Varied YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 6 0.21 Varied YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 8 0.06 Abandon YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2541 R 9 0.03 Varied YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2544 G 2 0.03 Varied YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM 2544 G 3 0.08 Abandon YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM T25 0.32 Recontour YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM T25 A 0.04 Recontour YES YES 

Decommission Existing 

Rd BLM T25 B 0.04 Recontour YES YES 

Existing BLM 2541 0.01 Maintain YES YES Existing BLM 2541 0.20 Maintain YES YES Existing BLM 2541 0.05 Maintain YES YES Existing BLM 2541 0.15 Maintain YES YES Existing BLM 2541 0.04 Maintain YES YES Existing BLM 2541 R 7 0.12 Maintain YES YES Existing BLM T 25 0.05 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project BLM 2541 0.06 Rock 6" YES YES 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project BLM 2543 9812 443 1.11 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project BLM 2541 R 12 0.02 Varied YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project BLM 2544 G 0.05 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project BLM 2544 G 0.03 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project BLM 2544 G 0.07 Maintain YES YES 

Open Existing Trail BLM T25 0.34 Running Surface to 55" YES YES 

Proposed ATV BLM T2451 0.30 Running Surface to 55" NO NO 

Proposed Permanent BLM 2541 R 1 0.22 Rock 6" YES YES Proposed Permanent BLM 2541 R 2 0.35 Rock 6" YES YES Proposed Permanent BLM 2543 G 0.10 Rock 6" NO YES Proposed Permanent BLM 2543 G 0.46 Rock 6" NO YES 

Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 C 0.46 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 C 0.41 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 C 0.25 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 C 1 0.08 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 C 2 0.06 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 D 0.41 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 D 0.38 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 D 0.17 Varied YES NO 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 D 1 0.18 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 0.46 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 0.65 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 1 0.09 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 1 0.31 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 2 0.19 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 2 0.03 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 3 0.55 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 E 3 0.02 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2541 G 0.55 Varied NO NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 0.27 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 0.71 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 0.15 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 0.77 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 0.24 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 0.14 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 1 0.08 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 F 1 0.20 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 H 0.49 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2543 H 1 0.24 Varied YES NO Proposed Temporary BLM 2544 G 0.06 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2544 G 0.10 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 0.32 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 0.64 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 0.44 Varied YES YES 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 0.52 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 1 0.12 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 2 0.14 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 3 0.40 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 3 0.03 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 4 0.45 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 4 0.12 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 A 4 0.24 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 B 0.33 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 B 0.33 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 B 1 0.10 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 B 2 0.08 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary BLM 2548 B 2 0.56 Varied YES YES 

Upgrade Existing Rd BLM 2541 0.05 Rock 6" YES YES Upgrade Existing Rd BLM 2541 R 9 0.01 Rock 6" YES YES Upgrade Existing Rd BLM 2541 R 8 0.11 Rock 6" YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Id County 2543 443 0.94 YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Id County 1818 2.67 YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Id County 1859 3.17 YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Id County 0.10 YES YES 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Id County 443 1.65 YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Id County 443 0.34 YES YES 

Existing Private Coppernoll 2541 0.04 Maintain YES YES Existing Private Coppernoll T 25 0.08 Maintain YES YES Existing Private Greenly 2541 0.05 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private 2541 Lynn 

1 0.29 Minor Reconstruction YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private 2548 Bennet 1 0.55 Minor Reconstruction YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private 2548 Bennet 1 0.62 Minor Reconstruction YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private 2548 Bennet 2 0.25 Minor Reconstruction YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private 2548 Bennet 2 0.26 Minor Reconstruction YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private 2548 Bennet 3 0.97 Minor Reconstruction YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project Private MADRE 2541 0.09 Maintain YES YES 

Proposed Temporary Private 2548 Bennet 4 0.08 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary Private 2548 Bennet 5 0.04 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary Private 2548 Bennet 6 0.03 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary Private 2848 Bennet 2 0.04 Varied YES YES 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 0.02 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 1.30 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 0.80 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 0.04 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 1809A 2.22 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 1809 0.69 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 9812 0.19 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 9812 1.26 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 1809 1.58 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 1809 0.72 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 9812F1 0.25 Maintain YES YES 

Existing Use For Eastside 

Project USFS 9812F 0.24 Maintain YES YES 

Proposed Temporary USFS 2541 D 0.26 Varied YES NO 

Proposed Temporary1 USFS 2543 F 0.56 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary1 USFS 2543 F 0.17 Varied YES YES Proposed Temporary1 USFS 2543 F 0.10 Varied YES YES 
Appendix J – Road and Trail Access Table 

Label Owner BLM No USFS No IDCO No Miles Management Activity/Decommission Method ALT

B

ALT

C

Proposed Temporary1 USFS 2543 H 1.06 Varied YES YES 

1 These roads included in the American and Crooked River Project FEIS, but dropped from the project. 
Appendix K – Key Observation Point Photos and FVSFVS Model Representation 

Figure K.1 VRM Mother Lode Road Point, Looking NW Towards Elk City
Figure K.2 FVS simulation of Stand in Figure K.1, pre-treatment
Figure K.3 FVS simulation of Stand in Figure K.1, post-treatment 
Figure K.4 VRM Mother Lode Road Point, Looking N Up American River
Figure K.5 VRM Mother Lode Road Point, Looking NE
Figure K.14 FVS simulation of Stand in Figure K.12, post-treatment 
Index _______________________________________________ 

Access Management, 218 

Air Quality, xvi, 16, 34, 62, 320 

Airshed, 16, 62, 66 

American and Crooked River, v, xiv, 2, 5, 

15, 24, 33, 44, 48, 51, 53, 57, 60, 68, 69, 

77, 79, 87, 88, 95, 104, 113, 114, 115, 

117, 118, 120, 122, 127, 128, 181, 182, 

185, 186, 190, 192, 193, 195, 199, 202, 

210, 211, 221, 225, 229, 233, 234, 237, 

238, 241, 246, 247, 250, 259, 260, 265, 

266, 273, 274, 278, 280, 282, 284, 288, 

289, 290, 299, 317, 318 

Anadromous Fish, 6, 139 

Apparent Naturalness, 290, 291, 292, 293 

Biological Assessment, 96, 140, 152, 202, 

322

Biological Evaluation, 210 

Biological Opinion, 6, 67, 98, 139, 322 

Biomass, vii, 29, 33 

Clean Air Act, 9, 62 

Clean Water Act, 2, 9, 30, 95, 96, 196 

Code of Federal Regulation, 9 

Cost, 312, 313, 314 

Council on Environmental Quality, 9 

Cultural resource, 19, 301, 302 

Endangered Species Act, 9, 83, 98, 136, 

139, 140, 207, 208, 281 

Environmental Assessment, 6, 91 

Environmental Impact Statement, iii, iv, i, ii, 

iv, 1, 90, 91, 93, 289, 324, 326, 345 

Equivalent Clearcut Area, x, 2, 12, 40, 97, 

205

Erosion, xvi, 122, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

171, 175, 180 

Federal Noxious Weed Act, 9, 91 

Fire Effects Information System, 216 

Fire severity, 53 

FISHSED, 14, 113, 146, 169, 172, 173, 174, 

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 

183

FOFEM, 64 

Forest, iii, iv, i, ii, iv, xiv, xvi, 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 

11, 15, 16, 23, 24, 44, 48, 51, 53, 61, 68, 

69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 84, 85, 86, 91, 95, 97, 

98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 119, 120, 121, 124, 135, 137, 142, 

147, 153, 157, 159, 162, 195, 202, 210, 

211, 216, 217, 221, 222, 229, 230, 231, 

232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 241, 243, 246, 

247, 249, 260, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 

269, 273, 280, 281, 282, 285, 287, 288, 

289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 299, 309, 

310, 320, 321, 339, 349, 358, 359 

Forest cover type, 16, 74 

Fuel model, 52, 55, 56 

Fuels, i, iii, iv, i, iv, vii, ix, xv, xvi, 3, 10, 11, 

19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 38, 51, 53, 

55, 60, 80, 93, 96, 126, 129, 148, 252, 

275, 276, 280, 297, 312, 313, 314, 336, 

346

Ground, 87 

Guilds, xvi, 270 

Habitat, xii, xiii, xvi, xvii, 7, 32, 42, 67, 88, 

89, 101, 114, 137, 139, 140, 148, 150, 

152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 

164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 176, 185, 186, 

193, 195, 205, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 

218, 219, 222, 229, 230, 232, 233, 236, 

240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 247, 257, 258, 

260, 264, 266, 270, 271, 274, 275, 277 

HUC, 163, 208, 210, 231, 244 

Idaho County Wildfire Mitigation Plan, 7 

Idaho Forest Practices Act, 9, 30, 34 

IMPLAN, 309, 310 

Indicator, ix, xv, xvi, xvii, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

38, 53, 56, 58, 64, 72, 77, 90, 97, 98, 99, 

101, 103, 106, 111, 113, 116, 117, 118, 

119, 120, 131, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 

150, 151, 169, 170, 171, 184, 185, 188, 

191, 193, 198, 218, 228, 243, 252, 256, 

288, 296, 310, 311, 315, 316, 317, 332 

Invasive, 9, 16, 90, 91, 218, 271 

Inventoried Roadless Area, xvi, 284, 289, 

290, 339, 342, 343, 358 

Logging, 24, 47, 240, 312, 313, 314, 325, 

355
Management Framework Plan, i, ii, 6, 67, 

137, 203, 207, 348, 349 

Memorandum of Understanding, 136, 208 

MFP, i, ii, iii, xi, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 22, 23, 

41, 46, 51, 67, 75, 99, 106, 110, 121, 137, 

138, 139, 203, 207, 295, 297, 300, 316, 

317, 335, 338, 349 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 9, 208 

Mitigation, xv, 7, 30 

Monitoring, vi, xv, xvii, 2, 30, 62, 154, 158, 

159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 170, 178, 194, 

227, 243, 267, 269, 334 

MOU, 136, 208 

National Environmental Policy Act, i, 1, 9, 

22, 46, 136 

National Fire Plan, 7, 11 

National Forest Management Act, 6, 9 

National Forest System, 20, 91 

National Historic Preservation Act, 9, 301 

National Register of Historic Places, 17, 

301, 303, 322 

NEPA, i, v, 1, 9, 22, 33, 34, 46, 90, 301, 

340, 349 

NEZSED, 2, 13, 95, 98, 99, 108, 111, 119, 

146, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 

181, 182, 183, 329, 351, 352 

No Action Alternative, xv, 23, 24, 55, 57, 

59, 60, 61, 65, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 

82, 83, 85, 93, 102, 103, 107, 111, 113, 

126, 129, 131, 133, 178, 184, 185, 188, 

191, 193, 198, 200, 219, 223, 227, 232, 

236, 240, 245, 249, 251, 254, 255, 257, 

261, 264, 267, 274, 285, 288, 292, 296, 

303, 306, 307, 310, 311, 317 

NOI, iv, 10 

Notice of Intent, iv, 10 

Off Highway Vehicle, 289 

OHV, 12, 289, 329 

Project Record, xv, 10, 20 

Record of Decision, iii, ii, iv, 6, 9, 10, 90, 

91, 152, 307, 322 

Recreation, vii, xvii, 19, 30, 48, 64, 218, 

288, 309, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 320, 

321, 323, 325 

Riparian, xvii, 7, 25, 26, 28, 32, 34, 47, 67, 

101, 108, 114, 120, 139, 149, 151, 154, 

155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 

167, 170, 184, 189, 190, 198, 199, 201, 

207, 211, 212, 213, 214, 224, 252, 253, 

260, 267, 268, 270, 272, 275, 276, 279, 

296, 312, 313, 314, 320 

Road, iv, vii, viii, ix, xiv, xvi, xvii, 12, 15, 

23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 38, 44, 48, 49, 50, 

88, 89, 101, 102, 103, 124, 125, 129, 151, 

152, 181, 188, 191, 195, 198, 205, 218, 

220, 225, 244, 249, 250, 252, 257, 261, 

278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 

288, 289, 291, 295, 297, 302, 310, 312, 

313, 314, 316 

ROD, 90 

Scoping, iv, xv, xvii, 10, 322 

Sensitive species, 87 

Seral, 89, 225, 270, 272, 275, 276, 277, 279, 

280

Soil, xvi, 17, 97, 104, 122, 123, 124, 126, 

127, 130, 133, 185, 191, 199, 320 

Stream, vii, viii, xii, 9, 14, 29, 30, 42, 100, 

111, 114, 116, 124, 142, 145, 147, 148, 

149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159, 

160, 161, 162, 164, 170, 171, 172, 173, 

174, 181, 182, 186, 188, 189, 192, 193, 

194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 252, 286, 312, 

313, 314 

TES, 136, 152, 207, 290 

Threatened and Endangered, 84, 85, 140, 

211

Treatment area, 22 

Tree mortality, 60 

Visual Resource, xvi, 17, 295, 296, 299, 320 

Water quality, 99, 113, 148 

Water yield, 95, 97, 192 

WEPP, 171, 172 

Wildland Urban Interface, 7, 328, 343, 346, 

348

Wildlife Habitat, xvi, 216, 217, 270 

WUI, i, 3, 4, 7, 11, 23, 51, 52, 56, 58, 60, 

68, 342, 343, 347, 354