United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest Service

March 2013

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Clear Creek Integrated 

Restoration Project

Moose Creek Ranger District, Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests 

Idaho County, Idaho

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 1 of 280
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and 

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272. USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider 

and employer.

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 2 of 280
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Moose Creek Ranger District

Nez Perce National Forest

Idaho County, Idaho

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisor 

Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests

903 3rd Street 

Kamiah, Idaho 83536

For Information Contact: Joe Hudson, Moose Creek District Ranger 

831 Selway Road 

Kooskia, Idaho 83539

208-926-4258 

Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) documents the analysis of four 

alternatives, including a “No Action” alternative. The Notice of Intent to prepare this document 

was published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2012. The Clear Creek Integrated 

Restoration Project proposes timber harvest, commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, 

prescribed fire, reforestation, native grass restoration, and road system improvements to achieve 

desired age class and species distributions and to improve watershed health. The proposed 

action was advertised for public scoping in January 2012. The Clear Creek watershed lies within 

the Selway–Middle Fork Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) area. 

Comments on this DEIS should be postmarked or received no later than 45 days after a Notice of 

Availability is published in the Federal Register. Written comments must be submitted to: Lois 

Hill, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 903 3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536, telephone (208) 935-

4258; or by fax to 208-935-4275. Electronic comments may be submitted by email. Email 

comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text 

format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) to comments-northern-nezperce-moose-creek@fs.fed.u.s 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the 

draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond 

to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final 

environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. 

Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental 

Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not 

raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. 

Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 3 of 280
should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 

CFR 1503.3). 

The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in 

subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this 

solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public 

record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 

considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to 

participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews. 

Send Comments to: Lois Hill, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

comments-northern-nezperce-moose-creek@fs.fed.us

Kamiah Ranger Station 

903 3rd Street

Kamiah, Idaho 83536

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 4 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................. vi

Summary ........................................................................................................................ vii

Chapter 1– Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project History ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Project Area...................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................... 1-5

1.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Improvement ........................................ 1-5

1.3.2 Goods and Services ................................................................................... 1-6

1.3.3 Watershed Improvement ........................................................................... 1-6

1.4 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 1-6

1.5 Decision Framework ........................................................................................ 1-8

1.6 Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 1-8

1.7 Issues ................................................................................................................ 1-8

1.7.1 Issues Used to Develop Alternatives to the Proposed Action .................. 1-9

1.7.2 Concerns Raised in Response to Scoping ............................................... 1-12

1.8 Regulatory Requirements and Required Coordination .................................. 1-13

1.9 Forest Plan Direction ..................................................................................... 1-13

1.10 Clean Air Act ................................................................................................. 1-14

1.11 Clean Water Act ............................................................................................. 1-14

1.12 Region 1 Soil Quality Standards .................................................................... 1-14

1.13 The National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act .................... 1-15

1.14 Endangered Species Act ................................................................................. 1-15

1.15 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 ............................................................... 1-15

1.16 Executive Order 12898 .................................................................................. 1-16

1.17 Executive Order 13112 .................................................................................. 1-16

1.18 Idaho Forest Practices Act ............................................................................. 1-16

1.19 Idaho Roadless Rule....................................................................................... 1-16

1.20 Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act ............................................................ 1-17

1.21 National Environmental Policy Act, Sections 101 and 106 ........................... 1-17

1.22 National Forest Management Act .................................................................. 1-17

i 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 5 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1.23 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................ 1-17

1.24 Tribal Treaty Rights ....................................................................................... 1-18

Chapter 2– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ......................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail .................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Actions Common to All Action Alternatives............................................ 2-1

2.2.2 Alternative A: No Action .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action (As Modified In Response to Scoping 

Comments) ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.4 Alternative C: Maximal Species Conversion ............................................ 2-3

2.2.5 Alternative D: Minimal Temporary Road Construction ........................... 2-4

2.2.6 Design Criteria .......................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ....................... 2-10

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-12

Chapter 3– Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Aquatics ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Analysis Area ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................. 3-1

3.1.3 Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 3-2

3.1.4 Resource Indicators ................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.5 Affected Environment ............................................................................... 3-4

3.1.6 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-10

3.2 Economics ...................................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.1 Analysis Area .......................................................................................... 3-15

3.2.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................... 3-15

3.2.3 Resource Indicators ................................................................................. 3-16

3.2.4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 3-16

3.2.5 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 3-17

3.2.6 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-18

3.3 Fuels ............................................................................................................... 3-20

3.3.1 Analysis Area .......................................................................................... 3-20

3.3.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................... 3-20

3.3.3 Resource Indicators ................................................................................. 3-21

ii

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 6 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

3.3.4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 3-22

3.3.5 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-22

3.3.6 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-25

3.4 Roadless Areas ............................................................................................... 3-29

3.4.1 Analysis Area .......................................................................................... 3-29

3.4.2 Resource Indicators ................................................................................ 3-30

3.4.3 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-30

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-31

3.5 Soils ................................................................................................................ 3-33

3.5.1 Analysis Area .......................................................................................... 3-33

3.5.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................... 3-33

3.5.3 Resource Indicators ................................................................................ 3-35

3.5.4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 3-35

3.5.5 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-37

3.5.6 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-38

3.6 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 3-47

3.6.1 Analysis Area .......................................................................................... 3-47

3.6.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................... 3-48

3.6.3 Resource Indicators ................................................................................ 3-50

3.6.4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 3-51

3.6.5 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-51

3.6.6 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-68

3.7 Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 3-78

3.7.1 Analysis Area .......................................................................................... 3-78

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................... 3-80

3.7.3 Resource Indicators ................................................................................ 3-83

3.7.4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 3-84

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-86

3.8 Watershed..................................................................................................... 3-128

3.8.1 Analysis Area ........................................................................................ 3-129

3.8.2 Regulatory Framework ......................................................................... 3-129

3.8.3 Resource Indicators .............................................................................. 3-131

iii

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 7 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.8.4 Analysis Methodology .......................................................................... 3-132

3.8.5 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-133

3.8.6 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 3-138

3.8.7 Cumulative Effects................................................................................ 3-144

Chapter 4– Consultation and Coordination ............................................................... 4-1

Glossary and Acronyms ............................................................................................... 4-1

References .................................................................................................................... 4-25

Index ............................................................................................................................. 4-39

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Alternative B Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Road Construction ...... 2-2

Table 2-2. Alternative C Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Road Construction ...... 2-4

Table 2-3. Alternative D Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Road Construction ...... 2-5

Table 2-4. Mitigation measures and design criteria that would be implemented to protect 

heritage resources in the Clear Creek project area ................................... 2-10

Table 2-5. Comparison of Alternatives by Activity....................................................... 2-13

Table 2-6. Comparison of alternatives by activity ......................................................... 2-15

Table 2-7. Comparison of alternatives by issue and resource indicator ........................ 2-15

Table 3-1. Water quality objectives for watersheds in the Clear Creek project area ....... 3-6

Table 3-2. Timber harvest jobs and income ................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-3. Predicted stumpage and Present Net Value .................................................. 3-19

Table 3-4. Percent of analysis area by structural class and mean patch size by alternative

 ................................................................................................................. 3-27

Table 3-5. Landscape fire regime condition class stratum departure, by alternative .... 3-27

Table 3-6. Tons of biomass generated from harvest activities, by alternative .............. 3-28

Table 3-7. Pounds of PM10 and PM2.5 generated from harvest activities, by alternative3-28

Table 3-8. Forest Plan compliance................................................................................. 3-35

Table 3-9. Unit-specific design measures to meet Regional soil standards ................... 3-45

Table 3-10. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage 

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 3 .. 3-53

Table 3-11. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage 

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 8 .. 3-54

Table 3-12. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage 

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 7 .. 3-55

Table 3-13. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage 

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 10 3-56

Table 3-14. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage 

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 17 3-57

iv

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 8 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents

Table 3-15. Past harvest activities in the Clear Creek project area ............................... 3-61

Table 3-16. Existing and desired forest cover types in the Clear Creek analysis area .. 3-62

Table 3-17. Current average patch size and range ......................................................... 3-65

Table 3-18. Verified old-growth habitat in each Old-Growth Analysis Area (OGAA) in 

the Clear Creek analysis area .................................................................... 3-66

Table 3-19. Unverified old growth in each Old-Growth Analysis Area (OGAA) in the 

Clear Creak analysis area ......................................................................... 3-67

Table 3-20. Acres of proposed vegetative management activities, by alternative ........ 3-70

Table 3-21. Summary of effects (in acres) at the unit scale .......................................... 3-72

Table 3-22. Existing condition, desired range, and shift in species composition for the 

action alternatives in the Breaklands ........................................................ 3-73

Table 3-23. Existing condition, desired range, and shift in species composition for the 

action alternatives in the Uplands ............................................................. 3-73

Table 3-24. Shift in the young age class (in acres), by alternative and Vegetation 

Response Units (VRU) ............................................................................. 3-74

Table 3-25. Shift in average patch size by successional stage, by alternative ............... 3-75

Table 3-26. Forest plan compliance—wildlife resources .............................................. 3-81

Table 3-27. Wildlife analysis indicators used to compare alternatives in the Clear Creek 

Integrative Restoration Project Area ........................................................ 3-83

Table 3-28. Habitat criteria used to identify suitable wildlife habitat in the Analysis 

Area. ......................................................................................................... 3-84

Table 3-29. Clear Creek Project consistency with the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction ............................................................................. 3-94

Table 3-30. Elk winter population status and objectives for Management Unit 16 based 

on the most recent survey (IDFG 2008) ................................................. 3-121

Table 3-31. Elk summer range habitat effectiveness by alternative in the Clear Creek 

Analysis Area. The Forest Plan objective is 50% for each Elk Analysis 

Area (EAA). ............................................................................................ 3-123

Table 3-32. Security areas in Clear Creek Elk analysis areas ..................................... 3-125

Table 3-33. Compliance with Nez Perce National Forest Plan water standards ......... 3-130

Table 3-34. Existing condition information for Clear Creek watersheds .................... 3-134

Table 3-35. Vegetation removal activities, by subwatershed (6th field HUC)............. 3-139

Table 3-36. Estimated percent increase in Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) from project 

activities (6th field HUC) ........................................................................ 3-140

Table 3-37. NEZSED estimated sediment yield .......................................................... 3-141

Table 3-38. Estimated reduction in road density from Clear Creek project activities 3-143

Table 3-39. Tons of annual routed sediment yield over base (natural) to mouth of Clear 

Creek ....................................................................................................... 3-148

v 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 9 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Statement

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Vicinity Map ............................ 1-4

Figure 3-1. Vegetation successional stages within riparian habitat conservation areas in 

the Clear Creek project area........................................................................ 3-7

Figure 3-2. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit 

(VRU) 3 (Breaklands) ............................................................................... 3-62

Figure 3-3. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit 

(VRU) 7 (Uplands) ................................................................................... 3-63

Figure 3-4. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response 

Unit (VRU) 8 (Breaklands)....................................................................... 3-63

Figure 3-5. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit 

(VRU) 10 (Uplands) ................................................................................. 3-63

Figure 3-6. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit 

(VRU) 17 (Uplands) ................................................................................. 3-64

Figure 3-7. Clear Creek verified and unverified old growth ......................................... 3-66

Figure 3-8. Forest Plan prescription watersheds and major streams in the Clear Creek 

watershed ................................................................................................ 3-135

Figure 3-9. Clear Creek subwatersheds (6th level HUC) ............................................. 3-136

Figure 3-10. Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) over time for Clear Creek 

watershed (5th field HUC) ...................................................................... 3-146

Figure 3-11. Sediment yield over base (natural) routed to mouth of Clear Creek ....... 3-148

vi

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 10 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

Summary

The Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests are proposing a combination of timber 

harvest, commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, and reforestation 

to achieve desired age and size classes, species distributions, habitat diversity, and 

landscape patterns across forested portions of the Clear Creek drainage. Road 

decommissioning, culvert replacements, and road improvements are proposed to 

improve watershed health, and the restoration of 41 acres of bunchgrass communities 

through revegetation with native grasses and forbs is proposed to improve vegetative 

diversity. The project area comprises 43,731 acres of National Forest System lands 

within the Clear Creek drainage, located approximately 5 air miles southeast of Kooskia, 

Idaho. 

The purpose of the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project (Project) is to manage 

forest vegetation to restore natural disturbance patterns; improve long-term resistance 

and resilience at the landscape level; reduce fuels; improve watershed conditions; 

improve elk habitat effectiveness; improve habitat for early seral species; and maintain 

habitat structure, function, and diversity. Timber outputs from the proposed action would 

be used to offset treatment costs, support the economic structure of local communities, 

and provide for regional and national needs.

Desired conditions for the Project area were identified after careful consideration of the 

existing condition of the area; applicable Forest Plan management direction, 

recommendations in the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2001); and the needs, opportunities, and issues 

identified by a site-specific interdisciplinary watershed assessment and pre-National 

Environmental Policy Act (pre-NEPA) analysis conducted in 2011 for the Project area.

Completing the Project will move the area toward a Desired Future Condition as defined 

in the Nez Perce National Forest Plan1 (USDA Forest Service 1987b, pp. II-1 and II-2).

The Clear Creek Project is part of the larger Selway-Middle Fork Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Project. In 2010, the Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC) in 

partnership with the Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests produced a comprehensive 

restoration strategy that was submitted for funding through the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). This science-based proposal was designed to 

restore and maintain ecological conditions within the 1.4-million-acre Selway–Middle 

Fork ecosystem in Idaho. The Selway-Middle Fork CFLRP proposal includes the 

following goals:

1 Forest Plan direction for this project is found in the Nez Perce National Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1987) since the project area lies within the administrative boundaries of the Nez Perce National 

Forest. The Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests were administratively combined in February 2013, 

but the existing Forest Plans for each Forest will continue to guide management actions until the Forest 

Plans are revised. Revision of the 1987 Forest Plans is currently ongoing.

vii

 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 11 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Protect communities, private lands, and Wild and Scenic River corridors from 

uncharacteristic wildland fires

• Reestablish and perpetuate landscapes that are diverse and resilient

• Restore forest structure, function, and ecologic processes that promote aquatic 

health

• Restore forest structure, function, and ecologic processes that promote habitat for 

big game and other terrestrial species

• Contain or eliminate noxious weeds 

• Promote landscape conditions that allow fire to function as the primary 

restoration agent 

• Contribute to the economy and sustainability of rural communities

The Selway–Middle Fork area is identified as a top priority for restoration in national, 

regional, State, and County plans and in a forest subbasin assessment. The 43,731 acres 

of National Forest System lands in the Clear Creek watershed lies within the Selway–

Middle Fork CFLRP area. 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) advertising the scoping period was published in the Federal 

Register on January 6, 2012. A corrected NOI was published on February 9, 2012, 

updating the contact information that was published in the original notice. A second 

corrected NOI was published on February 13, 2012 extending the comment due date to 

March 1, 2012. A third corrected NOI, advertising two proposed site-specific Forest Plan 

amendments that are included in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), 

was advertised on February 7, 2013. The Clear Creek Integrated Restoration project has 

been presented at quarterly meetings with the Nez Perce Tribe since April 2012. 

The project was presented for public scoping in January 2012. The following issues 

related to the project proposal were raised during scoping: 

• Increasing patch sizes and reducing fragmentation

• Improving the distribution of hiding cover relative to foraging habitat

• Increasing the amount of early successional stands and wildlife foraging habitats 

• Improving forest structure 

• Providing jobs in Idaho County 

• Reducing planning and implementation costs by managing on a large scale 

• Reducing total road mileages and densities in the Clear Creek watershed

• Reducing sediment input to stream channels

• Reducing cumulative impacts of past timber harvest and road building on 

fisheries habitat, water quality, and soil productivity 

• Reducing effects of the road network on elk security habitat 

• Meeting Desired Future Conditions for watersheds, fish, and wildlife habitats 

These issues led the interdisciplinary team to develop alternatives to the proposed action. 

This DEIS analyzes a total of 4 alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The 

viii

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 12 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

alternatives are briefly summarized below. The issues and alternatives are described in 

greater detail in Chapter 2. 

These activities are common to all action alternatives: 41 acres of grass restoration, 

1,371 acres of prescribed fire, 1,887 acres of precommercial thinning, 119.8 miles of 

system road reconstruction, 13.2 miles of system road decommissioning, and two sitespecific Forest Plan amendments adopting the Region 1 soil standard of 15% for 

detrimentally compacted, displaced, or puddled soils, and clarifying the definition of old 

growth found in Appendix N of the Nez Perce Forest Plan. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

This alternative provides a baseline for comparing the environmental consequences of 

the other alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, no project activities would be 

implemented. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action, as Modified in Response to Scoping Comments) 

This alternative was developed in response to the purpose and need for action identified 

during the pre-NEPA phase of project development. It was presented for public scoping 

in January 2012. Alternative B would move the project area toward the desired future 

conditions (DFCs) that were identified for the project during the pre-NEPA phase. In 

addition to the activities common to all action alternatives, Alternative B proposes 

2,609 acres of regeneration harvest, site preparation, and reforestation; 331 acres of 

improvement harvest; 5,606 acres of commercial thinning; 8.7 miles of temporary road 

construction on existing templates; and 27.6 miles of new temporary road construction. 

Alternative C (Maximal Species Conversion) 

This alternative would address vegetative restoration needs described in the purpose and 

need for action but to a greater degree than Alternative B. Alternative C would 

regenerate as many stands as possible while meeting objectives for other resources. In 

addition to the activities common to all action alternatives, Alternative C would include 

4,156 acres of regeneration harvest, site preparation, and reforestation; 331 acres of 

improvement harvest; 4,220 acres of commercial thinning; 8.7 miles of temporary road 

construction on existing templates; and 27.6 miles of new temporary road construction. 

Alternative D (Minimal Road Construction) 

Alternative D would address the need for vegetative rehabilitation in the Clear Creek 

watershed but to a lesser degree than Alternative B. Alternative D would use existing 

road templates as much as possible while still meeting the need for vegetative 

restoration. In addition to the activities common to all action alternatives, Alternative D 

would include 2,178 acres of regeneration harvest, site preparation, and reforestation; 

211 acres of improvement harvest; 5,141 acres of commercial thinning; 8.7 miles of 

temporary road construction on existing templates; and 8.8 miles of new temporary road 

construction. 

To help describe the environmental effects of each alternative as they pertain to the 

identified issues, the interdisciplinary team developed “indicators” that help measure the 

differences between the alternatives. The effects of the alternatives, as measured by 

these indicators, are summarized in Table S- 1. 

ix

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 13 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table S- 1 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Issue Indicator

Issue Indicator

Alternative A

(Existing 

Condition) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Aquatics/Fisheries Habitat: 

Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Area (RHCA) Road Density 1.2 mi/mi2 1.0 mi/mi2 1.0 mi/mi2 1.0 mi/mi2

Number of undersized culverts 

replaced and cross drains added 0 77 77 77

FISHSED results for modeled 

changes in cobble embeddedness

 –Hoodoo Creek

 – Solo Creek 

 – Pine Knob Creek

 – Clear Creek

 – Middle Fork Clear Creek

 – Brown Springs Creek

 – South Fork Clear Creek

 – Kay Creek

33%

31%

44%

38%

55%

30%

11%

18%

34% 

32% 

45% 

39%

 

56% 

32% 

11% 

18% 

34% 

32% 

45% 

38% 

56%

 

32% 

11% 

18% 

34% 

32% 

45% 

38% 

56%

 

32% 

11%

 

18% 

Economics: 

Volume Harvested (CCF) 0 141,500 CCF 158,000 CCF 116,400 CCF

Volume Harvested (MBF) 0 75,300 85,200 61,800

Jobs Sustained 0 1,910 jobs 2,133 jobs 1,571 jobs

Community Harvest Income 0 $54,252,000 $60,578,000 $44,628,000

Federal Income Tax 0 $8,138,000 $9,087,000 $6,694,000

Fuels:

Fire Regime Condition Class

(FRCC) FRCC2 FRCC2 FRCC2 FRCC2

Percentage of Crown Fire 

Susceptible Landscape 51% 44% 44% 44% 

Soils:

Acres of ground based harvest 

activity on landtypes with high subsurface erosion

0 3,080 3,080 2,950

Miles of temp roads on landtypes 

with high sub-surface erosion 0 30 miles 30 miles 15 miles

Number of commercial harvest 

units requiring specialized design 

measures

0 77 78 75

x 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 14 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

Issue Indicator

Alternative A

(Existing 

Condition) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Watershed: 

Percent increase in equivalent 

clearcut area (ECA)

—Upper Clear Creek 

 -South Fork Clear Creek

 -Lower Clear Creek

 -Clear Creek

0 

0 

0 

0 

15%

7%

8%

10%

15%

7%

9%

10%

13%

6%

7%

9%

Percent sediment yield increased 

over base (natural) as modeled by 

NEZSED 

 – Pine Knob Creek

 – Browns Spring Creek

 – Clear Creek

 – Solo Creek

 – Middle Fork Clear Creek

 – Kay Creek

 – South Fork Clear Creek

 – Hoodoo Creek

1.2% 

2.0%

0.8%

1.5%

1.0%

1.5%

0.6%

2.4%

16% 

23%

7%

16%

8%

3%

5%

20%

16% 

24%

7%

16%

8%

3%

6%

21%

16% 

21%

5%

14%

5%

2%

4%

17%

Watershed road density(mi/mi2) 

 – Pine Knob Creek

 – Browns Spring Creek

 – Clear Creek

 – Solo Creek

 – Middle Fork Clear Creek

 – Kay Creek

 – South Fork Clear Creek

 – Hoodoo Creek

 – Big Cedar Creek

 – Lower Clear Creek Face

4.8

4.1

2.3

3.5

2.4

2.6

1.6

4.6

4.6

1.8

4.3

3.2

2.3

3.1

2.2

2.4

1.6

4.4

4.4

1.8

4.3

3.2

2.3

3.1

2.2

2.4

1.6

4.4

4.4

1.8

4.3

3.2

2.3

3.1

2.2

2.4

1.6

4.4

4.4

1.8

Wildlife:

Acres of habitat treated – Blackbacked Woodpecker 0 649 649 592

Acres of habitat treated– Fisher

 Winter habitat

 Summer habitat

0 

0 3,334

637

2,855

637

2,013

495

Acres of habitat treated– 

Flammulated Owl 0 327 349 257

Acres of habitat treated– Fringed 

Myotis 0 146 146 125

Acres of habitat treated – Longeared Myotis 0 674 674 487

Acres of habitat treated– Longlegged Myotis 0 674 674 4 87

Acres of habitat treated– Mountain 

Quail 0 35 35 35

Acres of habitat treated– Northern 

Goshawk Nesting 0 298 298 290

Acres of habitat treated– Pileated 

Woodpecker Nesting 0 875 875 772

Acres of habitat treated – Pine 

Marten 0 1,229 1,229 836

xi

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 15 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Acres of habitat treated – Pygmy 

Nuthatch 0 347 348 306

Acres of habitat treated– Ringneck 

Snake 0 493 493 389

Acres of habitat treated– Western 

Toad Uplands 0 59 55 63

Acres of habitat treated– Moose 

Winter Range 0 776 776 630

Elk Winter Range – Acres treated 0 4,380 4,502 3,809

Elk Summer Range – analysis 

areas meeting Forest Plan 

standards (50%)

7 7 7 7 

Lynx Denning Acres Treated 0 105 83 58

Lynx Foraging Acres Treated 0 62 61 57

After considering the potential effects of the alternatives, the Responsible Official will 

select an action or mix of actions to improve ecological conditions in the project area 

and best meet the social values associated with this piece of land. If the No Action 

Alternative is selected, no other decision will be necessary. If an action alternative is 

selected, the Responsible Official will decide what mitigation measures, management 

requirements, and monitoring are needed for its implementation.

Document Organization

The Forest Service has prepared this DEIS in compliance with the NEPA and other 

relevant federal and State laws and regulations. This DEIS discloses the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and 

alternatives. The document is organized into 4 chapters: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on 

the history of the project proposal, 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 Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the 

public responded. 

• 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 significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This 

discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a 

summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative. 

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and 

other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area.

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of 

preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the DEIS

xii

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 16 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the DEIS. This DEIS includes four appendices: Appendix 

A includes maps of the project area, Appendix B describes proposed road work, 

Appendix C provides details about the proposed site-specific Forest Plan 

amendment to adopt the Regional soil standard, and Appendix D describes the 

proposed site-specific Forest Plan amendment for old growth. 

• Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, 

may be found in the project planning record located at the Kamiah Ranger Station, 903 

3rd Street, Kamiah, Idaho 83536. 

xiii

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 17 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 18 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1–Purpose of and Need for Action

The Nez Perce–Clearwater National Forests are proposing a combination of timber 

harvest, commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, and reforestation 

to achieve desired age and size classes, species distributions, habitat diversity, and 

landscape patterns across forested portions of the Clear Creek drainage. Road 

decommissioning, culvert replacements, and road improvements are proposed to 

improve watershed health, and the restoration of 41 acres of bunchgrass communities 

through revegetation with native grasses and forbs is proposed to improve vegetative 

diversity and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. 

1.1 PROJECT HISTORY

Congress established the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) 

with Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. In addition to 

encouraging the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest 

landscapes, the CFLRP has the following program goals: 

• Encourage ecological, economic, and social sustainability

• Leverage local resources with national and private resources

• Facilitate the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through 

re-establishing natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildfire 

• Demonstrate the degree to which various ecological restoration techniques 

achieve ecological and watershed health objectives 

• Encourage utilization of forest restoration by-products to offset treatment costs, 

benefit local rural economies, and improve forest health 

The CFLRP established a fund to be used for restoration work on priority landscapes. Up 

to $4 million annually can be requested by selected projects. The CBC, in partnership 

with the Nez Perce-Clearwater Forests, developed and submitted a comprehensive 

restoration proposal, the Selway–Middle Fork Clearwater project, in 2010 (CBC and 

Forest Service 2010). The proposal outlined an ambitious strategy to plan and implement 

a number of projects, such as aquatic restoration, weed treatments, road 

decommissioning, fuel reductions, and forest restoration, across the 1.4-million-acre 

Selway–Middle Fork ecosystem in Idaho. The Selway–Middle Fork area is identified as 

a top priority for restoration in national, regional, State, and County plans and in a forest 

subbasin assessment. The Selway–Middle Fork CFLRP proposal included the following 

goals:

• Protect communities, private lands, and Wild and Scenic River corridors from 

uncharacteristic wildland fires

• Reestablish and perpetuate landscapes that are diverse and resilient

• Restore forest structure, function, and ecologic processes that promote aquatic 

health

1-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 19 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Restore forest structure, function, and ecologic processes that promote habitat for 

big game and other terrestrial species

• Contain or eliminate noxious weeds 

• Promote landscape conditions that allow fire to function as the primary 

restoration agent 

• Contribute to the economy and sustainability of rural communities 

Proposals were reviewed in Washington, D.C., by the CFLRP Advisory Committee and 

10 recommendations were forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture for funding. The 

Selway–Middle Fork Clearwater project was selected for funding by the Secretary of 

Agriculture in August 2010. 

At the heart of the proposal was the Clear Creek landscape, selected as a priority for 

treatment by the Forests and the CBC. In August 2010, Clear Creek was selected for an 

assessment to determine the types, locations, and amounts of appropriate management 

actions that would address CFLRP goals and objectives. The Interdisciplinary Team 

(IDT) prepared this assessment of the Clear Creek watershed in 2011; the assessment

summarized Nez Perce Forest Plan direction appropriate to the Clear Creek area, 

compared existing landscape conditions to desired conditions described in the 

Forest Plan, and identified projects that would implement the CFLRP intent, while 

meeting, or progressing toward, desired conditions. 

Projects recommended through the 2011 assessment would promote forest conditions 

that are resistant to forest pathogens and invasive species and resilient to wildfire and 

climate change; reduce wildfire risks on National Forest System (NFS)–managed lands 

that are adjacent to private property; promote healthy riparian and stream habitats 

important for fish and wildlife species; promote forest habitats that support productive 

populations of elk, moose, goshawk, pileated woodpecker, fisher, flammulated owl, and 

old forest habitats; develop a road system that provides administrative, recreational, and 

industrial uses while protecting sensitive habitats, minimizing sediment delivery to 

streams, and minimizing road construction and maintenance costs; and provide social 

and economic benefits to local communities.

Desired conditions for the Clear Creek watershed were developed using Nez Perce 

National Forest Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1987b) direction; broad-scale 

assessments (e.g., Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the 

Interior Columbia Basin [Quigley et al. 1996] and Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater 

Rivers Subbasin Assessment [USDA Forest Service 2001]); and the best science 

currently available. The development of desired conditions for the Clear Creek project 

was periodically reviewed by the CBC for consistency with the CFLRP and to ensure 

that the project proposal was socially, ecologically, and economically robust. In the spirit 

of transparency, these same desired conditions were also shared with and input solicited 

from other routine Forest planning participants (e.g., Friends of the Clearwater and 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies).

During the pre-National Environmental Policy Act (pre-NEPA) phase of Project 

development, the IDT identified large polygons or patches within the Project area 

referred to as “Focus Areas.” The Focus Areas were identified based on a need to 

1-2 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 20 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

promote similar age classes by connecting recently regenerated stands (preferably within 

the last 20 years). The intent was to establish breaks in continuous fuels, favor areas with 

known or developing forest health issues, and target over-represented mid seral and 

mature age classes. The IDT also attempted to bound these areas with identifiable 

features, such as forest type breaks, topographic breaks, and administrative boundaries. 

The Focus Areas served as the basis for developing the Proposed Action. 

A new Focus Area, developed after the Proposed Action was presented for scoping, has 

been added to all of the action alternatives in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS). It includes about 420 acres of regeneration harvest and some commercial thin 

and precommercial thin units lying outside of the original configuration of the Focus 

Areas. The new Focus Area includes 1.2 miles of temporary roads, some of which would 

be on existing templates.

1.2 PROJECT AREA

The Clear Creek drainage lies within the Middle Fork Clearwater River drainage near 

Kooskia, Idaho. The Clear Creek drainage totals 65,000 acres, with 33% (21,269 acres) 

in private or State ownership and the remaining 67% (43,731 acres) under the 

management of the Moose Creek Ranger District. The Clear Creek Integrated 

Restoration Project area includes all 43,731 acres of NFS lands within the Clear Creek 

drainage (Figure 1-1). All of the project area lies within the upper two-thirds of the 

drainage. The project area is located approximately 5 air miles southeast of Kooskia, 

Idaho, within Townships 30, 31, and 32 N, Ranges 5 and 6 E, Boise Meridian. 

1-3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 21 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 1-1. Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Vicinity Map

1-4 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 22 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of the project is to manage forest vegetation to restore natural disturbance 

patterns; improve long-term resistance and resilience at the landscape level; reduce fuels; 

improve watershed conditions; increase elk forage; improve early seral wildlife habitat; 

and maintain habitat structure, function, and diversity. These actions are needed to move 

resource conditions in the project area from existing conditions toward desired 

conditions. Timber outputs from the proposed action would be used to offset treatment 

costs, support the economic structure of local communities, and provide for regional and 

national needs. 

The following resource management opportunities were identified for the Project area 

based on the existing condition of the area, applicable Forest Plan management 

direction; recommendations in the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2001); and the needs, opportunities, and issues 

identified by an interdisciplinary watershed assessment and National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) analysis conducted in 2011. 

1.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Improvement

1.3.1.1 Existing Condition

Historic logging practices and fire suppression have affected the diversity of tree species 

in the Project area. Ladder fuels have increased, and a shift to more shade-tolerant 

species has occurred. Currently, a higher percentage of grand fir and Douglas-fir exist 

than natural long-term disturbances patterns would have created and that would have 

dominated these habitat types in the absence of historic logging and fire suppression. 

Grand fir and Douglas-fir are more susceptible to insects and disease and grand fir is less 

likely to survive intense wildfires than early seral species (e.g., ponderosa pine , western 

larch , and western white pine ). 

In addition to affecting species composition, young forest habitat is lacking on this 

landscape. Patches of young forest that do exist are smaller with edges that are straighter 

and more even than natural disturbances would have created. 

1.3.1.2 Desired Condition

The desired condition is a forest structure with a range of age and size classes with 

species diversity that is resistant and resilient to change agents such as insects, diseases, 

and wildfires. Early seral species should represent a greater percentage of the species 

mix. 

1.3.1.3 Need for Action

Vegetation in this area needs to be managed to create a more diverse and resilient forest 

structure by creating a range of age and size classes, species diversity, and disturbance 

patterns that more closely emulate the results of natural disturbance. A need exists to 

shift tree species composition away from shade-tolerant species toward more resistant 

and resilient early seral species. A need also exists to increase diversity within 

previously harvested areas to restore long-term habitat quality for sensitive and old 

growth-associated species and to manage vegetation to increase young forest habitat. 

1-5 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 23 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1.3.2 Goods and Services

1.3.2.1 Existing Condition

Much of the Project area consists of grand fir-dominated stands. Insect and disease 

infestations are contributing to increased tree mortality, while decreasing timber volume 

and value. 

1.3.2.2 Desired Condition 

The desired condition is to provide a sustained yield of resource outputs as directed by 

the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

1.3.2.3 Need for Action

Stands that are infested with insects and diseases need to be treated so that the harvested 

timber can provide materials for local industries.

1.3.3 Watershed Improvement

1.3.3.1 Existing Condition

Gravel and native surface roads could contribute sediment to stream channels, which can 

affect water quality and fish habitat. The road system in the Clear Creek watershed has 

already been substantially reduced. The West Fork-South Fork Clear Creek Road 

Decommissioning Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) 

(USDA Forest Service 2011) project decommissioned 85 miles of roads. However, 

additional road decommissioning opportunities are available in the Clear Creek 

watershed. 

1.3.3.2 Desired Condition

The desired condition is to maintain a road system in the Clear Creek watershed that is 

adequate to provide for the goals and objectives described in the Nez Perce Forest Plan

(primarily timber harvest, recreation, fire suppression, and administrative use). 

1.3.3.3 Need for Action

Improving watershed function and stream conditions by reducing road densities and 

repairing existing roads and culverts to reduce sediment and improve drainage is needed. 

Watershed function can also be improved by restoring compacted soils and adding 

organic material on old skid trails and landings. 

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION

The action that was proposed by the Forest Service for scoping in January 2012 is briefly 

described below. The Proposed Action was modified slightly in response to scoping 

comments that were received; the modified proposed action is described as Alternative B 

in this DEIS in Chapter 2.

Improve forest health, provide goods and services, reduce fuels and improve wildlife 

habitat:

• Conduct “variable retention” regeneration harvest and post-harvest burning 

activities on up to 2,500 to create early successional plant communities and 

1-6 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 24 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

improve wildlife habitat while reestablishing long-lived early seral tree species. 

Variable retention harvest would include areas of full retention (clumps) with 

irregular edges. Snags and legacy trees would be retained to provide structure 

and a future source of woody debris. Openings would probably exceed 40 acres. 

• Commercially thin approximately 7,810 acres to reduce stand densities, improve 

forest health, and reduce the chance of crown fire. 

• Apply improvement harvest (thin from below) to approximately 311 acres to 

remove encroachment and ladder fuels from ponderosa pine–dominated stands. 

• Construct a minimum temporary road system to carry out the proposed action. 

Roads would be decommissioned after use.

• Precommercially thin approximately 1,865 acres to reduce stand densities, 

improve forest health, and reduce fuels. 

• Restore approximately 42 acres of bunchgrass communities through prescribed 

burning and revegetation with native grasses and forbs to improve vegetative 

diversity and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. 

• Apply approximately 1,400 acres of low and mixed severity prescribed fire 

within the Clear Creek Roadless Area to restore natural fire regimes, reduce 

fuels, improve wildlife habitat, and create mosaic forest conditions. Proposed 

activities would be consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule and no timber cutting 

is proposed within the Clear Creek Roadless area. 

Reduce sediment production and address transportation needs: 

• Maintain or improve approximately 100–130 miles of system roads. Maintenance 

and improvement could include culvert installation or replacement, ditch 

cleaning, riprap placement for drainage improvement, gravel placement, road 

grading, or dust abatement. 

• Conduct additional site-specific maintenance or improvements on up to 20 miles 

of roads outside of proposed treatment areas to improve watershed conditions 

• Remove from the system between 2–5 miles of system roads no longer 

considered necessary for transportation needs by decommissioning. 

Amend the Soils section of the Nez Perce Forest Plan: 

A site-specific, nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment adopting Region 1 soils standards 

would be included. The current Nez Perce Forest Plan standard specifies that there can 

be no new activities in areas where detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) is over 20%. 

Currently, Region 1 soil quality standards (USDA Forest Service 1999) specify that at 

least 85% of an activity area (defined as a land area affected by a management activity) 

must have soil that is in satisfactory condition. In other words, detrimental impacts 

(including compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, and mass 

wasting) shall be <15% of an activity area. In areas where >15% detrimental soil 

conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from proposed 

activities, including restoration, shall not exceed the conditions prior to the proposed 

activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. The proposed 

1-7 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 25 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

amendment would change Forest Plan Soil Standard #2 and allow activities to occur on 

areas with >20% DSD, as long as soil improvement activities are implemented.

1.5 DECISION FRAMEWORK 

The Responsible Official for this project is Forest Supervisor, Rick Brazell. In making 

his decision, the Responsible Official will review the purpose and need, the Proposed 

Action and other alternatives, the environmental consequences, and public comment to 

make the following decisions: 

• Should vegetation restoration in the Project area be completed, and if so, which 

forested stands should be treated and what silvicultural treatments should be 

applied? 

• Should temporary roads be constructed, and if so, how many miles of road 

should be constructed and where should they be constructed? 

• What design features, mitigation measures, and/or monitoring should be applied 

to the Project?

1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A Notice of Intent (NOI) advertising the scoping period was published in the Federal 

Register on January 6, 2012. A corrected NOI was published on February 9, 2012, 

updating the contact information that was published in the original notice. A second 

corrected NOI was published on February 13, 2012 extending the comment due date to 

March 1, 2012. A third corrected NOI, advertising two proposed site-specific Forest Plan 

amendments that are included in this DEIS, was advertised on February 7, 2013. 

As part of the public involvement process, the agency also listed the proposal in the 

quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning April 2012. The Project has been 

presented to the Nez Perce Tribe at quarterly staff-to-staff meetings since April 2012.

The CBC has been involved in project development since 2010 when the Clear Creek 

watershed was selected for assessment to determine the types, locations, and amount of 

appropriate management actions that would address CFLRP goals and objectives. 

The Proposed Action was initially developed from preliminary issues, concerns, and 

existing conditions that were identified by the IDT. The IDT used issues raised by the 

public, other agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe to develop the scope of the actions, 

alternatives, and effects to consider in the DEIS. Many of the issues were addressed 

through project design criteria and resource protection measures. 

1.7 ISSUES

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant. 

Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing 

the Proposed Action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those outside the scope of 

the proposed action; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher 

level decision; irrelevant to the decision to be made; or conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations explain this delineation in Section 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from 

1-8 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 26 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior 

environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...”. A list of nonsignificant issues and reasons 

regarding their categorization as nonsignificant may be found in the project record.

1.7.1 Issues Used to Develop Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Several concerns were raised during scoping that were used to develop alternatives to the 

Proposed Action. To address these concerns, the Proposed Action was modified slightly 

and renamed Alternative B. Two additional action alternatives, Alternatives C and D, 

were also developed to respond to the concerns raised by scoping commenters. 

1.7.1.1 Commercial Thinning Stands Where Root Disease is Present

Some commenters were concerned that commercially thinning stands with root disease 

could cause the disease to spread, increasing stand mortality.

The IDT created Alternative C to address these concerns. Under Alternative B, treatment 

would be deferred in stands proposed for commercial thinning that are found to have 

root disease. Thinning would not be an appropriate treatment in these stands because 

root disease would be likely to spread. However, without treatment, these stands are 

unlikely to remain on the landscape as long as desired; the stands available for 

management could be substantially reduced, and deferring treatment in commercially 

thinned stands with root disease would not move these stands toward Desired Future 

Conditions (DFCs). Under Alternative C, commercially thinned stands that are found to 

have root disease would be regenerated. Regenerating these stands would help create 

larger patch sizes, while increasing the amount of high-quality, early seral wildlife 

habitat and moving the area toward DFCs for young and old forest.

Issue Indicators: 

• Percent of the area with forest cover type dominated by long-lived early seral 

species compared to grand fir and Douglas-fir. 

• Patch sizes

1.7.1.2 Patch Sizes and Fragmentation

Some commenters were concerned that past management has reduced patch sizes and 

increased fragmentation in the Clear Creek watershed.

Since the 1980s, there has been a trend toward small, isolated harvest units that resulted 

in patch sizes that are smaller than would have been created through natural disturbance. 

The resulting forest now includes a fragmented landscape, isolated patches of young 

forest, and dissected large patches of older forest. 

During the pre-NEPA phase of project development, the IDT identified large polygons 

or patches within the Project area, referred to as “Focus Areas.” The Focus Areas were 

identified based on a need to promote similar age classes by connecting recently 

regenerated stands, or by retaining existing large patches of unfragmented forest. The 

Focus Areas served as the basis for developing the proposed action. 

Since Forest managers cannot plan an activity to “create” larger patches of older forest, 

the IDT chose to focus on reducing landscape fragmentation by treating areas near or 

1-9 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 27 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

adjacent to existing young forest. The resulting large patches of young forest will more 

closely resemble the disturbance regime and patch size expected from natural 

disturbances. At the same time, the IDT has not disregarded the importance of patch 

sizes in older age classes. Retaining existing large patches of unfragmented forest 

weighed heavily in the development of the Proposed Action. The IDT chose treatment 

areas that would avoid fragmenting existing patches that currently meet desired patch 

size conditions according to the DFCs for each Vegetative Response Unit (VRU). At the 

same time, it was a priority to “reconnect” areas of young forest that have become 

fragmented due to past management activities.

Other objectives the IDT considered during development of the proposed action were to 

establish breaks in areas with continuous fuels, to favor areas with known or developing 

forest health issues, and to target over-represented mid seral and mature age classes. The 

IDT also attempted to bound Focus Areas with identifiable features, such as forest type 

breaks, topographic breaks, and administrative boundaries. 

The regeneration harvest proposed for all of the action alternatives would address this 

issue by increasing patch sizes and reducing fragmentation. Of the three action 

alternatives, Alternative C would do the most to address this issue because it would 

regenerate the most stands within the Focus Area configurations. 

Issue Indicators: 

• Patch size

• Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

1.7.1.3 Early Successional Stands/Young Forest/Wildlife Habitat

Some commenters were concerned that the amount of young forest in the Project area 

should be increased to improve wildlife foraging habitat. 

The regeneration harvest proposed for all of the action alternatives would address this 

issue by increasing the amount of young forest across the landscape. Of the three action 

alternatives, Alternative C would do the most to address this issue because it would 

regenerate the most stands.

Issue Indicators: 

• Percent of the area with forest cover type dominated by long-lived, early seral 

species compared to Grand fir and Douglas-fir

• Percent of the area in each age class

• Vertical structure

• Acres treated in potential suitable habitat for sensitive species (SS)

• Acres treated in Nez Perce Forest Plan Management Area (MA)16 (Elk Winter 

Range)

• Acres treated in Nez Perce Forest Plan MA 21 (Moose Winter Range) 

1-10

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 28 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

1.7.1.4 Forest Structure

Some commenters were concerned that the Forest Service should do more to move 

vegetation in the Clear Creek watershed toward the desired conditions identified for this 

area. 

The desired condition is a forest structure with a range of age classes, size classes, and 

species diversity that is resistant and resilient to change agents such as insects, diseases, 

and wildfires. Early seral species should represent a greater percentage of the species 

mix. The regeneration harvest proposed for all of the action alternatives would address 

this issue by increasing the amount of young forest across the landscape, while reducing 

the amount of mid-seral and mature forest. Of the three action alternatives, Alternative C 

would do the most to address this issue because it would regenerate more acres. 

Issue Indicators: 

• Percent of Project area that could support a crown fire 

• Percent of the area with forest cover type dominated by long-lived early seral 

species compared to shade intolerant species

• Percent of the area in each age class

• Vertical structure

1.7.1.5 Economics

Some commenters were concerned that the Project should provide jobs for the local 

economy. Other commenters suggested that planning and implementation costs should 

be reduced by managing on a large scale.

The IDT considered the entire Clear Creek watershed during the pre-NEPA assessment 

phase and when developing the Proposed Action. Timber harvested under any of the 

action alternatives would meet the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan to provide a 

sustained yield of resource outputs. Timber outputs from the Proposed Action would be 

used to offset treatment costs and support the economic structure of local communities 

and would provide for regional and national needs. Many of the stands proposed for 

treatment are currently losing volume and value due to insects and diseases. Harvesting 

the timber would provide materials for local industries. 

Issue Indicators: 

• Timber harvest–related jobs and income 

• Sale feasibility

1.7.1.6 Road Densities

Some commenters were concerned about the total road mileages and road densities in 

the Clear Creek watershed. 

No permanent road construction is proposed under any alternative. 

Alternative D was developed to address these concerns by minimizing the amount of 

temporary road construction. New temporary road construction would be minimized by 

using existing road templates as much as possible. Units would be harvested as 

1-11

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 29 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

described for Alternative B; some units would be dropped if they were not accessible by 

the more limited road system proposed for Alternative D. 

Issue Indicators:

• Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) road densities

• Number of undersized culverts replaced and cross drains added 

• Reduction in watershed road miles 

1.7.1.7 Elk Security Habitat

Some commenters were concerned about the effects of the road network on elk security 

habitat.

No permanent road construction is proposed under any alternative. Alternative D was 

developed to address these concerns by minimizing the amount of temporary road 

construction. 

The road system in the Clear Creek watershed has already been substantially reduced.

The South Fork–West Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning DN/FONSI (2011) 

decommissioned 85 miles of roads. Temporary roads constructed for the Project would 

be decommissioned and recontoured after use. 

Issue Indicators: 

• Percent of each Elk Analysis Area qualifying as secure habitat

• Elk Habitat Effectiveness Areas meeting Forest Plan standards using Leege 

(1984) 

1.7.2 Concerns Raised in Response to Scoping

The Responsible Official reviewed the concerns below that were raised during the 

scoping. These concerns are valuable, but they do not raise unresolved conflicts with the 

Proposed Action and therefore are not treated as issues. Typically, these concerns have 

been addressed by incorporating additional mitigation or design features. 

1.7.2.1 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Plan Consistency 

Because the project proposal is based on the CBC’s Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Plan (CFLRP) proposal, some commenters were concerned that the project 

should be consistent with the requirements of the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act (CFLRA).

Project implementation will be consistent with requirements of the CFLRA, as well as 

all Nez Perce Forest Plan standards and other laws and regulations. The expenditure of 

CFLRA funds that will be used to implement and monitor this project will be reviewed 

for consistency by the CFLRP strategy group, composed of Forest Service and CBC 

members. 

The EIS will analyze potential effects on old growth. The CFLRA requires that 

landscape restoration strategies “contribute to the restoration of, the structure and 

composition of old growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old growth 

conditions of the forest type...”, which will be accomplished through project design, unit 

1-12

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 30 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

delineations, silvicultural prescriptions, and marking guidelines. The current, best 

available science will be used, as required by NEPA and CFLRA. 

The CFLRA does not allow the construction of permanent roads, thus, permanent road 

construction is not proposed for this Project. Any new temporary roads constructed will 

be recontoured after use. 

1.7.2.2 Old Growth

Some commenters asked that the IDT develop an alternative that would not harvest any 

old growth meeting Nez Perce Forest Plan or Green et al. (1992, errata corrected 2005, 

2007, 2008, 2011) old growth criteria. Other commenters suggested that treatments in 

old growth stands should be considered if they would improve old growth habitat.

No old growth would be harvested under any alternative; although improvement cuts 

would be conducted in some old growth stands to help keep them on the landscape 

longer. Appendix D describes a site-specific Forest Plan amendment, clarifying the 

definition of old growth found in Appendix N of the Nez Perce Forest Plan, that is 

common to all action alternatives in this DEIS.

1.8 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED COORDINATION

As part of the analysis for this project, the IDT evaluated various alternatives under the 

laws, regulations, and requirements relating to federal natural resource management. 

Several of the design features presented in Chapter 2 were developed and incorporated to 

ensure these requirements would be met. The following sections summarize the results 

of the analysis for those concerns most often noted. Additional details can be found in 

Chapters 2, 3, and/or the Project Record. 

1.9 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION

Although the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests were administratively 

combined in February 2013, management of the lands formerly within the boundary of 

the Nez Perce National Forest will continue to be guided by direction found in the Nez 

Perce Forest Plan until the plan is revised. The Nez Perce Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1987b, as amended) includes goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that 

direct management of forest resources. Forest Plan direction is established at 2 scales: 

Forest-wide direction is applicable throughout the Forest and management area direction 

ties specific goals, objectives, and standards to the unique capabilities of given parcels of 

land. 

Nez Perce Forest Plan standards apply to NFS lands within the Nez Perce National 

Forest boundary. They are intended to supplement, not replace, National and Regional 

policies, standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service Manuals (FSM) and 

Handbooks and the Northern Regional Guide. 

The project analysis was guided by the goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and 

management area direction within the Nez Perce Forest Plan. This Project would help 

move the Forest toward desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan and other 

relevant planning direction. 

1-13

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 31 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1.10 CLEAN AIR ACT

The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 and amended numerous times since then, is the 

primary legal authority governing air quality management. This Act provides the 

framework for national, State, and local efforts to protect air quality. The Montana/Idaho 

State Airshed Group was formed to coordinate all prescribed burning activities in order 

to minimize or prevent impacts from smoke emissions and ensure compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) issued by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act. 

The Forest Service, including the Moose Creek Ranger District, is a member of this 

Airshed Group. The Project area is in North Idaho Airshed Unit 12A. All post-harvest

site preparation and fuel reduction treatments would be conducted according to the 

requirements of the Montana/North Idaho Smoke Management Unit guidelines. 

1.11 CLEAN WATER ACT

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, 

State, interstate, and local requirements; administrative authorities; and process and 

sanctions with respect to control and abatement of water pollution. Executive 

Order (EO) 12088 requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of this Act. 

Therefore, all State and federal laws and regulations applicable to water quality would 

be applied, including 36 CFR 219.27; the Clean Water Act; the Nez Perce Forest Plan, 

including PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and RHCAs; Idaho State 

Best Management Practices (BMPs); and Stream Alteration procedures. 

1.12 REGION 1 SOIL QUALITY STANDARDS

Region 1 soil quality standards (USDA Forest Service 1999) specify that at least 85% of 

an activity area (defined as a land area affected by a management activity) must have 

soil that is in satisfactory condition. In other words, detrimental impacts (including 

compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, and mass wasting) 

shall be less than 15% of an activity area. In areas where more than 15% detrimental soil 

conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from proposed 

activities, including restoration, shall not exceed the conditions prior to the proposed 

activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. Project design 

criteria would ensure that soil quality standards are met. 

Appendix C describes in detail a site-specific, nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment 

adopting Region 1 soils standards that would be included in all action alternatives in the 

DEIS. The following amendment to Nez Perce Forest Plan Soil Quality Standard #2, 

specific to the Clear Creek project area, is proposed: Where detrimental soil conditions 

from past activities affect 15 percent or less of the activity area, a cumulative minimum 

of 85 percent of the activity area shall not be detrimentally compacted, displaced, or 

puddle upon completion of activities. Where detrimental soil conditions from past 

activities affect more than 15 percent of the activity area, the cumulative DSD from 

project implementation and past activities shall not exceed the conditions prior to the 

planned activity and shall provide a net improvement in soil quality.” 

1-14

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 32 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

1.13 THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN AND THE HEALTHY FOREST 

RESTORATION ACT

The National Fire Plan (NFP) was developed in August 2000 following a landmark 

wildfire season with the intent of actively responding to severe wildland fires and their 

impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capabilities. The NFP 

addresses 5 key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, 

community assistance, and accountability. With regard to jurisdiction, direction in the 

NFP allows for the Forest Service to take NFP action on NFS lands, and for States to 

take and coordinate action on State and private lands. The Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act of 2003 (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148) contains a variety of provisions to address 

hazardous fuel reduction and forest restoration projects on specific types of federal lands 

that are at risk of wildland fire and/or insect and disease epidemics. The HFRA helps all 

landowners and managers restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on those lands, 

regardless of ownership. 

Both the NFP and HFRA provide overarching direction to reduce the threat of wildfire 

and restore ecosystems. Management actions proposed within the Project area are 

designed to be consistent with this direction. Particularly, proposed management 

activities would trend the general landscape condition toward desired fuel profiles and 

would optimize opportunities to treat hazardous fuels in identified Wildland-Urban 

Interface (WUI) lands and across the project area landscape. 

1.14 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FSM 2670 directs the Forest Service to conserve endangered and threatened species and 

to utilize its authorities in furtherance of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to 

avoid actions that may cause a species to become threatened or endangered. FSM 2670 

also requires the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable 

non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their 

geographic range on NFS lands. As directed by the ESA, biological assessments and 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA will be completed for this decision. The action 

alternatives are not expected to result in a jeopardy biological opinion for any listed 

species.

1.15 EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988 AND 11990

These federal Executive Orders (EOs) provide for the protection and management of 

floodplains and wetlands. Numerous floodplains and wetlands exist within the analysis 

area. 

EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential 

effects of actions it may take in a floodplain to avoid adversely impacting floodplains 

wherever possible, to ensure that its planning programs and budget requests reflect 

consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management, including restoring and 

preserving such land areas as natural undeveloped floodplains, and to prescribe 

procedures to implement the policies and procedures of this EO. 

1-15

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 33 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires Federal agencies to take action to avoid 

adversely impacting wetlands wherever possible, to minimize wetlands destruction and 

preserve the values of wetlands, and to prescribe procedures to implement the policies 

and procedures of this EO. Clear Creek Integrated Restoration project activities have 

been designed to be consistent with the requirements of EO 11988 and EO 11990. 

1.16 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898

EO 12898 (Environmental Justice) directs each federal agency to make environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. An 

associated memorandum emphasizes the need to consider these types of effects during 

NEPA analysis. The Proposed Action and alternatives would not disproportionately 

adversely affect minority or low-income populations, including American Indian tribal 

members. 

1.17 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112

EO 13112 (Invasive Species) was issued on February 3, 1999, to enhance federal 

coordination and response to the complex and accelerating problem of invasive species. 

EO 13112 directs federal agencies to work together [as stated in the Preamble] to 

“...prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to 

minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species 

cause.” Project activities have been designed to be consistent with the requirements of 

EO 13112. 

1.18 IDAHO FOREST PRACTICES ACT

The Idaho Forest Practices Act regulates forest practices on all land ownership in Idaho. 

Forest practices on NFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality 

(IDAPA 20.02.01). The rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality 

Standards. Project activities have been designed to be consistent with the Idaho Forest 

Practices Act. 

1.19 IDAHO ROADLESS RULE

The Idaho Roadless Rule, promulgated on October 16, 2008 (73 FR 61456), identified a 

system of lands called “Idaho Roadless Areas” and established 5 management themes. 

These 5 themes protect roadless areas and their important characteristics by assigning 

various permissions and prohibitions regarding road building, timber cutting, and 

discretionary mineral activities. The final Rule also allows the Forest Service to reduce 

the risk of wildland fires to at-risk communities and municipal water supply systems. 

The final Rule supersedes the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for NFS lands in 

the State of Idaho. Project activities have been designed to be consistent with the Idaho 

Roadless Rule. The State of Idaho, Idaho Roadless Commission reviewed the Clear 

Creek Integrated Restoration Project’s proposed activities on March 14, 2013. 

1-16

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 34 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

1.20 IDAHO STREAM CHANNEL PROTECTION ACT

The Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act regulates stream channel alterations between 

mean and high water marks on perennial streams in Idaho (IDAPA 37.03.07). Instream 

activities on NFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to the Act. The rules are also 

incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. Project activities have been 

designed to be consistent with the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act.

1.21 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, SECTIONS 101 AND 106

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) was signed 

into law on January 1, 1970. NEPA establishes national environmental policy and goals 

for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment and provides a 

process for implementing these goals within the federal agencies. NEPA also established 

the CEQ. 

Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy that requires 

the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions 

under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. Section 102 requires 

federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and 

decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all 

federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of 

and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These 

statements are commonly referred to as Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). 

The public has an important role in the NEPA process, particularly during scoping, to 

provide input on what issues should be addressed in an EIS and to comment on the 

findings in an agency's NEPA documents. The public can participate in the NEPA 

process by attending NEPA-related hearings or public meetings and by submitting 

comments directly to the lead agency. The lead agency must consider all comments 

received from the public and other parties on NEPA documents during the comment 

period. 

1.22 NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600–1614, August 1974, as 

amended 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1990) reorganized, expanded, and 

otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on NFS lands. NFMA 

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands; develop a management 

program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles; and implement a resource 

management plan for each unit of the NFS. It is the primary statute governing the 

administration of national forests. Project activities have been designed to be consistent 

with the NFMA. 

1.23 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to 

preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage. The 

legal processes associated with the protection and preservation of these resources is 

1-17

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 35 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Purpose and Need for Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (36 CFR 800) and 

subsequent amendments. Passed by Congress two years before NEPA, the NHPA sets 

forth a framework for determining if a project is an “undertaking” that has the potential 

to effect cultural resources. The implementing regulations also outline the processes for 

identifying, evaluating, assessing effects, and protecting such properties. The 

coordination or linkage between the Section 106 process of the NHPA and the mandate 

to preserve our national heritage under NEPA is well understood and is formally 

established in 36 CFR 800.3b and 800.8. The terminology of “...important historic, 

cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage” found in NEPA includes those 

resources defined as “historic properties” under the NHPA (36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)). It is 

thus the Section 106 process that agencies utilize to consider, manage, and protect 

historic properties during the planning and implementing stages of federal projects. The 

Forest meets its responsibilities under NHPA through compliance with the terms of a 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) signed between Region 1, the Idaho State Historic 

Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

1.24 TRIBAL TREATY RIGHTS

American Indian tribes are afforded special rights under various federal statutes: NHPA; 

NFMA; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (43 CFR Part 7);

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) 

(43 CFR Part 10); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103141); and the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA). Federal guidelines direct 

federal agencies to consult with tribal representatives who may have concerns about 

federal actions that may affect religious practices, other traditional cultural uses, or 

cultural resource sites and remains associated with tribal ancestors. Any tribe whose 

aboriginal territory occurs within a project area is afforded the opportunity to voice 

concerns for issues governed by NHPA, NAGPRA, or AIRFA. 

Federal responsibilities to consult with tribes are included in the NFMA; Interior 

Secretarial Order 3175 of 1993; and EOs 12875, 13007, 12866, and 13084. EO 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership) calls for regular consultation with tribal 

governments. EO 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) requires consultation with tribes and 

religious representatives on the access, use, and protection of sacred sites. EO 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review) requires that federal agencies seek views of tribal 

officials before imposing regulatory requirements that might affect them. EO 13084 

(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) provides direction 

regarding consultation and coordination with tribes relative to fee waivers. EO 12898 

(Environmental Justice) directs federal agencies to focus on the human health and 

environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities, especially in 

instances where decisions may adversely impact these populations (see “Executive 

Order 12898” above). NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) invite tribes to participate 

in forest management projects and activities that may affect them. 

Portions of the Forest are located within ceded lands of the Nez Perce Tribe. Ceded 

lands are federal lands on which the federal government recognizes that a tribe has 

certain inherent rights conferred by treaty. In Article 3 of the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, 

1-18

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 36 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need for Action

the United States of America and the Nez Perce Tribe mutually agreed that the 

Nez Perce retain the following rights: 

...taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens 

of the Territory [of Idaho]; and of creating temporary buildings for curing, 

together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and 

pasturing horses and cattle...

The Clear Creek Integrated Restoration project has been presented to the Nez Perce 

Tribe at quarterly staff-to-staff meetings since April 2012. 

1-19

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 37 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 38 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2–Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Clear Creek 

Integrated Restoration Project, including alternatives considered but eliminated from 

detailed study. Maps of each alternative considered are included in Appendix A. This 

section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the 

differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for options available to 

the Responsible Official. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is 

based on the design of each alternative (such as regenerating versus deferring stands that 

have root disease), and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, 

and economic effects of implementing each alternative (such as building new temporary 

roads versus deferring treatment in inaccessible stands).

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The Forest Service developed the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the Proposed 

Action as modified in response to scoping comments (Alternative B), and two additional 

action alternatives (Alternatives C and D) in response to issues raised by the public. 

2.2.1 Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

The following actions would be included in all of the action alternatives. 

• 1,887 acres of precommercial thinning, 41 acres of grass restoration, and 1,371 

acres of prescribed fire

• 119.8 miles of system road reconstruction (Appendix B) 

• 13.2 miles of system road decommissioning (Appendix B) 

• A site-specific nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment adopting the Region 1 soil 

standard of 15% for detrimentally compacted, displaced, or puddled soils 

(Appendix C) 

• A site-specific, nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment clarifying the Forest’s 

interpretation of Appendix N of the Nez Perce Forest Plan (Appendix D). 

• The Design Criteria described later in this chapter

2.2.2 Alternative A: No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. No timber harvest, improvement cutting, temporary 

road construction, prescribed burning, grass restoration, road reconstruction, or road 

decommissioning would be implemented to accomplish project goals. 

2.2.3 Alternative B: Proposed Action (As Modified In Response to 

Scoping Comments)

This alternative was developed in response to comments about the Proposed Action that 

was presented for public scoping in January 2012 (see Chapter 1 for a detailed 

2-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 39 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

description of the Proposed Action that was used for scoping). Alternative B would 

move the project area toward the desired conditions identified for the project during the 

pre-NEPA phase.

During the pre-NEPA phase of project development, the IDT identified large polygons 

or patches within the Project area referred to as “Focus Areas.” The Focus Areas were 

identified based on a need to promote similar age classes by connecting recently 

regenerated stands (preferably those regenerated within the last 20 years). The intent was 

to establish breaks in continuous fuels, favor areas with known or developing forest 

health issues, and target over-represented mid-seral and mature age classes. The IDT 

also attempted to bound these areas with identifiable features, such as forest type breaks, 

topographic breaks, and administrative boundaries. The Focus Areas served as the basis 

for developing the proposed action. A new Focus Area, developed after the Proposed 

Action was presented for scoping, was added to all of the action alternatives. It includes 

about 420 acres of regeneration harvest and some commercial and precommercial thin 

units. This new Focus Area also includes 1.2 miles of temporary roads, some of which 

would be on existing templates. 

Within the Focus Areas, stands identified for regeneration would be regenerated to 

improve patch sizes, increase the amount of early seral forest across the landscape, and 

allow replanting with a mix of species that would improve the long-term resilience of 

these stands. Healthy grand fir/Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and other early seral stands 

would be commercially thinned. If root disease were detected in younger Douglasfir/grand fir stands proposed for commercial thinning, treatment of these stands would be 

deferred. 

Outside of the Focus Areas, healthy grand fir/Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and other 

early seral stands would be commercially thinned. If root disease were detected in 

younger Douglas-fir/grand fir stands proposed for commercial thinning, treatment of 

these stands would be deferred. 

All prescribed fire treatments would occur within the Clear Creek Roadless Area. 

Table 2-1 summarizes the activities to be undertaken under Alternative B, and 

Appendix A contains a map of the proposed activities. 

Table 2-1. Alternative B Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Road Construction

Treatment Amount

Precommercial thinning (acres) 1,887

Grass restoration (acres) 41

Prescribed fire (acres) 1,371

Regeneration, Including Site Preparation and Reforestation (acres) 2,609

Improvement (acres) 331

Commercial Thin (acres) 5,606

Road reconstruction (miles) 119.8

Temporary Roads on Existing Templates (miles) 8.7

Temporary Roads, New Construction (miles) 27.6

Road decommissioning (miles) 13.2

2-2 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 40 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.2.4 Alternative C: Maximal Species Conversion

This alternative would address vegetative restoration needs described in the purpose and 

need for action, but to a greater degree than Alternative B. Desired conditions developed 

for this project indicate that young forest, particularly the 0–10 year age class, is well 

below desired conditions. Alternative C would move the project area toward the desired 

conditions by regenerating as many stands as possible, while still meeting objectives for 

other resources. This alternative was developed in response to scoping comments about 

the following resource concerns: 

• Patch size and fragmentation 

• Improvement of the distribution of hiding cover relative to foraging habitat 

• Increase in the amount of early successional stands and wildlife foraging habitats 

• Forest structure

• Economics 

• Increase in stand mortality, by spreading root disease by commercially thinning 

stands infected 

• Increase distribution of early seral species across the landscape

Alternative C would include 3,742 acres of commercial thin outside of the original 

Focus Areas. 

Within the Focus Areas, stands identified for regeneration would be regenerated to 

improve patch sizes, increase the amount of early seral forest across the landscape, and 

allow replanting with a mix of species that would improve the long-term resilience of 

these stands. Stands proposed for commercial thinning that are not comprised of early 

seral species would be regenerated. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.17 allows the 

Forest Service to regenerate young stands based on specific ecological, resource, and 

management criteria to meet the purpose and need of a specific project.

Outside of the Focus Areas, healthy grand fir/Douglas-fir, pine, and other early seral 

stands would be commercially thinned. If root disease were detected in younger 

Douglas-fir/grand fir stands proposed for commercial thinning, treatment of these stands 

would be deferred. 

Table 2-2 summarizes the activities to be undertaken under Alternative C, and 

Appendix A contains a map that displays the proposed activities.

2-3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 41 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-2. Alternative C Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Road Construction

Treatment Amount

Precommercial thinning (acres) 1,887

Grass restoration (acres) 41

Prescribed fire (acres) 1,371

Regeneration, Including Site Preparation and Reforestation (acres) 4,156

Improvement (acres) 331

Commercial Thin (acres) 4,220

Road reconstruction (miles) 119.8

Temporary Roads on Existing Templates (miles) 8.7

Temporary Roads, New Construction (miles) 27.6

Road decommissioning (miles) 13.2

2.2.5 Alternative D: Minimal Temporary Road Construction

Alternative D would address the need for vegetative rehabilitation in the Clear Creek 

watershed, but to a lesser degree than Alternative B. This alternative would use existing 

road templates as much as possible. It was developed in response to scoping comments 

about the following resource concerns: 

• Road densities/cumulative impacts of past management 

• Sediment input to stream channels 

• Cumulative impacts of past timber harvest and road building on fisheries habitat, 

water quality, and soil productivity 

• Effects of the road network on elk security habitat

• Meeting desired conditions for watersheds, fish, and wildlife habitats 

A total of 8.7 miles of previously decommissioned roads that have existing templates 

(were not physically obliterated) would be reopened and 8.8 miles of new temporary 

roads would be constructed. Existing road templates were identified through photo 

interpretation, including aerial photos from 1970 and subsequent years, the LIDAR 

layer, and field reviews. The average length of new temporary road construction would 

be 375 feet; the average length of the existing template is 820 feet. New temporary 

construction would be added to the existing templates. 

Units would be harvested as described for Alternative B, except that some units would 

be dropped if they were not accessible by the more limited road system proposed for 

Alternative D.

Table 2-3 summarizes the activities to be undertaken under Alternative D, and Appendix 

A contains a map that displays the proposed activities. 

2-4 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 42 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3. Alternative D Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Road Construction

Treatment Amount

Precommercial thinning (acres) 1,887

Grass restoration (acres) 41

Prescribed fire (acres) 1,371

Regeneration, Including Site Preparation and Reforestation (acres) 2,178

Improvement (acres) 211

Commercial Thin (acres) 5,141

Road reconstruction (miles) 119.8

Temporary Roads on Existing Templates (miles) 8.7

Temporary Roads, New Construction (miles) 8.8

Road decommissioning (miles) 13.2

2.2.6 Design Criteria

The following design criteria would be included as actions common to all action 

alternatives.

2.2.6.1 Soils

Effectiveness of design features are moderate to high based on past monitoring and 

research (Froehlich and McNabb 1983; Graham et al. 1994; Graham et al. 1999; Korb 

2004; Neary et al. 2008; Curran et al. 2005a,b).

1) When machine piling, existing duff/litter would be retained (as much as possible 

and not included in the activity slash piling. 

2) Skid trails, landings, and yarding corridors would be located and designated to 

minimize the area of increased detrimental soil effects. This would not preclude 

the use of feller bunchers off skid trails if soil impacts can remain within 

standards. 

3) Approximately 250 acres of landslide prone areas have been mapped and field 

verified in the harvest units. These landslide prone areas would be further 

delineated in the field during unit layout and would receive a PACFISH buffer. 

No harvest activities would occur in these areas. 

4) Landslide prone areas in prescribed fire units would receive a PACFISH buffer. 

No ignition would occur in these areas, although fire would be allowed to back 

through. 

5) For units with high subsurface erosion potential, the amount of excavated skid 

trails and landings would be limited to the extent possible, and all excavated skid 

trails and landings on these landtypes would be decommissioned (full recontour) 

and large woody material would be placed over the slope for soil stabilization. 

6) For Units designated in the reuse, trending positive, and Forest Plan amendment 

design categories (see section 3.6.5): A logging system layout design would be 

developed to use as many of the existing skid trails and landings as possible and 

limit the amount of new detrimental disturbance and all skid trails and landings 

used would be decommissioned after use. Actions would include 

2-5 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 43 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

scarifying/decompacting soils and placement of slash, woody material, and/or 

duff over exposed soil. Equipment used for machine piling or mastication of 

activity slash would remain on designated skid trail or would be required to 

rehabilitate (decompact or recontour) any detrimental disturbance they cause.

7) For Units designated in the special design category (see section 3.6.5), special 

attention would be needed for these units to remain at or below 15% Detrimental 

Soil Disturbance (DSD) following project implementation. Methods to ensure 

this might include locating main skid trails only on existing disturbed areas, with 

few “one-pass” trails occurring on undisturbed ground; using a cut-to-length 

forwarder system; requiring equipment used for machine piling or mastication of 

activity slash to remain on designated skid trails; and developing a logging 

system layout design that limits the amount of new detrimental disturbance. 

Portions of the unit could be dropped if the layout plan cannot reach the entire 

unit while staying under the 15% standard. The estimated amount of acres of new 

disturbance has been calculated for each unit and can be found in the project file. 

In addition, all skid trails and landings and temporary roads (see item 10 for 

temporary road decommissioning) would be decommissioned. 

8) For all harvest units, decompaction would be required on skid trails where 

excavation or ground disturbance has occurred or where successive passes have 

taken place over the same trail. Decompaction would be conducted to improve 

soil productivity and meet Regional soil quality standards. Decompaction would 

span the width of the compacted areas and extend to a depth of 10–18 inches, to 

effectively loosen the ground to allow water penetration and revegetation and to 

prevent the rocky sub-surface soils from mixing with the topsoil. The depth of 

decompaction should be adjusted to avoid turning up large rocks, roots, or 

stumps. Equipment would not be permitted to operate outside the clearing limits 

of the skid trail. Decompaction should be done during from June 15 to October 

15, unless otherwise approved. No decompaction work should be done during 

wet weather or when the ground is frozen or otherwise unsuitable. All erosion 

control barriers and cross ditches removed or otherwise rendered ineffective by 

the decompaction treatment should be reinstalled as they were prior to the 

decompaction. 

9) In all units, to reduce ground disturbance, no ground based skidding would be 

allowed on slopes over 35%, unless mitigating measures, such as operating on 

adequate compacted snow or only over short distances, are approved by the soil 

specialist.

10) All temporary roads would be scarified and decommissioned (all new 

construction would be recontoured; existing prisms would be placed in a stable 

condition through recontouring and/or decompaction). Cut/fill slopes and 

crossings would be reshaped to natural contours. Available slash would be 

applied to the recontour surface (slash is considered “available” where the 

equipment can reach it from the working area where the decommissioning is 

occurring).

11) Activities would be restricted when soils are wet to prevent resource damage 

(indicators include excessive rutting, soil displacement, and erosion). 

2-6 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 44 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

12) For all harvest units, coarse woody material appropriate to the site would be 

retained for nutrient cycling, maintaining soil moisture, soil stability, and other 

soil physical and biological properties after all unit activities. Regional guidance 

for organic matter recommends the following guidelines, such as retaining coarse 

(> 3 inches diameter) woody material to maintain soil productivity (Graham et al. 

1994). Drier habitat types have wood retention requirements of 7–15 tons/acre 

for Douglas-fir, grand fir, and ponderosa pine types. Moister habitat types require 

17–33 tons/acre. Approximately 14–28 standing trees would be retained for 

future down wood recruitment. Snags or other designated retention trees felled 

for safety reasons would be left in the unit. 

13) Burning of activity generated slash would be designed in the project burn plan to 

provide a low-severity mosaic burn with little-to-no detrimental disturbance of 

soil resources (Neary et al. 2008). Slash would be allowed to overwinter prior to 

burning. This does not include whole tree yarding. 

2.2.6.2 Wildlife

1) All temporary roads would be closed to the public and decommissioned 

following use. 

2) All existing access restrictions and a vegetative screen (1 site potential tree 

height) of shrubs and sapling and pole size trees where they exist would be 

maintained along open motorized roads to help maintain elk habitat quality and 

reduce hunting season vulnerability. 

3) Verified old growth would be designated MA 20 and all MA 20 would be full 

retention. 

4) Old growth would be treated with improvement harvest. The stands proposed for 

improvement harvest contain some exceptionally large ponderosa pine and other 

large old trees in a mosaic of young trees that likely developed from fire 

exclusion. Fuels in these areas have increased due to encroachment of grand fir 

forming ladder fuels and fuel accumulation on the ground associated with 

ongoing mortality from insects and disease and fire suppression. The treatments 

would be designed to maintain and improve resiliency of specific trees with a 

combination of commercial and non-commercial activities. Improvement harvest 

in old growth would not change old-growth status per Green et al (1992 as 

amended) old growth criteria. This "fully maintains, or contributes toward the 

restoration of, the structure and composition of old growth stands..." per PL 111-

11 Title IV (2009). 

5) Using standard contract provisions C2.3 and C6.32, large snags would be 

retained. Each post-treated area, on average, would comply with mean snag 

retention values displayed in Table 12 of Estimates of Snag Densities for 

Northern Idaho Forests in the Northern Region, (Bollenbacher et al. 2009) for 

low and mid elevation moist habitat types in early seral conditions (at least 3 

snags per acre greater than 15 inches diameter at breast height [dbh] and at least 

3 snags per acre greater than 21 inches dbh). Preferred species (ponderosa pine, 

western larch, Douglas-fir) of large, legacy snags would be selected for retention. 

Alternate tree species would be retained where preferred species do not exist in 

2-7 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 45 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

quantities to meet Regional guidance. Large snags would be retained with green 

trees in groups of 7–10 trees or larger retention patches. Preference would be 

given to the largest available snags or damaged trees, generally greater than 21 

inches in diameter and greater than 40 feet tall. A combination of clumps (groups 

of live and dead trees) and lone snags that have little potential to cause safety 

issues would be retained. Avoid snag retention near log landings and firelines 

and within 100 feet below and 200 feet above open motorized roads. Snag or live 

retention trees felled for safety purposes would be left on site or traded with a 

comparable tree.

6) In treatment areas, all legacy trees (large diameter trees that survived the last 

stand replacing event) would be retained. In Clear Creek, these trees frequently 

are over 30 inches dbh. Legacy trees may be unevenly distributed and retained in 

clumps as well as individual trees. This design measure allows hazardous fuels 

reduction while “...maximizing the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the 

forest type...” per PL 111-11 Title IV (2009). 

7) Green tree retention in all regeneration and improvement harvest areas would 

consist of an average of 14–28 of the largest trees per acre (generally over 

21 inches dbh) distributed in clumps (7–10+ trees plus snags) and individuals, 

with no area greater than 2 acres without retained trees. Tree retention would 

focus on ponderosa pine, western larch, and healthy Douglas-fir, and large tree 

retention would be maximized, as appropriate for the forest type per PL 111-11 

Title IV (2009).

8) Regeneration Harvest Leave Tree Survival: The Clear Creek project would strive 

for a variable tree survival objective for the project as a whole, with the objective 

of having almost all legacy trees (large diameter trees that survived the last stand 

replacing fire) survive the prescribed burns. Fuel reduction measures (limb/top 

removal or slash reduction around these trees) would be implemented where 

needed to insure tree survival for the legacy larch, ponderosa pine and Douglasfir. For the non-legacy trees, the objective would be for a majority (>50%) of the 

leave trees to survive the prescribed burn. Prescribed fire might be allowed to 

back into RHCAs and retained clumps; however, no ignitions would be allowed 

within them. This objective could be accomplished through the use of 

appropriate ignition patterns, ignition rates, fuel moisture, and burn timing 

without any extra fuel reduction measures; however, that evaluation would be 

made following the project layout. These measures allow hazardous fuel 

reduction while “...maximizing the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the 

forest type...” per PL 111-11 Title IV (2009). 

9) Using standard contract provision C6.24 (Wildlife and Botanical Protection 

Measures), maintain a minimum 40-acre yearlong no-treatment buffer around 

occupied goshawk nest trees. No ground disturbing activities would be allowed 

inside occupied post-fledgling goshawk areas (300–600 acres around the nest 

stand) from April 15 to August 15 (R1-C6.316). 

10) If a den, nest sites, or other important habitat feature of any threatened, 

endangered, or SS were to be discovered within or in close proximity to any 

2-8 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 46 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

treatment unit, project activities would be coordinated with a wildlife biologist so 

that appropriate conservation measures could be developed. 

11) The spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants would be minimized by 

chemically treating any noxious weed populations along the existing road 

systems before and after project implementation (C6.27); monitoring and 

cleaning any equipment of loose debris prior entering the Project area to prevent 

“new invader” weed establishment (C6.351/C6.27); and revegetating projectrelated exposed soils (i.e. landings, skid trails, road sides, etc.) using certified 

noxious weed free native seed mix and fertilizer (as necessary) upon project 

completion. All seeding would follow Region 1 guidelines. 

12) In moose winter range (MA 21), silvicultural prescriptions that comply with 

Forest Plan standards would be developed for commercial thin and regeneration 

harvest areas and incorporated into marking or layout guidelines. The following 

commercial thin units occur in MA 21: 228, 230, 231, 234, 238, 335, 349–351, 

and 356–358. The following regeneration harvest units occur in MA 21: 136–

139, 145, and 146. 

13) Retained large down logs would be evenly distributed in regeneration and 

improvement units. On average, harvested areas would have 5 pieces per acre 

15–20 inches dbh and 30 feet long and 2 pieces per acre >20 inches dbh and 30 

feet long.

14) Landscape burning prescriptions, especially in MA 16 (winter range), would be 

developed to maintain the duff layer to prevent invasive species germination. Burn 

units 701–715 occur in MA 16. 

15) When compatible with established fish/water quality objectives and economics, 

units at the far end of roads would be cut first (Forest Plan Standard #11 page II19). 

2.2.6.3 Aquatics

1) PACFISH default buffers would be used to define timber sale unit boundaries. 

No timber harvest would occur within 300 feet of fish-bearing streams, 150 feet 

of perennial non-fish bearing water, 100 feet of intermittent streams, and 150-

foot slope distance from the edge of wetlands larger than one acre. Ignition 

points for prescribed fire would be located outside of the PACFISH riparian 

buffers.

2) Prescribed fire would not be ignited in areas requiring 100 percent live canopy 

retention. The burn objective would be to prevent fire entry into these areas. 

Low-intensity fire may be allowed to back into the edges of some of these 

sensitive areas and would result in no less than 90% live-canopy retention for the 

area.

3) BMSs as found in Rules Pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act Title 38, 

Chapter 13, Idaho Code, and Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP)

Handbook, FSH 2509.22 would be applied to prevent non-channelized sediment 

delivery from harvest units to streams in the Project area. 

2-9 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 47 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4) Standard contract provision B6.341 would be applied throughout project 

implementation to minimize the risk of an accidental spill of petroleum products, 

as well as to protect water courses and aquatic biota from adverse effects in the 

event of a spill. 

5) During road decommissioning or culvert replacements, measures to prevent 

damaging levels of sediment from entering streams would be undertaken, such 

as: (a) placing removable sediment traps below work areas to trap fines; (b) when 

working instream, removing all fill around pipes prior to bypass and pipe 

removal (where this is not possible, use non-eroding diversion); (c) revegetating 

scarified and disturbed soils with weed-free grasses for short-term erosion 

protection and with shrubs and trees for long-term soil stability; (d) utilizing 

erosion control mats on stream channel slopes and slides; (e) mulching with 

native materials, where available, or using weed-free straw to ensure coverage of 

exposed soils; (f) dissipating energy in the newly constructed stream channels 

using log or rock weirs; and (g) armoring channel banks and dissipating energy 

with large rock whenever possible. 

2.2.6.4 Heritage Resources 

Table 2-4 describes mitigation measures/design criteria that would be implemented to 

protect Heritage Resources in the project area.

Table 2-4. Mitigation measures and design criteria that would be implemented to protect 

heritage resources in the Clear Creek project area

Site Number/Typea

Unit 

Number

Alternative C 

Harvest Method Mitigation

10IH487 / Lithic Scatter 309 Commercial Thin Avoid

10IH883 / Trail 230

354

Regeneration

Commercial Thin

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

10IH1746 / Lithic Scatter 309 Commercial Thin Avoid

10IH2164 / Lithic Scatter 307 Commercial Thin Avoid

10IH3197 / Trail 301

306

307

316

318

319

373

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

50 foot buffer

a Site locations are protected by law (36 CFR 296.18), but will be communicated to project personnel to 

insure protection.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any 

alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments 

received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative 

methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives would have 

modified the proposed action to the point where the purpose and need for action would 

2-10

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 48 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

not be met, would have been duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or were 

determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed 

consideration for reasons summarized below. See the “Issues” section in Chapter 1 for a 

more detailed discussion of the alternative-driving issues that were raised during 

scoping. 

Old Growth: The IDT considered an alternative that would harvest old growth stands, 

but did not study it in detail, although improvement cuts would be done in some old 

growth stands to help keep them on the landscape longer. Although the amount of old 

growth in the project area exceeds the Forest Plan minimum standard, CFLRA goals and 

objectives require that large diameter trees be retained as much as possible. Appendix D 

describes a site-specific Forest Plan amendment clarifying how Forest Plan standards for 

old growth would be interpreted for this project.

Watershed Rehabilitation (Road Decommissioning) Only; No Timber Harvest or 

Prescribed Burning: Some commenters asked that the IDT consider an alternative that 

would focus only on watershed rehabilitation activities, such as road decommissioning, 

with no timber harvest or prescribed burning. 

The IDT analyzed this alternative, but did not study it in detail because it would not meet 

the purpose and need for this project. Also, in effect, this “alternative” was previously 

analyzed in the South Fork–West Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning 

Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2011), which decommissioned 85 

miles of roads in the Clear Creek watershed. An additional 13.2 miles of NFS road 

decommissioning are proposed for the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project as 

actions common to all alternatives. 

Prescribed Burning-Only Alternative: The IDT analyzed an alternative that would use 

prescribed burning alone to manage vegetation, but did not study it in detail because it 

would not meet the purpose and need for this project, and because of economic 

concerns. Timber outputs from the proposed action would be used to offset treatment 

costs and support the economic structure of local communities and provide for regional 

and national needs. Also, burning commercial timber would not be consistent with the 

Forest Plan. 

No Prescribed Burning: Some commenters asked that the IDT develop an alternative 

that would not include any prescribed burning.

The IDT analyzed this alternative, but did not study it in detail because prescribed 

burning is the only viable tool available to manage vegetation within the Clear Creek 

Roadless Area. 

Prescribed fire is also an important and effective tool for reducing post activity fuels in 

treatment units as well as stimulating grass, forb and shrub re-growth. 

No Temporary Road Construction/Use Existing Roads Only/Helicopter Logging: 

Some commenters were concerned about existing road densities in the Clear Creek 

watershed and the effects of the road system on fisheries and wildlife habitat. 

2-11

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 49 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement

An alternative that would not build any temporary roads was considered but not 

analyzed in detail by the IDT because it would reduce the managed area to the point 

where the purpose and need to manage vegetation would not be met. The road system in 

the Clear Creek watershed has already been substantially reduced. The South Fork–West 

Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning DN/FONSI (2011) decommissioned 85 miles 

of roads. Temporary roads constructed for the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

would be decommissioned and recontoured after use. 

Watershed rehabilitation is better achieved by decommissioning old roads in poor 

locations and building new temporary roads in better locations, then recontouring them 

after use, than by reconstructing old roads in poor locations. 

The IDT considered an alternative that would build temporary roads only on existing or 

former road templates. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not 

provide enough access or access in the appropriate locations to meet the purpose and 

need to manage vegetation in the project area.

The IDT also considered an alternative that would use helicopter logging instead of 

building temporary roads. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because a timber 

sale based on helicopter logging alone would not be economically viable. Also, 

conducting follow-up management activities, such as site preparation and planting, 

would be very expensive. 

Do Not Use Vegetation Response Unit Desired Future Conditions Developed for 

this Project: Some commenters did not want the DFCs that were developed specifically 

for this Project to be used and asked that the IDT use Forest Plan goals and objectives 

alone to guide management activities.

The IDT considered this alternative, but did not analyze it in detail because projectspecific desired conditions that were developed during the pre-NEPA stage of project 

were based on Forest Plan direction and refined by the best available science. Sitespecific, VRU-based desired conditions that were based on Forest Plan goals, objectives, 

and standards, were used to develop the alternatives analyzed in detail.

2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. 

Information in the Table 2-5 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of 

effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 

Table 2-6 compares the alternatives by resource indicators and compares the alternatives 

by issue and resource indicators.

2-12

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 50 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Incl

Table 2-5. Comparison of Alternatives by Activity

Activity

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) Alternative C Alternative D C

Regeneration Harvest Acres

Within Focus Areas 0 2,609 3,995 2,017

Regeneration Harvest Acres 

Outside of Focus Areas 0 0 161 161

Total Regeneration Harvest 

Acres 0 2,609 4,156 2,178

Commercial Thin Acres Within 

Focus Areas 0 2,240 854 1,997

Commercial Thin Acres

Outside of Focus Areas 0 3,366 3,366 3,144

Total Commercial Thin Acres 0 5,606 4,220 5,141

Precommercial Thin Acres

Within Focus Areas 0 998 998 998

Precommercial Thin Acres 

Outside of Focus Areas 0 889 889 889

Total Precommercial Thin 

Acres 0 1,887 1,887 1,887

Improvement Harvest Acres 0 331 331 211

Restoration (Grass) 0 41 41 41

Prescribed Fire Acres 0 1,371 1,371 1,371

System Road Construction 

(miles) 0 0 0 0 

System Road Reconstruction 

(miles) 0 119.8 119.8 119.8

If reconstruction 

a road, the to

System Road Reconditioning 

(miles) 0 48.8 48.8 48.8

Temporary Roads—Existing 

Template (miles) 0 8.7 8.7 8.7

Temporary Roads—New 

Construction (miles) 27.6 27.6 8.8 No new te

System Road 

Decommissioning (miles) 0 13.2 13.2 13.2

2-13

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 51 of 280
Clear Creek Inte

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Enviro

Activity

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) Alternative C Alternative D C

Open Seasonally or Yearlong 

to Vehicles >50 inches wide 

(miles)

39.9 39.9 39.9 39.9 From 

Open Seasonally or Yearlong 

to <50-inch motorized vehicles 

(miles)

26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1 From 

Open Seasonally to 

Motorcycles (miles) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 From 

Forest Plan Amendment 0 1 1 1 

Forest Plan Amendment 0 1 1 1 O

Site Preparation and 

Reforestation 0 2,609 3,995 2,017

Mechanical sit

harvest; prescrib

2-14

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 52 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Incl

Table 2-6. Comparison of alternatives by activity

Resource Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Purpose and Need 1: Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Forest structure consists of a range of age and size 

classes with species diversity that is resistant and 

resilient to change agents (insects, diseases, and 

wildfires)

Early seral species represent a greater percentage of 

species mix? No Yes Yes 

Purpose and Need 2: Goods and Services

Sustained yield of resources outputs provided? No Yes Yes 

Purpose and Need 3: Watershed Improvement

Road system maintained to provide for timber harvest, 

recreation, fire suppression, and administrative use? Yes Yes Yes 

Table 2-7. Comparison of alternatives by issue and resource indicator

Issue and Resource Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alter

Aquatics/Fisheries Habitat 

RHCA Road Density 1.2 mi/mi2 1.0 mi/mi2 1.0 

Number of undersized culverts replaced and cross drains added 0 77 

FISHSED results for modeled changes in cobble embeddedness:

Hoodoo Creek 33% 34% (+1%) 34% 

Solo Creek 31% 32% (+1%) 32% 

Pine Knob Creek 44% 45% (+1%) 45% 

Clear Creek 38% 39% (+1%) 38% 

Middle Fork Clear Creek 55% 56% (+1%) 56% 

Brown Springs Creek 30% 32% (+2%) 32% 

South Fork Clear Creek 11% 11% (+0%) 11% 

Kay Creek 18% 18% (+0%) 18% 

2-15

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 53 of 280
Clear Creek Inte

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Enviro

Issue and Resource Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alter

Economics

Volume Harvested (CCF) 0 141,500 CCF 158

Volume Harvested (MBF) 0 75,300 8

Jobs Sustained 0 1,910 jobs 2,1

Community Harvest Income 0 $54,252,000 $60

Federal Income Tax 0 $8,138,000 $9,

Sale Feasibility (Present Net Value) 0 $4,171,000 $2,

Fuels

Percentage of Crown Fire Susceptible Landscape 51% 44% 

Fire Regime Condition Class FRCC2 (39%) FRCC2 (38%) FRC

Roadless Areas

Effects to Wilderness Values:

Natural Integrity No effect Beneficial Effect Bene

Undeveloped Characteristics No effect Minimal Effect Minim

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive Unconfined Recreation No effect Temporarily 

Affected

Tem

A

Special Features and Values No effect No Effect No 

Manageability No effect No Effect No 

Soils

Acres of ground based harvest activity on landtypes with high subsurface 

erosion hazard 0 3,080 

Miles of temporary roads on landtypes with high subsurface erosion hazard 0 30 miles 30 

Number of commercial harvest units requiring specialized design measures

to meet Regional soil standards 0 77 

2-16

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 54 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Incl

Issue and Resource Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alter

Vegetation

Percent Increase of Treatment Area with Forest Cover Type Dominated by 

Long-lived Early Seral Species 0 

13.26/73.96

61

9.0

Percent Change of the Treatment Area in Each Stand Age Class

Young (0-40 years) 0 68 

Mid-seral (41-100 years) 0 -30 

Mature (101-149 years) 0 -24 

Old (150+ years) 0 -15 

Dominant Vertical Structure Pattern Across Landscape 1 and 2 storied 1 and 2 storied 1 and 

Patch Sizes of the Structural Classes (mean patch size in acres)

Seral shrub 41 252 

Stand initiation 17 96 

Stem exclusion 13 131 

Understory reinitiation 23 83 

Young multi-story 20 26 

Old single-story 20 116 

Old multi-story 34 81 

2-17

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 55 of 280
Clear Creek Inte

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Draft Enviro

Issue and Resource Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alter

Wildlife

Wildlife Species’ Habitat Effect (acres treated in modeled potential habitat)

American Marten 0 1229 

Black-backed Woodpecker 0 649 

Fisher 0 3971 

Flammulated Owl 0 327 

Fringed Myotis 0 146 

Long-eared Myotis 0 674 

Long-legged Myotis 0 674 

Mountain Quail 0 35 

Pygmy Nuthatch 0 347 

Northern Goshawk (Nesting) 0 298 

Pileated Woodpecker (Nesting) 0 875 

Ringneck Snake 0 493 

Western Toad Uplands 0 59 

Elk Winter Range (acres treated in MA 16) 0 4380 

Elk Summer Range (# of Elk Analysis Areas meeting Forest Plan 

Standards) 7 7 

Elk Security- number of elk analysis areas meeting desired conditions 

(30%) 6 6 

Canada Lynx

Acres of Denning Habitat Treated 0 105 

Acres of Foraging Habitat Treated 0 62 

Consistent with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Decision Yes Yes 

Moose Winter Range (acres treated in MA 21) 0 776 

2-18

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 56 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives, Incl

Issue and Resource Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alter

Watershed

Percent increase in equivalent clearcut area (ECA)

Upper Clear Creek 0 15% 

South Fork Clear Creek 0 7% 

Lower Clear Creek 0 8% 

Percent Sediment Yield Increased Over Base (Natural) as Modeled By 

NEZSED

Pine Knob Creek 1.2% 16% 

Browns Spring Creek 2.0% 23% 

Clear Creek 0.8% 7% 

Solo Creek 1.5% 16% 

Middle Fork Clear Creek 1.0% 8% 

Kay Creek 1.5% 3% 

South Fork Clear Creek 0.6% 5% 

Hoodoo Creek 2.4% 20% 

Watershed Road Density (mi/mi2)

Pine Knob Creek 4.8 4.3 

Browns Spring Creek 4.1 3.2 

Clear Creek 2.3 2.3 

Solo Creek 3.5 3.1 

Middle Fork Clear Creek 2.4 2.2 

Kay Creek 2.5 2.4 

South Fork Clear Creek 1.6 1.6 

Hoodoo Creek 3.8 3.8 

Big Cedar Creek 4.6 4.4 

Lower Clear Creek Face 1.8 1.8 

2-19

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 57 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 58 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3–Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the 

alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the 

alternatives presented in Table 2-5 through Table 2-7. 

3.1 AQUATICS

This section summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the aquatic resource, which 

includes water quality and fisheries. The section was summarized from the “Clear Creek 

Restoration Aquatics Report,” available in the project record.

3.1.1 Analysis Area

The project area is about 43,700 acres and encompasses the upper two-thirds of the Clear 

Creek drainage and all of its tributaries. Clear Creek flows into the Middle Fork Clearwater 

River. This analysis area was selected because it includes all Forest Service–managed 

lands—and all the streams therein—that could be affected by project activities.

3.1.2 Regulatory Framework

Nez Perce National Forest Plan (Forest Plan) direction and all federal and State laws and 

regulations applicable to watershed and fisheries resources would be applied to the project, 

including the Clean Water Act, the ESA, Idaho Water Quality Standards, and the Idaho 

Forest Practices Act. 

Nez Perce National Forest Plan—Forest standards for water resources are found within the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987b, pages II-18 through II-22). The Forest Plan directs 

that forest management activities minimize sediment input to streams, meet beneficial uses, 

apply BMPs to ensure water quality standards are met or exceeded, and manage all water 

under the designated standards found in Forest Plan Appendix A. The project complies with 

this direction through the implementation of project design features and road improvement 

and decommissioning activities.

The Forest Plan was amended in 1995, following a joint decision (commonly called 

PACFISH) by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 

managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds on federal lands, including streams within 

the project area. The standards and guides from PACFISH would be applied to the project. 

The interim direction provided by PACFISH identifies and defines RHCAs, establishes 

RMOs, and applies standards and guidelines to meet the RMOs. PACFISH default RHCAs 

(buffers) include those areas within 300 feet of fish-bearing streams, within 150 feet of nonfish-bearing streams, and 100 feet on intermittent streams and wetlands of 1 acre or less. 

RHCA widths exceed state BMP standards. All management activities must be designed to 

cause no adverse effect to the designated RMOs, which dictate certain standards for large, 

instream woody material, stream temperature, width-to-depth ratios, bank stability, and pool 

frequency. The project would comply with PACFISH. 

3-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 59 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

36 CFR 219.20—These regulations require projects to achieve the following objectives: 

conserve the soil and water resource; protect streams, streambanks, and wetlands; provide for 

adequate fish habitat; and give special attention to riparian areas in regard to topography, 

vegetation type, soils, climate, and management objectives. 

Endangered Species Act— The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists bull trout as 

threatened under the ESA (www.fws.gov Feb. 6 2013). Steelhead trout and fall chinook 

salmon are also listed as threatened (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

[NOAA] www.nwr.noaa.gov). Consultation with the USFWS and NOAA is required for 

projects affecting these species. The project would be designed to have no adverse effects on 

listed species.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species—Since the Forest Plan was published in 1987, the 

Regional Forester has approved an updated list for the Forest (June 2008). The list can be 

found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5366363.pdf. This list 

includes 4 fish species: westslope cutthroat trout, interior redband trout, Snake River spring 

chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey. The western pearlshell mussel was added in 2010. A 

Biological Evaluation is required to determine the effects of the project on these species. The 

project may impact individuals but would not lead to the listing of species under ESA.

Idaho Forest Practices Act—This act regulates forest practices on all land ownerships in 

Idaho. Forest practices on National Forest lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to the act 

(IDAPA 20.02.01). The rules are also incorporated as BMPs in Idaho’s Water Quality 

Standards. The project would comply with the Idaho Forest Practices Act by implementing 

BMPs to protect and maintain water quality standards. 

3.1.3 Analysis Methodology

3.1.3.1 Stream and Habitat Surveys

Past and recent stream survey data were used to determine if instream conditions meet Forest 

Plan direction. Field surveys were conducted between 2010 and 2012 to assess road and 

culvert conditions, as well as fish presence at road crossings. General stream conditions were 

also noted. The survey data were used to develop proposed project activities. Google Earth 

(and other photo imagery), in combination with field surveys, was used to assess vegetative 

cover over project area streams and the availability of future woody material to those 

streams. Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to assess a variety of information, 

including road and stream miles within the project area.

Habitat surveys on anadromous fish streams were conducted by the Nez Perce Tribe in 1984. 

Stream habitat and fish surveys were also conducted by the Forest for Middle Fork Clear 

Creek, Solo Creek, and Pine Knob Creek in 1993. Information collected included physical 

data (stream type, habitat types, substrate, woody material, and sediment levels) and 

biological data (fish species, distribution, and densities). Stream habitat surveys were also 

conducted in 2007 and 2010 in the mainstem, West Fork, and South Fork of Clear Creek and

in Kay Creek as part of the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring effort. 

Cobble embeddedness surveys were conducted by Forest personnel in 2012 to determine 

compliance with Forest Plan water quality objectives. The USFWS Dworshak Fisheries 

Assistance Office was also contacted in 2012 in regard to past surveys they conducted in 

Clear Creek.

3-2 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 60 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.1.3.2 FISHSED Modeling 

Cobble embeddedness is a measure of how the rocks in a stream are surrounded, or 

embedded, by small materials such as silt or sand. Estimates of existing cobble 

embeddedness in project area streams, combined with NEZSED outputs for peak sediment 

yield (see Hydrology section), were used to predict potential changes in summer and winter 

rearing/carrying capacities for trout and salmon, using the FISHSED model (Stowell et al. 

1983). The model is run at the Forest Plan prescription watershed level only. The basic 

model assumes that an inverse relationship exists between the amount of fine sediment in 

spawning and rearing habitats and fish survival and abundance. In general, when sediment 

yields are increased over natural rates, especially on a sustained basis, fish biomass decreases 

(Bjornn et al. 1977). The FISHSED model is only useful for comparing alternatives (USDA 

Forest Service 2011) and is not designed to predict actual sediment levels. FISHSED 

calculations and additional information about the model, including assumptions, are in the 

project file.

3.1.4 Resource Indicators

The following resource indicators were developed in response to public comments and 

internal concerns and are associated with proposed road-related watershed improvement 

activities. Timber harvest was not considered, because monitoring indicates that retaining 

PACFISH buffers are adequate to prevent harvest-related sediment from reaching streams 

(USDA Forest Service 2009a; USDA Forest Service 2006; FEMAT 1993; K. Smith personal 

observations). 

Roads in RHCAs: Many miles of both system and nonsystem roads exist within PACFISH 

RHCAs. Many of these roads are not needed for future land management activities.

Unneeded roads should be decommissioned to reduce potential sediment input into streams 

from road surface runoff and potential stream-crossing failures. 

Resource indicator: RHCA road density 

The roads needed for management should not contribute sediment to streams from road 

surface runoff. Installing culverts that drain onto the forest floor from roadside ditches 

instead of into stream channels would minimize direct sediment contributions. Installing 

culverts designed to handle 100-year flow events on all streams would minimize the potential 

for plugging of the structure by debris. Surfacing roads could also reduce sediment runoff. 

Resource indicator: Number of undersized culverts replaced and cross drains added 

Deposited Sediment: Excessive amounts of fine sediment, particularly sand, can reduce fish 

reproduction success by plugging spawning gravels and affecting egg development and/or 

larval fish emergence (Meehan 1991; Waters 1995). Sand bedload can also decrease food 

production by scouring or burying gravel substrates and can decrease the amount of fish 

cover by filling in pools and burying logs (Alexander and Hansen 1983, 1986). The Forest 

Plan requires that projects that increase sediment yield in a prescription watershed (to the 

extent that the activity would be considered an “entry”) be modeled in both NEZSED and 

FISHSED. Activities included in the modeling include timber harvest, temporary road 

construction, and prescribed fire. 

Resource Indicator: FISHSED results for modeled changes in cobble embeddedness 

3-3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 61 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.1.5 Affected Environment

3.1.5.1 Aquatic Species and Habitats

NFS lands in the Clear Creek drainage contain a minimum of 223 miles of mainstem and 

tributary streams. Roughly 50 miles are considered fish-bearing; however, no recent fish 

density information is available. 

Habitat for cutthroat trout occurs in all fish-bearing streams. Cutthroat trout were observed 

between 2010 and 2012 well into the headwaters of most of the streams, but densities were 

not measured. Surveys conducted by the Forest in 1993 found very high densities of cutthroat 

trout in Solo Creek and Middle Fork Clear Creek. High concentrations were also found in 

upper Clear Creek, West Fork Clear Creek, and upper Pine Knob Creek during Nez Perce 

Tribe surveys (NPT 1984). 

Clear Creek includes 35 miles of designated critical habitat for steelhead trout (ESA 

threatened). Steelhead were found in moderate densities in Pine Knob Creek and Middle 

Fork Clear Creek, but none were found in Solo Creek (USDA Forest Service 1993) or West 

Fork Clear Creek (NPT 1984). Low densities were found in South Fork Clear Creek 

(NPT 1984). 

NFS lands along Clear Creek include 13 miles of spring chinook habitat. Habitat for both 

steelhead and chinook tends to occur in the middle and lower reaches of large streams. 

Compared to cutthroat trout, these species require larger streams and substrate for spawning 

and rearing. No chinook were observed during any of the habitat surveys; however, the 

Kooskia National Fish Hatchery, near the mouth of Clear Creek, annually released 20–30 

adult chinook above their trapping weir from 2006 to 2008. These fish likely spawned on the 

lower reaches of National Forest lands or on private lands (IDFG 2009). 

No bull trout were observed during 1993 surveys or during surveys conducted by the 

USFWS in 2007. Their absence was expected, as water temperatures do not appear to be 

conducive for this species. Bull trout prefer cold temperatures (below 14 °C) in the summer 

and are generally found in higher-elevation streams such as those in the upper Lochsa River 

(well upstream of the project area). Temperatures were measured in project area streams 

between 2007 and 2011. Daily maximum temperatures during the summer months averaged 

16–20 °C in all streams. 

No surveys for pearlshell mussels or Pacific lamprey have been conducted in the Clear Creek 

drainage, and neither of these species was mentioned during habitat surveys. Habitat for both 

species is likely available in the larger streams where low gradients (<3%) and sandy 

substrates combine to create preferred habitats. 

Two series of bedrock falls act as natural barriers to upstream fish passage in the drainage. 

One is located 0.6 miles up from the mouth of Hoodoo Creek, and the other is located on the 

West Fork of Clear Creek, 2.8 miles up from the mouth. Surveys in 2010 and 2011 found no 

fish above these barriers. 

Stream surveys conducted in 1984 indicate high levels of sediment and higher-than-preferred 

stream temperatures in the lower reaches on private lands. Sediment levels and temperatures 

were lower on NFS lands. Shallow water depths and lack of pool habitat were also noted as 

issues affecting fish production in the middle and upper reaches of Clear Creek. Surveys 

3-4 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 62 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

conducted in 1993 also noted higher-than-preferred sediment and lower-than-preferred wood 

levels. The low number of pools is directly related to low wood levels, because wood is the 

primary creator of pool habitats in these stream types.

The Forest Plan contains water quality objectives for streams in the project area (USDA 

Forest Service 1987b, Appendix A). These objectives are assessed using the DFC Analysis 

developed by Espinosa (1992) and are based on sediment levels as directed by the Forest 

Plan Appendix A Guidance document (USDA Forest Service 2011). Specifically, the 

guidance document states the following: 

Of the basinwide stream survey data collected over the years, the habitat components that 

appear to be the most repeatable and most reliably differentiate between reference and 

managed watersheds are measures or estimates of substrate condition, including cobble 

embeddedness and percent surface fines (USDA Forest Service 1998a, USDA Forest 

Service 2003). In addition, fish/water quality objectives in Appendix A were originally 

established based on substrate sediment only (Stowell 1986). 

...The portion of the DFC analysis that provides objectives for cobble embeddedness and 

percent fines by depth would be retained. Collection of measured substrate data, 

combined with existing legacy data and current PIBO data, where available, would be 

used to describe the existing condition. Substrate data would be the primary determinant 

in assessing whether Appendix A fish/water quality objectives are met.

Appendix A states that an upward trend (improvement) is required for streams that do not 

currently meet the water quality objectives. Timber management can occur in these 

watersheds concurrent with improvement efforts as long as a positive, upward trend in 

habitat carrying capacity is evidenced. All streams in the project area are experiencing an 

upward trend (Table 3-1). Data indicate that all streams (except for the mainstem and Middle 

Fork Clear Creek) meet the water quality objectives based on cobble embeddedness 

monitoring. 

3-5 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 63 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-1. Water quality objectives for watersheds in the Clear Creek project area

Forest Plan 

Prescription Watershed

Forest Plan 

Water Quality 

Objective 

Fishery 

Habitat 

Potential 

1987

Percent Cobble 

Embeddedness

(year)

Fishery 

Habitat 

Potentiala

2012

Pine Knob Creek 80% 50% 44% (2012) 65%

Browns Spring Creek 80% 50% 30% (2012) 82%

Clear Creek 90% 50% 38% (2012) 75%

Solo Creek 80% 70% 31% (2012)

46% (1993) 81%

Middle Fork Clear Creek 90% 50% 55% (1993) 55%

West Fork Clear Creek/

Hoodoo Creek 70% 50% 33% (2012) 79%

The two streams below utilized PIBO monitoring % fines by depth data (the most recent data 

available) in lieu of cobble embeddedness data 

Kay Creek 80% 60% 18% (2007) 95%

South Fork Clear Creek 80% 50% 11% (2010) 100%

a

Fishery habitat potential is assessed based on the Forest DFC Analysis (Espinosa 1992). Existing cobble embeddedness 

levels are compared to a DFC graph to obtain the Fishery Habitat Potential percentages. The actual cobble embeddedness 

level is not equivalent to the Forest Plan Water Quality Objective.

3.1.5.2 Management Activities Affecting Streams

PACFISH was designed to prevent adverse effects to listed fish species in the Columbia 

River drainage through streamside buffer retention and other guidance for management 

activities within the buffers. Buffer widths are 300 feet on each side of a fish-bearing stream, 

150 feet on perennial non-fish-bearing streams, and 100 feet on intermittent stream channels.

At least 10,700 acres (24%) of the analysis area are within PACFISH buffers.

Regeneration timber harvest activities have occurred on approximately 22% of NFSmanaged lands with an associated 190 miles of road. No-harvest buffers appear to have been 

retained since the 1960s on all but about 8% of the units. On the majority of the units (92%), 

buffers were a minimum of 50 feet wide. A total of 440 acres of regeneration harvest have 

occurred in the project area since PACFISH was implemented and appropriate-sized buffers 

were retained. A review of vegetation successional stages within the RHCAs (Figure 3-1) 

indicates that 9% are early successional (<40 years old), 34% are mid-seral (41–100 years 

old), 18% are mature (101–149 years old), and 39% are late successional (>150 years old). 

The majority of mid-seral stands are located in the Clear Creek Roadless Area, lower 

Hoodoo Creek, and lower West Fork Clear Creek and are a result of the 1931 wildfire that 

burned in the area. Successional stage information, combined with field reviews of the 

streams, indicates that RHCAs are well vegetated and only minimally (10%) affected by past 

timber harvest activities. 

3-6 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 64 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-1. Vegetation successional stages within riparian habitat conservation areas in the 

Clear Creek project area

3-7 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 65 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Roads near streams are the primary land management–related activity that affects stream 

conditions in the project area. Roads within riparian zones confine channels, which can 

negatively affect sediment and stream flow movement (Meehan 1991). Culverts under the 

roads are often undersized, impeding the passage of water and woody material during high 

flows. The small culvert size increases the risk that the pipe will plug with material and fail 

during high-flow events. Plugging of pipes can lead to an unwanted sediment pulse in 

streams. Crossing failures are costly to fix, and the sediment delivered to streams can take 

decades to flush out of the system. Road failures disturb existing vegetation and expose bare 

soil to potential erosion until the site heals. Riparian roads reduce stream shading and disrupt 

large, woody material recruitment through tree removal. Ditchlines that drain roads can direct 

flow and road surface sediment into perennial streams at crossings. These roads can be a 

chronic (ongoing) source of sediment and can increase water yield in streams. 

The US Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, and NOAA (NOAA 1998) have determined that 

watershed conditions can be rated “good” when streamside road densities are <1 mile per 

square mile (mi/mi2), “moderate” at 1–2 mi/mi2, or “poor” at >2 mi/mi2. A total of 20 miles 

of NFS system roads exist within PACFISH buffers, contributing to an overall road density 

of 1.2 mi/mi2. All but portions of 3 roads have been constructed perpendicular to streams 

instead of running along their length. This design limits the negative effects from roads on 

streams by minimizing the interaction between the two. In addition, work has begun on 85 

miles of system and nonsystem roads, which were cleared for decommissioning in 2011. The 

roadwork includes 3.5 miles of roads in RHCAs and at least 11 stream crossing removals. 

Stream/road crossing surveys have been conducted on 90% of the NFS roads from 2010 

through 2011. Only those roads proposed for retention were reviewed, since all crossings on 

roads proposed for decommissioning would be removed. A total of 200 crossings were 

assessed for condition, aquatic passage, potential failure risk, and level of work needed. 

Culverts or bridges were in place at 168 crossings; at 14 crossings, roads were in place, but 

culverts had been removed. A total of 10 culverts were cleared through previous NEPA for 

replacement. Four of these were replaced in 2012; two will be replaced in 2013. The 

remaining 4 will be replaced in 2014 and beyond. A total of 4 culverts were cleared for 

removal in 2011, with all being removed in 2012 and 2013. 

The road reviews found 62 culverts (“pipes”) that were adequately sized and had no need for 

work; 26 pipes in need of cleaning; 1 moderate-priority pipe needing removal; and 79 

culverts in need of replacement (1 high-priority, 43 moderate-priority, and 35 low-priority). 

Roughly 46 of the pipes (58%) drain very small streams or seeps and would be replaced with 

24- to 36-inch-diameter structures. The remaining 33 pipes would be replaced with structures 

ranging from 4 to 9 feet in diameter.

NFS system roads within the project area total 190 miles, of which 147 miles (77%) are 

graveled roads and 43 miles (23%) are native surfaced (dirt). Placing gravel on roads has 

been shown to reduce sediment runoff from the road surface (Meehan 1991). Burroughs and 

King (1985) conducted a study in Idaho using simulated rainfall to generate runoff and 

sediment yield from forest roads, ditchlines, and fill slopes. Results from the study showed 

that gravel reduced sediment yield by a factor of 4 when compared to no surfacing. They also 

found that where dense grass cover was present on the fill slopes of the road, sediment yield 

was reduced by 99%. The cut and fill slopes of roads within the Clear Creek project area are 

densely vegetated with grasses, shrubs, and trees. The majority of ditchlines also contain 

3-8 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 66 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

grasses, which can trap sediment. These conditions, along with the perpendicular stream/road 

crossings mentioned previously, minimize the risk of roads contributing large amounts of 

sediment to streams. 

Road use by motorized traffic disturbs the road surface, with some of the soil being deposited 

into ditchlines, where it can be delivered to streams (Meehan 1991). Within the project area, 

106 miles of roads are open seasonally or year-round to motorized use. A total of 66 miles 

(62%) are graveled, and 40 miles (38%) have a native surface. The combination of gravel 

surfacing and restricting traffic on half of the roads has helped to minimize sediment input to 

streams.

The overall risk of roads contributing sediment to streams is considered low on 153 miles of 

road. The low risk is associated with restricted-use roads, roads with gravel surfacing, and 

roads where live stream crossings are limited or nonexistent. The risk is moderate on the 

remaining 37 miles of road, as these roads include multiple live stream crossings and some 

form of motorized use. 

3.1.5.3 Effectiveness of Design Features

As noted in Chapter 2, several design features have been proposed to reduce the potential 

effects of activities on the aquatic resource. These design features have been demonstrated as 

effective as described below. 

PACFISH buffers—All management activities since 1995 have implemented PACFISH

buffers in order to eliminate or reduce impacts to riparian areas and streams. With no new 

large disturbances in RHCAs, no negative changes to the measured habitat parameters are 

expected to result from more recent management activities. Various field reviews and 

monitoring activities support the conclusion that the habitat conditions have improved since 

the writing of the Forest Plan in 1987 (see Water Quality Objectives table in the Existing 

Condition section). Much of the recovery is likely a result of fewer land-disturbing activities, 

better application of BMPs, PACFISH buffer retention, and better road design (USDA Forest 

Service 2009a, p. 91). Preliminary monitoring results from the PIBO monitoring across the 

Upper Columbia River Basin also indicate improving trends. Improvements have been noted 

in pool depth, bank stability, large wood frequency and volume, and the presence of 

spawning substrate (<3 inches in diameter) (USDA Forest Service 2009a).

BMPs would be followed for all action alternatives as stipulated by the Idaho Forest 

Practices Act. Idaho water quality standards regulate non-point source pollution from timber 

management and road construction activities through the application of BMPs. The adjacent 

Clearwater National Forest has an excellent record of successful implementation of BMPs. 

Between 1990 and 2002, the Forest had a BMP implementation rate of 98% and a 97.8% rate 

of effectiveness (Clearwater National Forest 2003). Survey results from 2004 through 2008 

indicate implementation and effectiveness rates of 98% or greater (these reports can be found 

at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/ResourceProg/ResourceProg.htm). The same BMPs 

would be applied to the project and are expected to have similar results. 

3-9 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 67 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.1.6 Environmental Consequences

3.1.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

As noted above, the analysis area for the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives is the 

project area. 

3.1.6.1.1 Alternative A—No Action

No logging, no road decommissioning, and no culvert replacements, additions, or removals 

would occur under the No Action Alternative. Any watershed improvement activities (culvert 

replacements through road reconstruction and decommissioning) would require additional 

NEPA analysis prior to implementation.

No direct effects to streams would result from the No Action Alternative, since no stream 

channels or streamside areas would be disturbed. 

The indirect effects include the following: 

• Roads needed for future management that may be contributing sediment to 

streams would continue to do so until further NEPA is completed and funding is 

obtained to improve them. Culverts would remain undersized, and ditchlines 

would remain connected to streams. Thirty-seven miles of road would be 

maintained in the moderate-risk category for sediment entering streams from 

ditchlines. Roughly 79 crossings would remain at risk for failure due to retention 

of undersized culverts. An estimated average of 100 cubic yards of soil could be 

delivered to a stream in the event of one crossing failure.

• The 3.2 miles of NFS system roads proposed for decommissioning within RHCAs 

could continue to deliver sediment to streams through road surface erosion or 

future failure. A total of 17 stream crossings are associated with these roads. The 

risk is considered low for all but 1 mile of road. The 1 mile of NFS road 77781 at 

the head of Big Cedar Creek has the highest risk of effects because it runs 

adjacent to the stream and occurs within 150 feet of it on average. Road densities 

in RHCAs would remain at 1.2 mi/mi2

. 

• No management-related changes, either positive or negative, would occur in the 

existing aquatic habitat condition. Instream and riparian processes of habitat 

development and wood recruitment would continue in the project area. Riparian 

habitat conditions would continue to improve as growing, aging trees gradually

provide shade and large, woody debris to streams. 

Alternative A would inhibit the ability of the Forest to further limit or reduce sediment 

delivery to streams from roads in order to meet or maintain Forest Plan water quality 

objectives. In the event of stream crossing failures, this alternative has the potential to affect 

the Idaho state standard for cold water aquatic life and salmonid spawning. The risk of 

crossing failures increases as culverts age and their conditions deteriorate. This alternative 

does not include other management activities that would affect beneficial uses.

3.1.6.1.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

Design features would be used to minimize direct input of sediment to streams from 

management activities. PACFISH buffers would be retained on perennial and intermittent 

3-10

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 68 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

streams adjacent to timber harvest units. Temporary roads would be built along or near 

ridgetops with no stream crossings. Road reconstruction would install cross-drain culverts to 

divert roadside ditch flow onto the forest floor instead of into streams. Road surfacing with 

gravel would also occur where needed. Road decommissioning would remove all perennial 

and intermittent stream channel crossings and would recontour roads within RHCAs. No 

prescribed fire would be ignited within PACFISH buffers, though low-intensity fire would be 

allowed to back into them. Grassland improvement activities would occur outside of 

PACFISH buffers.

Few if any direct effects would occur to fish or their habitat from implementing the action 

alternatives, due to the following: 

• PACFISH buffer retention would prevent any direct effects to fish or their habitat

from timber harvest, precommercial thinning, or prescribed fire activities taking 

place under the action alternatives. All vegetation would be retained within the 

buffers. Data have shown that buffers are adequate to prevent sediment input into 

streams (USDA Forest Service 2006; FEMAT 1993; K. Smith personal 

observations). All potential instream and riparian woody debris would be retained, 

and no streamside vegetation would be removed. No disturbance would occur in 

riparian areas or stream channels during timber harvest, and past monitoring 

indicates that little disturbance would be expected from prescribed fire. 

• Road decommissioning in all the action alternatives would remove 3.2 miles of 

roads from RHCAs, and all affected areas would be fully recontoured. This 

decommissioning would result in a 16% reduction in RHCA road miles and the 

removal of an estimated 17 stream crossings. Decommissioning would return 13 

acres of RHCA back into a forested state over time. Road densities in RHCAs 

would be reduced to 1.0 mi/mi2, which would move the watershed condition 

category from moderate to good, as defined by NOAA (1998). 

• Road reconstruction would replace 77 undersized culverts with culverts sized for 

a 100-year flow event. Cross-drain culverts would also be installed in ditchlines 

on both sides of the culverts in order to divert ditchline flow away from the 

streams.

• Road decommissioning and replacement of undersized culverts are the only 

activities that would directly affect streams. Instream activities during culvert 

removals and replacements would introduce locally measurable amounts of 

sediments immediately downstream of the sites. The sediments and increased 

turbidity levels would settle out downstream; the distance is expected to be less 

than 500 feet due to small stream size and low flow during the dry season, when 

work would occur. This disturbance may degrade substrate conditions, as fine 

sediments deposit over existing gravels. However, sediment input would occur 

over a short time frame (1 day per site). The estimated amount of sediment 

potentially added to a stream from culvert removal is less than 20 pounds 

(0.04 cubic yards) per site (Foltz et al. 2008). No direct effects to threatened or 

sensitive aquatic species would occur, as none of these species are known to 

reside within a minimum of 1,000 feet of any of the removal sites. Culvert 

removals would provide a direct benefit to all aquatic species by eliminating the 

risk of future crossing failures 

3-11

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 69 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Culvert removal and replacement would remove about 0.1 acres of riparian 

vegetation at each site. Removing primarily shrubs and small trees is unlikely to 

cause stream temperature increases, because the area affected is small (estimated 

to be <10 acres for all sites combined). No measurable changes to stream 

temperatures are expected, because all streams above and below the work sites are 

well shaded by dense vegetation (shrubs/trees).

• No direct effects to streams would occur from road reconditioning or cross-drain 

culvert installation activities since no stream channels would be disturbed. Crossdrain culverts will be installed an average of 50 feet away from stream channels, 

and no mechanism is present to deliver sediment to streams from this activity.

• No direct effects to streams and threatened or sensitive aquatic species would 

occur from temporary road construction activities since all roads would be located 

on or near ridgetops where there are no stream crossings and would be 

decommissioned after use. No mechanisms are present that could deliver 

sediment into stream channels from these roads; PACFISH buffers and vegetation 

and woody debris left within harvest units act as barriers to potential sediment 

delivery. The action alternatives would not directly affect Idaho State standards 

for cold water aquatic life, secondary contact recreation, or salmonid spawning. 

The indirect effects to fish or their habitat from implementing the action alternatives would 

be minimal to beneficial because of the following:

• No indirect effects to streams would occur from timber harvest or temporary road 

construction. PACFISH buffers are effective at preventing sediment delivery to 

streams from these activities. They are also effective at maintaining stream 

temperatures. Road reconditioning—including road surfacing and removal of 

small slumps that block ditchlines, divert water onto the road surface, and cause 

surface erosion—would be beneficial to streams. Monitoring of other projects 

indicates that no indirect effects should be expected from low-intensity prescribed 

fire that would be allowed to back into PACFISH buffers. This type of fire does 

not typically make its way to riparian areas or streams. 

• No effects to PACFISH RMOs (pool frequency, water temperature, large woody 

debris, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width-to-depth ratio) are expected, 

because riparian areas would not be disturbed. As noted in the Watershed section, 

water yield is not expected to increase to the point where it would decrease bank 

stability, and sediment yield would not increase sediment delivery to the point 

where it would affect width-to-depth ratios. 

• Road decommissioning would remove 17 crossings and the fill material 

associated with them. This removal would eliminate the risk of crossing failures

at these sites and subsequent input of at least 1,700 cubic yards of soil into 

streams. Decommissioning would provide for long-term beneficial effects to 

streams. 

• Road reconstruction under all action alternatives would reduce the risk of 

sediment delivery to streams. Culverts would be replaced and cross-drain culverts 

installed at 77 stream crossings under all the action alternatives. After project 

activities are complete, 10 undersized culverts would remain on NFS lands. All 

3-12

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 70 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

occur on small, fishless streams. New cross-drain culverts would intercept 

ditchline flow and route sediment away from stream channels. Preliminary 

monitoring of similar pipes in the Fan Creek drainage indicates that the risk of 

sediment entering streams after the work is complete would be almost nonexistent 

(K. Smith, personal observation, 2008). Monitoring showed that only 1 out of 37 

pipes routed ditchline flow down the forested slope and into a stream channel. A 

different design on that one pipe would have prevented any routing to the stream. 

The remaining pipes routed sediment for an average of 40 feet downslope from 

the culvert outlet, with no delivery to streams. Road reconstruction activities 

would allow for a continued improving trend that could help to meet or maintain 

Forest Plan desired sediment conditions in Clear Creek and its tributaries. 

• FISHSED modeling indicates minor effects to deposited sediment. Modeled 

changes for cobble embeddedness increase by 1%–2% under all alternatives for 

Hoodoo, Solo, Pine Knob, Browns Spring, Clear Creek, and Middle Fork Clear 

Creek prescription watersheds. No changes in cobble embeddedness occurred for 

South Fork Clear Creek and Kay Creek under any alternative. 

• FISHSED modeling indicates a 1% decrease in summer rearing capacity in all but 

the South Fork Clear Creek prescription watershed for all action alternatives. 

• FISHSED modeling shows a 1%–2% decrease in winter rearing capacity for all 

action alternatives in Hoodoo, Solo, Browns Spring, Pine Knob, Clear Creek, and 

South Fork Clear Creek prescription watersheds. No changes occurred in Middle 

Fork Clear Creek or Kay Creek.

• Lower Clear Creek Face and Big Cedar Creek prescription watersheds were not 

assigned fish/water quality objectives or sediment yield guidelines, primarily 

because most of the area is on private lands; subsequently, no FISHSED models 

were run for these two prescription watersheds. 

• In summary, FISHSED modeling predicts a 0%–2% change in cobble 

embeddedness and summer/winter rearing capacity for juvenile steelhead trout 

rearing in B channel types for the action alternatives. Predicted changes are less 

than 10%. FISHSED is most appropriately used to assess the effects of changes in 

habitat quality when cobble embeddedness changes are greater than 10% (Stowell 

et al. 1983). No measurable changes in cobble embeddedness and summer/winter 

habitat rearing capacity are therefore expected based on this modeling.

• The action alternatives would indirectly result in minor, short-term localized 

negative effects to cold water aquatic life during culvert removals and 

replacements. Because these activities are designed to improve conditions over 

the long term, all state designated beneficial uses would be maintained over the 

long term.

3.1.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire 58,990-acre Clear Creek drainage. It 

includes all federal, State, and private lands in the watershed. This analysis area was selected 

since activities outside of the drainage would have no effects on aquatic habitats within the 

drainage. Quantitative information was available for roads only. Google Earth was used to 

assess riparian conditions and the analysis is presented in qualitative form.

3-13

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 71 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The time frame considered for cumulative effects is 2014 to 2022. This period covers all road 

reconstruction and decommissioning activities from the beginning of the project until 2 years 

after these activities are expected to be completed. The additional 2 years after project 

completion is the expected amount of time it would take for shrubs and ground cover to 

respond after culvert replacement or decommissioning activities occur. The growth of shrubs 

and other ground cover limits overland flow of sediment after these activities. 

This analysis considers only those activities that affect road densities, culvert size, or cobble 

embeddedness levels (as modeled by FISHSED) during the cumulative effects time frame. 

The existing condition includes all past road building, fish passage culvert replacement, and 

decommissioning activities through 2012. The activities considered for cumulative effects 

are proposed project road decommissioning and road reconstruction activities in combination 

with the Browns Spring Creek Culvert Replacement Project (2013/2014), the proposed Clear 

Ridge Non-system Road Decommissioning Project (2014 and beyond), and 2 culvert 

replacements on county roads in lower Clear Creek that occurred in 2011. 

Culvert inventories found the Browns Spring culverts to be undersized but contain no fish. 

One was a moderate priority for replacement and the other a low priority. Both will be 

replaced with structures sized for a 100-year flow event. The Clear Ridge Non-system Road 

Decommissioning Project would remove about 15 crossings and 8 miles of roads within 

RHCAs. Decommissioning nonsystem roads would reestablish vegetation on 32 acres of 

RHCAs. These projects could add locally measurable amounts of sediments to streams, as 

discussed above under the road decommissioning portion of this analysis. Sediment is not 

expected to travel more than 500 feet downstream, due to the timing of installation (i.e., 

during low-flow periods) and BMP implementation to control sediment. Crossing removals 

are beneficial but are not included in the calculation for stream crossings, because the 

streams were not surveyed and it is not known if the crossings currently exist. A long-term 

beneficial effect would be associated with crossing removals. 

3.1.6.2.1 Alternative A

Lower Clear Creek has 4 appropriately sized stream crossings (2 bridges and 2 culverts) on 

county roads. Future foreseeable federal actions include the Browns Spring Creek Culvert 

Replacement Project and the Clear Ridge Non-system Road Decommissioning Project. This 

alternative would cumulatively retain 113, or 95%, of the undersized culverts in the 

watershed. The Clear Ridge project would decommission 8 miles of roads in RHCAs; 

however, road densities would not be affected since nonsystem roads are not included in road 

density calculations. However, both of these projects would provide a beneficial effect from 

potential sediment reductions to streams. No cumulative effects to cobble embeddedness (as 

modeled by FISHSED) would occur since road decommissioning and culvert replacements 

are not accounted for in the NEZSED or FISHSED models. 

3.1.6.2.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

The proposed project activities, when combined with past and foreseeable federal activities, 

would cumulatively reduce RHCA road density from 2.2 mi/mi2

 to 2.0 mi/mi2 at the 

watershed scale. This improvement would move the Clear Creek watershed from poor 

condition to moderate condition (NOAA 1998). The action alternatives would cumulatively 

retain 36, or 30%, of the undersized culverts in the watershed. Road decommissioning would 

cumulatively return 45 acres of RHCAs to a forested condition. 

3-14

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 72 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

No cumulative effects to cobble embeddedness, summer rearing, or winter rearing capacity 

would occur, as FISHSED-modeled changes indicated no measurable change in these factors. 

Culvert replacement or decommissioning activities cannot be modeled in NEZSED or 

FISHSED and were therefore not assessed for cumulative effects related to sediment that 

may be produced from these activities. 

Culvert replacement and road decommissioning activities would produce an overall positive 

cumulative effect to aquatic habitat and species in the project area. No measurable negative 

cumulative effects to instream sediment are expected as a result of any of the action 

alternatives when combined with State/private lands and other projects on federal lands. 

3.2 ECONOMICS

3.2.1 Analysis Area

The project area is located within Idaho County, Idaho. The economic analysis area includes 

local towns and communities influenced by the timber sale activities. These towns include 

Grangeville, Elk City, Kamiah, Kooskia, Harpster, Stites, Clearwater, Orofino, Pierce, 

Weippe, and Lewiston. The timber sale influence on these towns depends on their proximity 

to the watershed, their economic dependence on it, and their historic use of the watershed

dating to settlement more than 100 years ago. The Nez Perce National Forest has provided 

wood to local mills since the 1930s. The Forest’s output, along with BLM timber outputs, 

accounted for half the total timber harvested in Idaho County in the mid-1990s. Most of the 

Forest timber output was processed in mills located in or near the towns mentioned 

previously. 

3.2.2 Regulatory Framework

The project complies with Forest Plan direction to develop cost-effective projects, and it 

complies with the NFMA by emphasizing resource management over timber volume output. 

3.2.2.1 National Forest Management Act

The NFMA requires that a sale “consider the economic stability of communities whose 

economies are dependent on such national forest materials, or achieve such other objectives 

as the Secretary deems necessary” (NFMA, Sec. 14, e,1,c). The NFMA also requires that 

“the harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest 

dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber” (NFMA, Sec. 6, g,3,E,IV). The project 

meets the requirements of the NFMA by using the IMPLAN model to evaluate how each 

alternative would affect economic stability in local communities. The project also uses 

harvest systems that are based on ground-truthed silvicultural practices, not on the highest 

dollar return, to achieve the desired long-term forest and access needs. 

3.2.2.2 Forest Service Manual

The FSM directs that economic feasibility be considered in project design during the early 

planning and NEPA documentation. A sale feasibility analysis was done at Gate 1, which led 

to consideration of treatments providing cost-reducing economic benefits. One major 

adjustment was the use of mechanical site preparation versus burning site preparation 

methods where possible. The mechanical methods provide better leave tree survival and 

utilize cheaper purchaser-supplied equipment. 

3-15

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 73 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.2.3 Forest Plan

The Forest Plan requires that the project provide a sustained yield of resource outputs at a 

level that will help support the economic structure of local communities and provide for 

regional and national needs (USDA Forest Service 1987b, Goal A.1, page II-1). Alternative 

A would not contribute toward the Forest Timber sale program or support the economic 

timber harvesting structure of the local communities, while Alternatives B, C, and D would. 

Alternative C would best meet this goal.

3.2.2.4 Executive Order 12898

EO 12898 requires that each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories. 

The Clear Creek analysis did not reveal any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to 

minority populations or low-income populations. None of the action alternatives are expected 

to negatively affect minority or low-income populations or any United States citizen. No 

environmental health hazards are expected to result from implementation of any alternative. 

This project would not disproportionately affect income level in the economic analysis area.

3.2.3 Resource Indicators

Timber harvest–related jobs and income: 

Jobs and income generated from the project contribute to community stability. 

Sale feasibility: 

Sale feasibility is represented by the Present Net Value (PNV). A project with a positive 

PNV would be a sellable project. A project with a negative PNV would either not sell or 

require supplemental funding to make it sellable. 

3.2.4 Analysis Methodology

The Nez Perce National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 

Forest Service 1987a) describes the economic impacts of implementing the Forest Plan. The 

Forest Plan addresses the economic analysis process and values placed on nonconsumptive 

items such as recreation opportunities, community stability, cultural resources, habitats, and 

populations. This economic analysis will not revisit the information presented in the Forest 

Plan and will focus only on those costs and revenues associated with implementing the 

proposed activities in the project area. 

The Forest Service Micro IMPLAN model was used to derive the indirect and induced 

economic effects. Direct economic effects were derived from mill surveys conducted by the 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana. The following 

response coefficients found in the table were developed for the 1997 Clearwater National 

Forest Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS). TSPIRS, a reporting 

system developed jointly with the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Forest Service, 

has been reviewed and approved by Congress. 

3-16

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 74 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

The coefficients from the Forest Service Micro IMPLAN model to derive the indirect and 

induced economic effects are as follows:

• Harvest-Related Jobs Generated: 13.5 per 100,000 cubic feet (MCCF) 

• Harvest Income to Communities: $383,406 per MCCF 

• Federal Income Tax Generated: $57,511 per MCCF 

The Region 1 Gate 1 and 2 spreadsheet and the Quicksilver model with Nez Perce–

Clearwater National Forests area factors were used to determine sale feasibility and appraised 

value. The Quicksilver model uses recent transactional evidence based on local timber sales 

to determine sale value. The timber stand database and extensive field reviews were used to 

determine timber volume and species composition; these are the two primary factors 

determining gross value of a timber sale. Net value depends on costs for logging system, haul 

distance, slash disposal, planting, and mitigation activities. The cost estimates for this sale 

are based on recent similar sales in the vicinity.

3.2.5 Affected Environment

In a report for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Columbia Basin 

Assessment), titled “Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest,” communities are 

characterized in terms of their ability to manage change and adapt to it in positive, 

constructive ways. The report emphasizes community resiliency, which is a function of 

community conditions such as economic structure, infrastructure, civic leadership, 

cohesiveness, and amenities.

The Columbia Basin Assessment resiliency ratings for Idaho County (Kooskia and 

Grangeville) and Clearwater County (Orofino, Pierce, and Weippe) are low. However, 

preliminary findings from a study recently completed by University of Idaho sociologists 

working on the Columbia River Basin Assessment show that many timber-dependent 

communities tend to be more resilient and able to tolerate change than is commonly assumed. 

The resiliency rating for Nez Perce County (Lewiston) is high. The towns of Grangeville, 

Orofino, Weippe, Pierce, and Lewiston all show high to very high historic employment in the 

wood products manufacturing industry per the Columbia Basin Assessment. 

As of August 2012, Idaho County had an unemployment rate of 9.4%, and the rate in 

Clearwater County was 13.0% (4th highest in Idaho). The average unemployment rate in 

Idaho is 6.9%, and the national average is 8.1%. In addition, counties dependent on federal 

timber receipts to help fund schools and highways find that this source of funding is drying 

up, so they have relied more heavily on taxes to bolster their income, to the detriment of lowincome families and the unemployed who feel that timber harvest should contribute more. 

Idaho has always been a natural resource–based state, although as natural resource extraction 

declines, the state has moved toward diversification. Many communities have made 

impressive strides in achieving Idaho Gem Community status and working to diversify their 

economies. (The Gem Community program was established by the Idaho Department of 

Commerce to encourage communities to plan their futures.) As reported by the Idaho 

Department of Labor, the timber products industry went through hard times in the early 

1980s, but the firms that survived were streamlined and modernized with the hope to have a 

consistent supply of timber from National Forest lands. 

3-17

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 75 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.6 Environmental Consequences

3.2.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.2.6.1.1 Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Table 3-2 displays the job and income consequences of implementing the timber harvest 

alternatives. The Forest Service Micro IMPLAN model was used to derive the indirect and 

induced economic effects of the timber harvesting; the model does not reflect additional jobs 

and income related to implementation of the non-timber harvest stewardship activities, such 

as precommercial thinning and road decommissioning, which are the same for all the action 

alternatives. These stewardship activities would generate some additional jobs, but not to a 

level like the timber harvest and would not point to any alternative as generating more than 

the other because they would be the same between alternatives, except for the no action 

alternative. 

Alternative A (No Action) would not generate any timber harvest jobs. Alternative C would 

generate the most jobs and revenue, because it generates the most timber volume, followed 

by Alternatives B and D. 

The other activities being proposed along with timber management, such as road 

decommissioning, precommercial thinning, broadcast burning, and reforestation, also provide 

jobs and income to the local economy. For example, in addition to providing jobs for heavy 

equipment operators required to decommission the roads, the project will create jobs for 

laborers performing erosion control and project inspection. 

Table 3-2. Timber harvest jobs and income

Alternative Volume

(CCF)

Jobs 

Sustained

Community

Harvest Income

Federal 

Income Tax

A 0 0 0 0

B 141,500 1,910 $54,252,000 $8,138,000

C 158,000 2,133 $60,578,000 $9,087,000

D 116,400 1,571 $44,628,000 $6,694,000

Predicted Stumpage and Present Net Value—Each alternative produces different benefits 

and costs associated with the timber harvest, roadwork, fuel treatment, reforestation, 

mitigation measures (skid trail decompaction), and other related timber harvest activities. 

This part of the economic analysis compares the differences in benefits and costs by 

examining the timber’s appraised value and PNV for each alternative. The appraised value is 

the timber value based on recent bidding—that is, the amount the Nez Perce National Forest 

anticipates the timber would sell for minus costs for logging, road reconstruction, site 

preparation/fuel abatement, and mitigation. The PNV is the anticipated selling value minus 

the costs to implement the sale and reforest the land. An alternative with a positive PNV has 

stumpage values exceeding costs, whereas an alternative with a negative PNV has costs in 

excess of stumpage values and may require supplemental funding to complete all activities. 

Information provided by the economic models is used as a tool to understand the relative 

monetary differences between alternatives rather than to predict exact values for each 

alternative, since the variables may change between now and the time the timber sells. 

3-18

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 76 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) does not generate any value or accrue any costs associated with 

the NEPA decision, so its PNV is zero. However, Alternative A would not be able to offset 

the $175,000 cost of doing the NEPA analysis. Tree mortality is occurring in many of the 

areas planned for regeneration. If a large wildfire (100+ acres) were to start as a result of fuel 

buildup from the anticipated tree mortality, fire suppression costs would likely exceed 

$300,000 (for comparison, the 350-acre Granite Fire of 2011 cost $2.2 million). 

Alternatives B, C, and D are all predicted to generate enough stumpage value to cover all of 

the sale costs, plus reforestation, while also capturing the timber value before it deteriorates 

from tree mortality. All of these alternatives should generate revenue, with Alternative B 

being the most economically feasible and generating the highest revenue (Table 3-3). 

All the action alternatives would use a combination of Forest Service burning and/or machine 

piling for the reforestation site preparation. Site preparation and tree planting are the two 

largest single-cost activities associated with implementing the different alternatives, but since 

each action alternative has the same costs per acre, the economic effect is proportional to the 

amount of acres needing site preparation and planting. To reduce reforestation costs, natural 

regeneration should be implemented where possible and where it meets the project purpose 

and need. Table 3-2 displays the predicted appraised total and PNV for each alternative. As 

noted in the table, Alternative C produces the most volume, but Alternative B provides the 

greatest revenue, because Alternative B requires less site preparation and involves lower 

planting costs than Alternative C. Alternative B has higher site preparation and planting costs 

than Alternative D, but Alternative B generates enough commercial thin volume that 

reforestation is not required to offset the other costs (Alternative B thus produces a higher 

overall economic return).

Table 3-3. Predicted stumpage and Present Net Value 

Alt. Volume

CCF

Volume 

MBF

Appraised

Totala 

Reforestationb Implementationc Present 

Net Value

Stewardship 

Costsd 

A 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

B 141,500 75,300 $6,505,000 $1,925,000 $409,000 $4,171,000 $1,258,000

C 158,000 85,200 $5,634,000 $3,067,000 $454,000 $2,113,000 $1,258,000

D 116,400 61,800 $4,131,000 $1,067,000 $385,000 $2,679,000 $1,258,000

a Appraised value bid includes slash treatment, skid trail decommissioning, and road costs associated with the harvest. b Reforestation costs include planting costs (trees, labor, and pre/post-treatment exams with overhead). c Implementation costs include presale, engineering, and administration costs. NEPA costs, which total about $175,000, are 

not included in this cost total. d Stewardship costs include precommercial thinning, road decommissioning, grass restoration, and landscape prescribed 

burning.

3.2.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area includes Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, and Nez Perce counties in 

Idaho. The timber volume is scheduled to be sold through 5 different sales over a 5-year 

period, starting in 2014. Typical sale duration would be 4 years each; the last sale would be 

completed in 2022 (harvest activities usually do not start on the first year a sale is sold), for a

total of about 8 years of harvest activities. Post-harvest reforestation and site preparation 

work could continue for up to 5 years following harvest on the last sale, creating a potential 

end date of 2027, for a total of 13 years of harvest plus post-harvest activities.

3-19

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 77 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Economic impacts for activities such as logging and sawmilling lumber are shown in the 

section above. These impacts are described as direct and indirect effects, but they are also 

considered cumulative effects due to the additional jobs, taxes, and income they provide. 

When impacts from additional jobs and income are taken into account, this project 

contributes to the Forest’s 5-year timber sale plan and may boost the Forest’s output by 10 

million board feet per year. Current sold sales and foreseeable local sales, as shown on the 

Forest’s Five Year Action Plan, would also affect the same communities and contribute to 

the long-term timber flow to these communities.

3.2.6.2.1 Alternative A—No Action

Since this alternative does not propose any timber harvest or other stewardship activities, it 

would not contribute cumulatively to local community jobs and income. Alternative A would 

maintain current unmanaged use and related income. It could potentially increase future 

firefighting costs and locally generated income as trees die and create excessive fuel loadings 

susceptible to wildfire ignitions.

3.2.6.2.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

Added to the Forest’s 5-year timber sale plan, these alternatives would sustain jobs (ranging 

from 1,571 to 2,133 jobs). However, Alternatives B, C, and D are not expected to generate a 

large number of jobs or significant amounts of income from timber harvest or roadwork; 

therefore, these alternatives would not be likely to cumulatively affect local communities 

beyond the past 3-year employment averages. The mills tend to adjust their annual 

production to sustain long-term outputs (instead of boom-and-bust cycles) by purchasing 

private and State timber along with National Forest sales. 

Prescribed burning is planned in association with the previously mentioned timber sale 

projects. Prescribed burning is mostly handled internally by the Forest Service. Forest 

Service employees are supported by local community services. The prescribed burning 

proposed under other projects in the area can be handled with the normal Forest Service 

workforce and therefore would not have a cumulative effect on the local communities. 

Additional stewardship items including road decommissioning, precommercial thinning, and 

grass restoration would also contribute money to the local communities. 

If additional forestry activities are implemented within the counties by the State or by private 

industry, additional forestry workers may be needed. 

3.3 FUELS

3.3.1 Analysis Area

The fuels analysis area encompasses the upper two-thirds of the Clear Creek drainage and all 

of its tributaries. This area was selected because it includes all Forest NFS managed lands 

that could be affected by project activities.

3.3.2 Regulatory Framework

Nez Perce National Forest Plan (Forest Plan) direction and all federal and State laws and 

regulations applicable to fuels would be applied to the project. 

3-20

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 78 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Nez Perce National Forest Plan—The project meets the Nez Perce National Forest Plan’s 

specific fire management goal for this area, which is to “protect resource values through cost 

effective fire and fuels treatment through the utilization of material and using prescribed fire” 

(USDA Forest Service 1987b, p. II-2).

The modified fuel bed would decrease the probability of stand-replacing crown fire and 

increase firefighter effectiveness, reducing the probability of resource damage at a lower cost 

while utilizing wood fiber.

Smoke Management—The Forest Service is a member of the Idaho/Montana Airshed Group. 

This airshed group is composed of State, federal, tribal, and private organizations that are 

dedicated to the preservation of air quality in Idaho and Montana. Its members are prescribed 

burners and the public health and regulatory agencies that regulate the burning cooperatively 

to prevent smoke impacts from fires designed to accomplish land management objectives. 

The analysis area falls within Airshed 12B.

Project-related prescribed fire activities would be approved by the airshed group; approval 

would be contingent on prevailing weather conditions, other planned ignitions in the airshed, 

and the resultant smoke impacts, including impacts to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (a 

Class 1 airshed). 

3.3.3 Resource Indicators

Issue: From a fuels perspective, the vegetation includes little variation. Variations can create 

barriers that can slow a fire or alter its behavior (such as dropping the fire from the crowns to 

the ground). Existing areas of past harvest and other vegetation types such as shrubfields 

could act as barriers; however, they are too small to affect fire behavior at the landscape 

scale. The current homogeneous fuels support a risk of crown fire that could pose a threat to 

life, property, and other resource values. Approximately 94% of the project area is in the 

WUI as defined by the Idaho County Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee (Idaho 

County 2009). 

Indicator: Percentage of project area that could support a crown fire (active, passive, or 

conditional) 

Issue: Existing landscape health is not consistent with a landscape that operates with a 

natural disturbance cycle. In this case, fire was the dominant disturbance agent. Mean fire 

return intervals in some of the landscape are above historical conditions. Age classes are 

trending toward larger size classes and lacking in early seral size classes. In a healthy 

landscape, disturbance would create larger patch sizes in a mosaic. In the analysis area, 

timber harvest has created a smaller, more uniform, linear-edged series of patches; fire 

exclusion has eliminated any new sizable disturbance-created patches since the early 20th 

century.

Indicator: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a measure of landscape health based on 

fire return interval and age class distribution. It describes the degree of departure between the 

current vegetation and a simulated historical reference condition. Patch size accounts for the 

spatial distribution across the landscape. 

3-21

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 79 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.4 Analysis Methodology

Field Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg) stand exam data were collected for the treatment units 

and other stands within the project area in 2011. This information was processed through the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator and Fire and Fuels Extension (FVS/FFE) model (Reinhardt and 

Crookston 2003). Outputs from this model include surface fuel loadings, fire behavior fuel 

models, canopy base height, and aerial fuel loadings that determine whether a fire is a surface 

fire or crown fire. Techniques to reduce crown fire occurrence and severity include the 

following: increase canopy base height; reduce canopy bulk density; reduce forest canopy 

continuity; and reduce surface fuels (Scott and Burgan 2005). With the exception of 

Alternative A, the proposed treatments accomplish some or all of the techniques. The FSVeg 

Spatial Data Analyzer v2.3.0 was used to collectively grow the stands through 10-year 

timesteps to visually show the changes through space and time. 

Fire type (surface or crown) was modeled in FVS/FFE under 97th-percentile weather 

conditions, representing extreme fire weather. Weather data from June 1 through September 

30 were selected to represent the entire summer fire season. Percentile weather was 

computed using Fire Family Plus (Main et al. 1990). Twenty years (1990–2010) of weather 

data from the most representative weather station were analyzed to determine weather 

conditions. 

Two different analyses of landscape health using FRCC were conducted. One used the FRCC 

software and direction outlined in the Interagency FRCC Guidebook. The silviculturist 

developed a crosswalk between LANDFIRE Biophysical settings and VRUs; tree size class 

was determined by using the R1 Vmap vegetation layer. The second analysis was used only 

for describing the existing condition and utilized the FRCC Mapping Tool software and 

LANDFIRE vegetation layers. The patch size analysis (FRAGSTATS, see Silviculture report 

in the project record) indicates whether the area will trend toward desired conditions after 

treatments are completed. 

3.3.5 Affected Environment

3.3.5.1 Fire Occurrence, History and Risks

Historically, fire was the primary disturbance factor that shaped the composition and 

structure of forests in the Clear Creek drainage. The largest wildfires burned 27,245 acres 

between 1870 and the 1931 fire, which burned approximately 11,000 acres. Only 155 acres 

have burned since then. Overlaps in fires occurred mostly on the South Fork Clear Creek area 

between the late 1800s and 1931, with other minor overlaps occurring later. The overlap in 

all fires totals about 7,900 acres. The total area burned was therefore approximately 19,490 

acres, or 45% of the drainage. Fires burned mostly on dry-to-moist habitat types of the South 

Fork, mainstem, and Middle Fork of Clear Creek. Stand-replacement fire occurred in the 

South Fork, while mixed-severity fires occurred in the upper Clear Creek and Solo Creek 

areas. The determination of severity was based on the overall age class distribution of trees in 

the area. 

No large fires have been documented in the moist habitat types in the headwaters of the 

drainage within the last 150 years. As the forests in these habitat types begin to age, they 

become more susceptible to mortality from insects and disease, which increases the risk of 

crown fire. This weakness was observed in the upper South Fork Clear Creek area in the 

3-22

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 80 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

summer of 2011, when an infestation of the Douglas-fir tussock moth (a defoliator) began 

occurring. Damage to trees was noticeable over about 3,000 acres. The severity of the 

infestation will not be known until 2013. Affected trees can recover from an initial insect 

attack; however, if another outbreak occurs in 2013, and trees are attacked a second time, 

mortality will likely occur. Typically, the second infestation kills the trees. 

Since tracking began in the 1970s, a total of 285 fire starts have occurred in Clear Creek. The 

number of starts per decade ranges from 53 to 90. The total acreage burned ranges from 19 to 

80 acres per decade since 1932. 

Effective wildfire suppression since the early 1900s has greatly reduced fire frequency in the 

area. Fires that occur in the area are suppressed due to the proximity to private property 

adjacent to the forest boundary and the timber management areas. Current fuel profiles would 

allow crown fires to establish in over 50% of the area. Once established, these fires are 

virtually impossible to stop without the fire running into a barrier (such as a change in fuel 

type) or the weather variables changing (such as relative humidity rising overnight). Indirect 

suppression strategies would need to be employed for a crown fire. Conditions like these can 

lead to large amounts of burned acreage, high costs, and adverse impacts to resources 

including soils, wildlife, water resources, and infrastructure. 

Approximately 94% of the project area lies within the rural Salmon-Clearwater WUI. The 

WUI designation was determined by Idaho County and a group of collaborators in 2005 and 

revised in 2009 as mandated by the National Fire Plan of 2001 (USDI and USDA 2001). This 

mandate allowed each County to determine its own definition of WUI. Idaho County adopted 

this philosophy: “The wildland-urban interface refers to areas where wildland vegetation 

meets urban developments. These areas encompass not only the interface (areas immediately 

adjacent to urban development), but also the continuous slopes that lead directly to a risk to 

urban developments.” In addition, the County identified the protection of structures and 

private property and protection of “the biological resources of the management area” as

concerns (Idaho County 2009).

The Nez Perce National Forest Plan direction requires fire suppression (control, contain, 

confine) in about 70% of the drainage. Fires for resource benefit could be allowed to burn in 

the Clear Creek Roadless Area, the upper South Fork, and a portion of the West Fork of 

Clear Creek if sufficient fuel modifications are implemented.

3.3.5.2 Vegetation and Fuels

A distinct moisture gradient occurs from west to east in the project area; this gradient is

reflected in the range of habitat types in the area. The western portion of the drainage 

contains drier habitats that begin with bunchgrasses (which do not support trees) and move 

into the dry ponderosa pine /Douglas-fir /ninebark habitat types. Historically, fire played an 

important role in maintaining these habitat types, with low-severity fires occurring every 5–

50 years and severe-intensity fire occurring every 90–200 years. Patch sizes ranged from 50 

to 1,500 acres. Current patch sizes created by timber harvest range from 6 to 282 acres. 

Moving east, the habitats quickly transition to moister types dominated by grand fir and 

western redcedar. Historically, these habitat types were dominated by mixed species with 

sizable representation of white pine and western larch. White pine and western larch are 

long-lived tree species typically established after major forms of disturbance (fire 

windthrow) and have the potential to occupy a site for 200–300 years. Patch sizes for these 

3-23

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 81 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

species ranged from 40 to 1,000 acres historically. Current patch sizes range from 1 acre to 

282 acres. The last habitat types found in the drainage are the cooler habitat types located in 

the headwaters of Clear Creek. These are dominated by subalpine fir and lodgepole pine and 

typically have stand-replacing disturbances every 90–150 years. Historically, patch sizes 

ranged from 40 to 1,000 acres. Current patch sizes range from 1 acre to 282 acres. 

Barriers to large fire spread are limited in the project area. A compilation of studies has 

shown that recent regeneration units or fresh fire scars are effective at stopping crown fires or 

reducing their effects if they are over 400 feet wide (Hudack et al. 2011). 

3.3.5.3 Fire Regime and Condition Class

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape 

in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but includes aboriginal burning 

(Agee 1993). Coarse-scale definitions for natural (historical) fire regimes were developed by 

Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management 

by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The 5 natural fire regime classifications are based on the 

average number of years between fires (fire frequency) and the severity (amount of 

replacement) of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. Historically, the drier mixedconifer sites best fit a Fire Regime I, while the wetter sites best fit a Fire Regime III. 

However, with the unnatural effects of fire suppression, the drier sites are trending toward a 

Fire Regime II due to increases in ladder fuels; these conditions would increase fire severity. 

The same is occurring in the wetter sites, which are trending toward Fire Regime IV. 

Fire behavior effects and other associated disturbances for the low-departure class (FRCC 1) 

are similar to those that occurred prior to fire exclusion and other vegetative management 

activities. Ecosystems with a moderate departure from historic rates (33%–66%) have an 

increased risk of the loss of species composition, structural stage, and canopy closure from 

noncharacteristic fire. Class 3 ecosystems with a high departure from historic rates (>66%) 

feature vegetative composition and fuel characteristics that are highly altered from the natural 

regime; in these ecosystems, the risk of loss of key components is high. 

The FRCC in the project area, based on the vegetation attributes, is moderate (FRCC 2), with 

ranges from 41% in the West Fork drainage, 47% in the upper Clear Creek drainage, and 

53% in the South Fork drainage. The overall FRCC, using the LANDFIRE/Vegetation 

Response Units (VRU) crosswalk and incorporating the fire frequency, yields a score of 

39%, or a rating of moderate. A moderate rating means that the fire cycle is trending away 

from its natural ranges and is being affected by fire suppression or other land management 

activities. Over time, the drainage will trend toward the high-departure class. Estimates 

indicate that the area will move from moderate departure to high departure within 30 years if 

no disturbances occur, because the majority of the area will fall outside of the fire return 

interval of 30–100 years. 

Surface fuel loadings (downed wood) are increasing due to ongoing tree mortality and fire 

suppression. The benefits to soil productivity increase as more downed wood decomposes; 

therefore, more nutrients are available for plant growth. Ladder fuels are also increasing due 

to understory tree growth. Larger amounts of surface and ladder fuels increase the risk of 

high-severity, stand-replacing fire. This type of fire could lead to reduced soil productivity 

and moisture-holding capacity. 

3-24

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 82 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

From a fuels perspective, the vegetation includes little variation. Variations in vegetation 

patterns create barriers that can slow a fire or alter its behavior (such as dropping the fire

from the crowns to the ground). Existing areas of past harvest and other vegetation types, 

such as shrubfields, could act as barriers; however, they are too small to affect fire behavior 

at the landscape scale.

3.3.5.4 Potential Fire Behavior

Fire type (e.g., surface and crown) was modeled for the project area for extreme (97thpercentile) weather conditions for visual display. The percent of fire type was quantified for 

the actual treatment units, and all crown fire activity (active, passive, or conditional) was 

grouped. Currently, 51% of the project area is susceptible to crown fire. 

3.3.6 Environmental Consequences

3.3.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

As noted above, the analysis area for direct and indirect effects of the alternatives is the 

project area. 

3.3.6.1.1 Alternative A—No Action

Under this alternative, no treatments are planned; therefore, fuels would persist as discussed 

under the existing condition and accumulate further over time. 

Alternative A would cause no direct effects to fire type or FRCC rating, because no 

vegetation treatment would take place under this alternative. The indirect effect would be the 

trending of the landscape toward a FRCC 3 rating within 30 years. There would continue to 

be a lack of stands of young trees as existing stands continue on with succession. The 

landscape would also continue to trend toward to a more uniform forest dominated by nonearly seral species. Canopy base height would remain low, crown bulk density would remain 

high, tree density would remain high, and the surface fuels would remain the same. The 

amount of the project area that could experience crown fire would increase as time passes. 

Therefore, direct control would be difficult, fires would be large, and costs would be high. 

Barriers to large fire spread would remain minimal. 

Direct Effects: If Alternative A is selected, 51% of the proposed treatment area would 

continue to be susceptible to crown fire in 2022. 

FRCC remains in a moderate category at 39%. The patch sizes associated with these types of 

landscapes remain below desired conditions. 

Indirect Effects: Factors favoring crown fire remain and increase over time. The project area 

becomes less diverse. Barriers to fire remain low, fire containment opportunities are limited, 

and fire size and costs are expected to increase. The landscape will trend toward a 

homogeneous forest dominated by large nonseral trees as the remaining smaller, younger 

patches continue with succession. No biomass removal opportunities or smoke emissions 

from logging slash will occur.

3-25

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 83 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.6.1.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

Direct Effects

The direct effect of these alternatives is a reduction in potential crown fire acreage, a slight 

improvement in FRCC, and a marked improvement in patch size. Potential crown fire area is 

reduced by 7% in all alternatives, moving the area from 51% to 44% by the year 2022. The 

regeneration treatments would influence FRCC ratings by changing seral classes from mature 

to young stands. However, approximately 50% of current early seral patches change seral 

class within 10 years, so the effect of the regeneration treatments is lessened. The project 

area remains at a FRCC 2 rating even after treatments, due to relatively low amounts of 

proposed regeneration harvest. Alternatives B, C, and D regenerate 6%, 10%, and 5% of the 

project area respectively. All the action alternatives use prescribed fire on up to 3% of the 

area. Alternatives B and D reduce the overall landscape departure rating from 39% to 38%, 

and Alternative C reduces it to 37%, which is a slight improvement on the landscape but still 

maintains the area in the moderate category. 

Patch size increases across all action alternatives (Table 3-4), driven by the varying amount 

of regeneration harvest. Mean patch sizes are not as large as historically occurred; however, 

the trend is positive. Given the distribution across the landscape, these patches emulate a 

mixed-severity fire regime. Treatment units range in size, which is important to landscape 

and fuel variability. Discontinuities in surface, ladder, and crown fuels interrupt fire spread, 

but relatively small patches may not have a substantial effect on large fires. Treatments of 

individual stands under a given prescription would probably be irrelevant to fire behavior and 

effects at the landscape scale, because wildfires are often larger than individual treatment 

units (Finney and Cohen 2003). Many of the treatments in the proposed action span several 

stands and therefore should be large enough to affect a large fire. Canopy base heights would 

be raised, crown bulk density would be substantially lowered, tree density would be 

decreased, and surface fuels would be treated, all of which would lower fire intensity in the 

treatment units. Direct control options in the event of a fire would increase across the 

landscape as the fuel profile is interrupted, which should reduce fire size and cost. 

All the action alternatives affect similar acreage, and the reduction in acreage susceptible to 

crown fire is the same for each alternative: 7%. Acreage susceptible to crown fire will drop 

from the current 51% to 44% by 2022. 

3-26

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 84 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-4. Percent of analysis area by structural class and mean patch size by alternative

Structural 

Class

Alternative A

(Existing) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Percent

of 

Analysis 

Area

Existing 

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Percent of 

Analysis 

Area

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Percent

of 

Analysis 

Area

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Percent

of 

Analysis 

Area

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Seral Shrub 7 41 6 252 6 252 6 252

Stand Initiation 17 17 25 96 26 104 25 91

Stem Exclusion 26 13 20 131 20 119 21 128

Understory

Reinitiation 17 23 20 83 18 83 18 83

Young Multistory 3 20 2 26 2 904 2 26

Old Single-Story 17 20 16 116 17 121 16 116

Old Multistory 13 34 11 81 11 72 11 81

Individual and total FRCC stratum departures change very little; the differences are primarily 

driven by the amount of regeneration harvest in each alternative, which changes size classes 

from mature classes to young seral classes. The overall FRCC remains a 2 across all 

alternatives (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5. Landscape fire regime condition class stratum departure, by alternative 

Stratum 

(Vegetation 

Response 

Units) 

Stratum 

Comp %

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Stratum 

Departure

Alternative B

Stratum 

Departure

Alternative C

Stratum 

Departure

Alternative D

Stratum 

Departure

3 7 70 70 70 70

8 29 48 47 43 48

10 12 49 49 49 49

17 & 7 52 33 31 31 31

Landscape Departure 39 38 37 38

Landscape Fire Regime 

Condition Class 2 2 2 2 

Indirect Effects 

The main indirect effects from the action alternatives result from the tree residue generated 

from harvest. Slash treatments would either result in biomass to be hauled away or piles to be 

burned. Biomass is measured in dry tons; smoke production in particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5) is measured in pounds. Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 show the amounts of biomass and 

smoke produced as a result of the action alternatives. 

3-27

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 85 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-6. Tons of biomass generated from harvest activities, by alternative

Activity

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Total Biomass - 

Tops/Limbs

Total Biomass - 

Tops/Limbs

Total Biomass - 

Tops/Limbs

Variable Retention 22,100 30,384 16,177

Commercial Thin 31,244 21,193 25,818

TOTAL 53,344 51,577 41,995

Table 3-7. Pounds of PM10 and PM2.5 generated from harvest activities, by alternative

Activity

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5

Variable Retention 308,295 268,515 470,952 410,184 250,744 218,390

Commercial Thin 435,860 379,620 328,492 286,106 400,179 348,543

Prescribed Burning 2,296,916 1,991,682 3,257,048 2,706,396 2,090,560 1,737,120

TOTAL 3,041,071 2,639,817 4,056,492 3,402,686 2,741,483 2,304,053

3.3.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects geographic boundary for fuels is the project area because project 

activities would have localized effects on fuels and fuel continuity, which influences the 

FRCC. The amount and arrangement of fuels directly affects fire type. The project area is 

sufficient to display effects. The time frame for cumulative effects is 10 years. 

The only activities considered for cumulative effects to fuels are management activities that 

may increase or decrease fuels over the next 10 years. The only activity considered for 

cumulative effects is fire suppression/exclusion. No current activities and no foreseeable 

future activities would affect fuels in the cumulative effects area.

Fire suppression has been effective in the project area for nearly 100 years. The incremental 

effect of suppressing each small fire in the watershed has promoted late seral species (rather 

than early seral species) and changed the forest structure, which in turn has changed the way 

the forest responds to fires.

3.3.6.2.1 Alternative A—No Action

When combined with fire suppression, this alternative would cause a cumulative effect. Fire 

exclusion has created the current condition of contiguous fuels. Crown fire potential would 

continue to increase across the project area without treatments, FRCC ratings would move to 

the higher end of the moderate category in 10 years, and patch size would not be changed, 

which could affect future fire behavior. 

3.3.6.2.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

A minor positive cumulative effect would be associated with the action alternatives. Fuel 

modifications across the landscape and in key locations along the Forest boundary could 

allow for natural ignitions to burn freely in portions of the project area. Fire suppression 

3-28

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 86 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

would continue on lands managed for timber; however, treatments would reduce fuels, help 

to improve FRCC ratings, and reduce crown fire potential in these areas. 

3.4 ROADLESS AREAS 

The purpose of this analysis of the Idaho Roadless Areas and unroaded resource is to disclose 

the project’s potential effects to roadless and wilderness attributes and determine whether it 

might affect future consideration for wilderness recommendations. This analysis focuses on 

the potential effects of project activities on wilderness characteristics as defined in the FSH 

1909.12 (72.1). The analysis for the effects on other roadless resource attributes such as 

water resources, soils, and wildlife habitat can be found in other sections of this EIS. The 

2008 Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 subpart C) integrated local management concerns 

and the need to protect these areas in concert with the national objectives for protecting 

roadless area values and characteristics. 

The final Idaho Roadless Area rule designated 250 Idaho Roadless Areas and established 

5 management themes, which include Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of Historical and 

Tribal Significance, Primitive, Backcountry Restoration, and General Forest, Rangeland, 

Grassland. Allocation of an area to a specific theme does not mandate or direct the Forest 

Service to propose or implement any action in that area; however, management theme 

designations do determine permitted and prohibited activities. Certain activities, such as road 

building, mineral development, and timber cutting, are permitted in some themes and 

prohibited in others; other activities, such as motorized travel, grazing, and motorized and 

mechanized use, are not changed by this rule. Nez Perce National Forest Plan management 

direction states that roadless areas will not be managed for wilderness.

The term “roadless area” refers to an area of at least 5,000 acres that does not have developed 

and maintained roads and is substantially natural in condition. A roadless area is specifically 

defined as an area that meets the minimum criteria for wilderness. Unroaded lands have 

natural characteristics similar to those of roadless areas but occupy less acreage. Wilderness 

characteristics include natural integrity, undeveloped characteristics, outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive unconfined recreation, special features and values, 

and manageability. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the environmental 

consequences of the proposed alternatives on the wilderness characteristics of the Clear 

Creek Roadless Area. 

3.4.1 Analysis Area

The analysis area is the 9,200-acre Clear Creek Roadless Area. The Clear Creek Roadless 

Area is designated as a backcountry restoration theme under the 2008 Idaho Roadless Rule. 

The Clear Creek Roadless Area is located at the head of Clear Creek along the western 

boundary of the Nez Perce National Forest. Private property adjoins this area on the 

northwestern boundary. The nearest roads are spurs of Road 1842 on the north, Road 650 on 

the west, and Road 286 on the east, but some of these roads are closed during the general 

hunting season to mitigate impacts on big game. 

Elevation ranges from 2,000 feet on Clear Creek at the forest boundary to 4,600 feet at China 

Point Ridge and the headwaters of Solo and Kay creeks. Topography is mountainous with 

steep slopes (commonly over 70%) paralleling the drainages. Ridgetops are relatively flat.

3-29

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 87 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The Clear Creek drainage has been a significant part of the Nez Perce Forest timber sale 

program since the late 1950s. Most of the acreage remaining in the Clear Creek Roadless 

Area has burned twice, once in 1870 and again in 1931, leaving about 7,000 acres covered 

with brushfields in the South Fork and Middle Fork drainages of Clear Creek. Previous 

conifer forests have never reestablished themselves.

Vegetation in the area ranges from very moist, warm cedar habitat types to drier, warm 

Douglas-fir habitat types. Shrub coverage in the brushfields is primarily maple, willow, 

serviceberry, and various other shrubs. Bordering the brushfields are patches of young 

(approximately 70-year-old) timber, a mix of grand fir, Douglas-fir, and western redcedar. 

Understories are sparse but contain a variety of moist-site plants. Some natural meadows 

exist in upper Kay Creek in Section 28. 

The brushfields have been important big game (elk and moose) winter range, but the 

preferred browse species—redstem, willow, mountain maple, and serviceberry— have in 

recent years grown out of reach of the animals. Prescribed fire has been used in an attempt to 

increase the value of the range. Current uses of the area include livestock grazing, big game 

winter and summer range, fishing, hunting, and mining. 

3.4.2 Resource Indicators

Issue: A commenter expressed concern that the impacts on the Roadless Area must be 

evaluated in relation to its designation as proposed Wilderness in House Resolution 

(H.R.) 3334. 

Indicator: Wilderness values, impacts of the project on future wilderness designations 

The following resource indicators were used to compare the effect of the alternatives:

Natural Integrity—The extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and 

operating

Undeveloped characteristics—The degree to which developments and uses are apparent to 

most visitors

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation—Solitude is a 

personal, subjective value defined as the isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of others 

and from developments and evidence of humans. Primitive recreation is characterized by 

meeting nature on its terms, without the comfort and convenience of facilities.

Special features and values—Unique ecological, geographical, scenic, and historical 

features of an area

Manageability—The ability to manage an area for wilderness consideration and maintain 

wilderness attributes

3.4.3 Affected Environment

Natural Integrity—Past wildfires in the Clear Creek area and the resulting vegetative 

succession are some of the natural processes that have occurred. The landscape is prone to 

fire, and numerous natural ignitions occur every year. Fire management strategies for the 

area dictate full suppression, however, due to the Roadless Area’s proximity to private 

3-30

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 88 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

property and location within a Community Protection Zone. Opportunities for management 

of naturally occurring wildfire are limited. 

Undeveloped Characteristics—Past road building and timber harvest along the southern 

and eastern portions of the Roadless Area are readily apparent. The private property interface 

on the westernmost boundaries is highly segmented with numerous corners. The area has 

several grazing permits, and cows are a common occurrence. 

Special Features and Values—No special features or values have been identified for the 

Clear Creek Roadless Area. 

Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Unconfined Recreation—This small area, with 

nearby logging activity, offers limited opportunity for solitude. Vegetative screening is high, 

however. The main opportunities here are bushwhacking and following game trails through 

dense brushfields. 

Manageability—This area has been reduced by at least 14,800 acres since 1979, almost 

entirely because of timber sales. The area boundary is imprecise except where it coincides 

with the forest boundary. The area boundary has been drawn to exclude existing roads from 

the remainder of the area.

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences

3.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.4.4.1.1 Alternative A

No activities are proposed under Alternative A; therefore, under this alternative, the Clear 

Creek Roadless Area would remain in its current condition. No direct effects would occur to 

the wilderness characteristics of the area (i.e., the area’s natural integrity, undeveloped 

characteristics, opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation, or 

manageability). 

Continued fire suppression and lack of disturbance may indirectly cause the area to trend 

away from desired conditions and may affect the natural quality of the area over time. 

Shrubfields would continue to become decadent and would be unusable by wintering 

wildlife. Timber stands could become more susceptible to large-scale stand-replacing 

wildfire because mosaic conditions would not exist on the landscape. 

3.4.4.1.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternatives B, C, and D would implement low-mixed severity prescribed fire on 

approximately 1,400 acres within the Clear Creek Roadless Area over a period of several 

years. Other activities proposed in Alternatives B, C, and D fall outside the Roadless Area 

and do not infringe on potential wilderness values; therefore, they are not discussed in this 

analysis. 

Implementation of prescribed fire would likely be accomplished using aerial (helicopter) and 

hand ignitions. Extensive pumps, hoselays, and hand-constructed control lines would 

probably be needed to control the fire along the private property interface on the westernmost 

portion of the Roadless Area. 

3-31

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 89 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Natural Integrity—Implementation of the action alternatives would have a beneficial effect

to the natural qualities of the area because disturbance would be sustained, although the 

mechanism of disturbance would be human caused and not natural. Where prescribed fire 

coincides with decadent shrubfields, species such as maple, willow, and serviceberry would 

be rejuvenated and become more available as browse for wintering wildlife. In timbered 

areas, the mixed-severity mosaic caused by burn would create patches of early successional 

forest that would ensure a balanced range of age classes distributed across the Clear Creek 

watershed. 

Undeveloped Characteristics—Implementing Alternatives B, C, or D would cause little

effect to the undeveloped characteristics of the Roadless Area. Low- to mixed-severity 

prescribed fire closely emulates the effects of wildfire under a wide range of climate and 

environmental conditions. Visitors would not likely be able to distinguish whether the fire 

was human caused or natural. A site-specific burn plan would be developed for the project 

and would document the desired effects and the environmental variables necessary for 

implementing the prescribed fire to meet objectives. 

Handline construction along the private property interface may temporarily alter the 

undeveloped characteristics of the Roadless Area, although property/boundary line location 

and establishment—including limbed trees and painted boundaries—has already altered this 

area. Fuels along the boundary are generally light and include open ponderosa pine, shrubs, 

and harvested private grounds. Handline construction (including limbing trees, removing 

brush, and light ground scalping in combination with pumps and hoselays to control the 

burn) is expected to be minimal. Rehabilitation of the handlines following implementation 

would further reduce the evidence of development, and no evidence is expected to be visible 

several years after rehabilitation. 

Special Features or Values—Since no special features or values have been identified for the 

Clear Creek Roadless Area, implementing Alternatives B, C, or D would cause no effect to 

this category of wilderness characteristics.

Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Unconfined Recreation—Opportunities for 

solitude and primitive unconfined recreation would be temporarily affected during 

implementation of the prescribed fire. Trails 130 and 728 would likely be temporarily closed 

to allow for safe implementation of the burn. During ignition, sights and sounds of 

helicopters would likely be heard throughout the Roadless Area, although these disturbances 

would be expected to last only a short time. Crews operating pumps, hoses, and chainsaws 

would have less effect on solitude and unconfined recreation, since their activities would be 

confined to a small area immediately adjacent to the private property boundary in the 

westernmost portion of the Roadless Area. 

After implementation, the opportunities for solitude and primitive unconfined recreation 

would remain unchanged from their current state. 

Manageability—No effect to the manageability of the Roadless Area would result from 

implementation of Alternatives B, C, or D. None of the activities proposed in any of these 

alternatives would have an effect on the current or future location of the Roadless Area 

boundary. 

3-32

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 90 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary for this analysis is the Clear Creek Roadless Area. This 

boundary was selected because roadless areas are generally the pool from which future 

wilderness designations occur. The Clear Creek Roadless Area was proposed for wilderness 

designation in H.R. 3334, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. 

A forward-looking timeline to measure cumulative effects is difficult to establish, as 

wilderness designations can be a lengthy political process. However, if the area were 

designated as Wilderness, it might reasonably be expected to receive higher than ordinary 

use, given its close proximity to towns and relative ease of access.

As pointed out above, the Clear Creek Roadless Area has shrunk by almost 15,000 acres 

since 1979 as a result of timber sales. The current Roadless Area boundary is imprecise and 

drawn to exclude timber sale areas. With the exception of prescribed fire, none of the 

activities proposed in Alternatives B, C, or D would affect, alter, or infringe upon the current 

Roadless Area boundary or have an effect on the wilderness values inside the Roadless Area. 

Management of naturally occurring wildfire to benefit resources in this Roadless Area is not 

likely to be pursued or promoted in future land management planning, due to the area’s close 

proximity to private lands and managed timberlands. Fire suppression is likely to continue. 

The prescribed fire proposed within the Clear Creek Roadless Area would sustain 

disturbance in a disturbance-dependent landscape, resulting in a beneficial cumulative effect 

to the natural qualities of the area.

Because the implementation of Alternatives B, C, or D will have no effect, limited temporary 

effects, or beneficial effects to the wilderness characteristics of the area, the project will not 

alter the area’s potential to be considered for future wilderness designation. 

3.5 SOILS 

This report summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the soils resource. This section was 

summarized from the “Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Soils Report,” located in 

the project record. 

3.5.1 Analysis Area

The areas assessed for soils concerns are the individual treatment units (variable acres) and 

associated skid trails, landings, and temporary roads within the 43,700-acre project area.

3.5.2 Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan direction and the following federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to 

the management of soil resources would be applied to the project: 

• FSM 2500 Watershed and Air Management – Washington Office (WO) 

Amendments 2500-2010-1 and 2500-2010-2 and Northern Region (R1) 

Supplement 2500-99-1 (Regional Soil Quality Standards) 

• Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) Handbook - FSH 2509.22 

• Idaho Forestry BMPs

• Idaho Forest Practices Act (1974) 

3-33

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 91 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

3.5.2.1 Nez Perce Forest Plan

3.5.2.1.1 Forest Plan Amendment

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987b) determined that for any project, soil 

productivity will have been maintained and any irreversible impacts to the soil resource will 

have been minimized (USDA Forest Service 1987b, p. II-2, Goal 18). 

Forest Plan Soil Quality Standard #2 (II-22) would be amended for Alternatives B, C, and D. 

This site-specific amendment for lands within the project area would replace the Forest Plan 

standard of 20% DSD with the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards listed below. The 

amendment would allow the project to proceed with the treatment of 3 units that currently 

exceed the 20% standard; in addition, the amendment would allow for the implementation of 

soil improvement activities. 

Region 1 Soil Quality Standards (FSM 2500 Supplement 2500-99-1) specify that at least 

85% of an Activity Area (defined as a land area affected by a management activity) must 

have soil that is in satisfactory condition. In other words, detrimental impacts (including past 

management impacts) must affect <15% of an Activity Area. In areas where <15% 

detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the 

current activity following project implementation and restoration must not exceed 15%. 

Where detrimental soil conditions from past activities affect more than 15% of the Activity 

Area, the cumulative DSD from project implementation and past activities shall not exceed 

the conditions prior to the planned activity and shall provide a net improvement in soil 

quality. 

3.5.2.1.2 Consistency with Forest Plan and Environmental Law

The Clear Creek project was designed to meet the standards set forth in the Idaho Forest 

Practices Act, FSM 2500—Watershed and Air Management and Northern Region (R1) 

Supplement 2500-99-1 (Regional Soil Quality Standards), and the FSH of SWCP (FSH 

2509.22). 

The project complies with NFMA 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(i), which states “Soil, slope or 

other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” 

Nez Perce Forest Plan standards listed on page II-22 of the Plan would also be met, including 

the Forest Plan amendment for the project (Table 3-8).

3-34

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 92 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-8. Forest Plan compliance

Standard 

Number

Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

1 

Evaluate the potential for soil displacement, 

compaction, puddling, mass wasting, and 

surface soil erosion from ground-disturbing 

activities

Landtype identification and evaluation

Field surveys using Regional standards were 

conducted on each of the proposed Activity 

Areas (units)

2 

A minimum of 85% of an Activity Area shall 

not be detrimentally compacted, displaced, 

or puddled upon completion of activities

Post-project monitoring to verify compliance 

and to assess if additional mitigation is needed

Soil improvement activities on areas with prior 

impacts to achieve a net improvement in soil 

productivity

3 

Maintain sufficient ground cover to minimize 

rill erosion and sloughing on road cut and fill 

slopes and sheet erosion on other Activity 

Areas 

Project design features were developed to 

minimize erosion. 

Temporary road locations were evaluated in the 

field. Unit-specific design measures were 

developed for high subsurface erosion areas.

Forest Plan 

Amendment 

(incorporates 

R1 soil 

standard)

Where detrimental soil conditions from past 

activities affect more than 15% of the Activity 

Area, the cumulative detrimental soil 

disturbance from project implementation and 

past activities shall not exceed the conditions 

prior to the planned activity and shall provide 

a net improvement in soil quality

Soil improvement activities on areas with prior 

impacts to achieve a net improvement in soil 

productivity

Post-project monitoring to verify compliance 

and to assess if additional mitigation is needed

3.5.3 Resource Indicators

Soil Stability and Erosion Hazard Potential—Soil erosion can result in loss of soil 

productivity due to surface soils moving downslope and thus removing the materials with the 

greatest ability to hold moisture and nutrients. Compared to the subsurface soils, surface soils 

in the project area contain more organic matter and have a higher volcanic ash-derived 

mineral content. Removal of vegetation and/or ground disturbance associated with timber 

harvest or fire can increase erosion on certain landtypes.

Indicator: Acres of proposed harvest activity and miles of proposed temporary roads on 

landtypes with a high subsurface erosion hazard 

Soil Productivity—Past management activities in the project area have caused DSD (e.g., 

compaction, displacement, erosion, loss of organic matter) and decreased soil productivity. 

According to the Region 1 Soil Quality Standards, detrimental disturbance from management 

activities should not exceed 15% of an Activity Area and coarse woody material retention 

should be appropriate to the habitat type. In areas that exceed 15% detrimental disturbance, 

the combined detrimental disturbance effects of the current project (implementation and 

restoration) should not exceed the disturbance levels present before the activity, and activities 

should be directed toward a net improvement in soil quality. 

Indicator: Number of commercial harvest units requiring specialized project design measures 

to meet Regional soil standards

3.5.4 Analysis Methodology

Reports and maps, aerial photos, and field reviews generated by GIS were used to analyze 

effects to the soil resource from the project’s proposed activities. Field sampled vegetation 

3-35

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 93 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

database (FSVeg) queries were conducted to identify past harvest activities and their time 

frames (see project file). All proposed harvest units were examined in the field to assess past 

management impacts and to evaluate potential effects to soils. Surveys following protocols 

outlined in the Region 1 Approach to Soils NEPA Analysis Regarding Detrimental Soil 

Disturbance in Forested Areas (USDA Forest Service 2009b) were conducted to determine 

the percentage of DSD in each of the proposed harvest units (Activity Areas). An erosion 

hazard assessment was used to summarize erosional characteristics based on landtype 

properties. This assessment described overall erosion hazards in the project area and at the 

unit scale to aid in the development of project design measures. 

Potential soil restoration opportunities throughout the project area were assessed, with a 

focus on old skid trails, landings, and roads. Project design features describe methods for 

minimizing impacts to the soil and techniques for restoring soil biophysical integrity.

3.5.4.1 Data Assumption and Limitations

This methodology provides a conservative assessment of existing soil conditions (PageDumroese et al. 2006a), given its inherent assumptions (ocular data and soil pits). 

Informal comparisons found that both for single observers and between observers, category 

calls in this methodology have a variability of 5%. This level of survey leads to a 90%–95% 

confidence with error bars from 5% to 8%, depending on the amount of disturbance found. 

The surveys achieve statistical inference for units with either low disturbance (<7%) or 

moderately high disturbance (>23%) (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). 

Field soil survey methodology based on visual observations can produce variable results 

among observers, and the confidence of results is dependent on the number of observations 

made in an area (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006a). The existing and estimated values for DSD 

are not absolute and are best used to describe the existing soil condition. The calculation of 

the percentage of additional DSD from a given activity is an estimate, since DSD is a 

combination of such factors as existing ground cover, soil texture, timing of operations, 

equipment used, skill of the equipment operator, the amount of wood to be removed, and sale 

administration. The DSD estimates for proposed project activities are mostly based on local 

monitoring and research results (Archer 2008; Reeves et al. 2011). The DSD estimates of 

proposed activities also assume that BMPs would be implemented and that soil recovery 

occurs over time. 

3.5.4.2 Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy

Site and soil productivity relies on complex chemical, physical, and climatic factors that 

interact within a biological framework. For any given site and soil, a change in a key soil 

variable (e.g., bulk density, soil loss, and nutrient availability) can lead to changes in 

potential soil productivity. Defining the threshold at which productivity is detrimentally 

disturbed is controversial. The rationale for the 15% limit of change in soil bulk density was 

largely based on the collective judgment of soil researchers, academics, and field 

practitioners, and the accepted inability to detect changes in productivity less than 15% using 

current monitoring methods (Powers 1990). Powers (1990) states that the soil quality 

guidelines are set to detect a decline in potential productivity of at least 15%. This statement 

does not mean that the Forest Service tolerates productivity declines at this level, but that it 

recognizes problems with detection limits. 

3-36

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 94 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Soil quality standards are being studied by a cooperative research project called the North 

American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSP). The 5- and 10-year results were 

recently published (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006b; Fleming et al. 2006; Sanchez et al. 2006). 

The LTSP study is ongoing and provides the best available science to resource professionals. 

In a 10-year study, no observed reduction in tree growth occurred as a result of compaction 

or organic matter removal in plots with soils generally similar to those found in the project 

area (silt loam) (Powers et al. 2005). These results are relatively short-term and involve many 

site- and soil-specific factors. Future results from the ongoing study should be helpful for 

assessing harvest practices on soil productivity. 

Additional controversy surrounds the use of the term “irreversible” in the NFMA. The 

NFMA has guidelines that “insure that timber will be harvested from NFS lands only where 

soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” The DSD

described in this analysis does not necessarily result in substantial and permanent 

impairment. 

DSD is reversible if the processes (organic matter accumulation, moisture, topsoil retention, 

and soil biota) are in place and if time is allowed for recovery. Irreversible damage to soils in 

the project area could result from the loss of the volcanic ash cap through erosion or removal 

by excavation for temporary roads and/or skid trails. Soil recovery could still occur in 

remaining subsurface soils, yet the exceptionally high porosity and water-holding properties 

of the Mazama ash cap would likely be irrecoverable. 

3.5.5 Affected Environment

3.5.5.1 Landforms and Geology

Soil characteristics in the project area vary according to slope gradient, slope aspect, parent 

material, texture, depth, vegetative cover, and microclimate. Landforms in the project area 

are mostly dissected mountain slopes (58%) and low- and moderate-relief rolling uplands 

(33%). 

The geologic substrate is primarily Belt Zone metamorphics (45%), followed by Idaho 

Batholith granitics (35%) and Columbia River basalt (15%). Soil parent material is primarily 

granitic (85%), with inclusions of basalt (8%) and sedimentary rock (3%). Surface soils are 

generally silty or sandy loams. The coarse fragment content in the soils is very low, generally 

between 5% and 10%, increasing the susceptibility of the soil to compaction and rutting from 

ground-based machine harvesting. More than half of the ground cover is litter; approximately 

35% of the units have vegetative cover, and only 2% have bare soil. 

Much of the area is overlain by a mixed to intact layer of Mazama volcanic ash, ranging from 

7 to 20 inches in thickness. The ash cap is thin or missing in the steeper breaklands. Ash 

material is physically highly favorable to root growth, being very permeable and possessing a 

high ability to hold moisture and nutrients. Its presence as an intact layer with little mixing is 

an indication of relatively stable slopes over the past 6,700 years since the ash deposition. 

3.5.5.2 Landslide and Erosion Hazard Potential

Landtypes are ecological land units categorized by similarities in soils, landforms, geologic 

substrate, geomorphic processes, and plant associations (Cleland et al. 1997). These land 

units have been mapped for the entire Nez Perce National Forest. Landtypes were identified 

3-37

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 95 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for the project area to help focus field evaluations and to pinpoint any erosion hazard 

concerns. 

Landslide-prone (LSP) areas mapped on the Nez Perce National Forest are located on slopes 

over 60% and landtypes 50EUU and 50CUU. Areas considered highly prone to landslides 

comprise approximately 11% of the project area.

3.5.5.3 Soil Productivity

Soils in the project area are generally silt loams, formed from loess and overlain with a 

moderately deep volcanic ash layer. Past natural and management activities have impacted 

the productivity of these soils. 

During the summer of 2012, field surveys were conducted on each of the proposed harvest 

and burn units to assess the extent of compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, 

surface erosion, loss of surface organic matter, and soil mass movements. Existing 

detrimental soil conditions within the units range from 0% to 22% (see project file). Soil 

disturbances found during the surveys included old benched roads, skid trails, dozer piling, 

soil displacement, rutting, and compaction. Three units exceed the 20% Forest Plan Standard; 

therefore, a Forest Plan amendment is needed to proceed with project activities, and the soil 

must be improved t so the units will be trending positive. The project area also includes 19 

units that are currently over the 15% Regional Soil Quality Standard. 

Although not specifically addressed by a Forest Plan standard, the presence of above-ground 

organic matter or woody material is an important component of soil health. The retention of 

coarse (>3 inches in diameter) woody material is essential to maintaining soil productivity 

(Graham et al. 1994). Regional direction (Forest Service Manual) for organic material 

recommends following guidelines such as those contained in Graham et al. (1994) if morespecific local guidelines have not been developed. Graham et al. (1994) recommend 7–33 

tons/acre of coarse woody material (depending on habitat type, moisture regime, and aspect).

This amount should provide sufficient nutrients and organic material for soil productivity in 

the long term (100–300 years). Retaining existing coarse wood levels and allowing for 

recruitment through the natural addition of snags and/or standing trees would facilitate these 

benefits. Existing down woody material ranged between 0 and 43 tons/acre in units proposed 

for project activities, with an average of 11 tons/acre (visual observation). Litter and duff 

layers throughout the project area average 6 centimeters in depth. 

3.5.5.4 Effectiveness of Design Features

Past monitoring and research indicate that the effectiveness of the project design features 

would be moderate to high (Froehlich and McNabb 1983; Graham et al. 1994; Graham et al. 

1999; Korband Covington 2004; Neary et al. 2008; Curran et al. 2005a, b).

3.5.6 Environmental Consequences

The spatial scope for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the individual commercial 

units (variable acres) and associated temporary roads. The temporal scope for direct and 

indirect effects is several decades (30–50 years), covering both pre- and post-project 

activities. The only activities analyzed in detail are commercial harvest units and associated 

temporary road construction and prescribed burning. 

3-38

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 96 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.5.6.1 Activities Not Analyzed in Detail

Precommercial thinning: The project includes 1,890 acres of proposed precommercial 

thinning activities. Because precommercial thinning only utilizes hand tools and no groundbased mechanized equipment, this activity would not increase DSD in the project area. 

Precommercial thinning units were not surveyed. 

Road Maintenance and Reconstruction: Forest system roads are not considered in the 

determination of potential DSD (FSH 2509.18). Approximately 120 miles of road 

maintenance and reconstruction is proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D and would 

improve road drainage and reduce the risk of mass erosion. 

Road Decommissioning: Forest system roads are not considered in the determination of 

potential DSD (FSH 2509.18). Approximately 13.8 miles (55 acres) of road would be 

decommissioned. Road decommissioning would directly improve soil conditions by 

decompacting soils and adding coarse woody material and other organic matter to the 

existing road surface. Road decommissioning would also improve slope stability and reduce 

the potential risk of mass erosion from culvert failure. Under Alternative A, no road 

decommissioning activities would occur. Soils in these areas would remain in an 

unproductive condition. 

Restoration: Approximately 41 acres of grassland restoration is proposed. This grassland area 

will undergo prescribed burning and will be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. No 

erosion or DSD is expected. 

3.5.6.2 Activities Analyzed in Detail

Commercial harvest and associated temporary road construction and prescribed burning are 

analyzed in detail, as these activities can contribute to detrimental disturbance calculations, 

cause erosion, and affect soil productivity. 

Commercial Harvest: Alternative B proposes 8,550 acres of commercial harvest within 143 

units. Alternative C proposes 8,700 acres in 145 units, and Alternative D proposes 7,530 

acres in 130 units. Harvest treatments include regeneration, improvement, and commercial 

thinning. Both skyline yarding and ground-based skidding systems would be used to remove 

trees. Activity-generated slash piled along roadsides and in landings would be dispatched via 

sale of biomass materials, chipping, or burning. Slash within the units would be left in place 

or treated using prescribed burning, mastication, or machine piling and burning. 

Temporary Road Construction: In Alternatives B and C, approximately 36 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed. Of these miles, 8.5 miles would be located on 

existing road templates. Alternative D proposes 18 miles of temporary roads, of which 9 

miles already exist. Disturbed width for temporary roads would average 25 feet. Temporary 

roads would be located on low-gradient, dry ridges or upper slopes and away from water; 

these roads would have no stream crossings. 

Temporary roads are considered 100% detrimental disturbance with reduced soil productivity 

until vegetation, organic matter, and hydrologic function are restored. The greater 

disturbance associated with temporary road construction is the displacement or mixing of the 

topsoil, including the Mazama ash cap, during road excavation. Temporary roads would be 

constructed, used, and decommissioned within 1–5 years. Road decommissioning following 

3-39

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 97 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

use would promote restoration of soil structure, water infiltration, aeration, root penetrability, 

and soil biological activity, as observed with road decommissioning techniques used on the 

Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests. These techniques would support recovery of 

productivity on soils disturbed by temporary roads. 

Prescribed Burning: Low- and mixed-severity prescribed fire is proposed on 1,370 acres in 

15 units for all action alternatives. Within the proposed units, approximately 465 acres are 

mapped as LSP and/or susceptible to mass wasting. A design feature of no ignition in these 

areas (following PACFISH guidelines) would be implemented. Fire would be allowed to 

back into these areas.

3.5.6.3 Direct and Indirect Effects

As noted above, the analysis area for direct and indirect effects of the alternatives is the 

43,700-acre project area. 

3.5.6.3.1 Alternative A—No Action

This alternative maintains the existing condition. Alternative A would not alter the current 

soil erosion or landslide potential and would retain the same amount of coarse woody 

material, both standing and down. Existing DSD would persist with very slight natural 

recovery of surface layers of compacted soils. Over time, large woody debris from dead trees 

would fall on the ground, increasing organic matter and water-holding capacities on-site. In 

the absence of catastrophic fires, these trends would exist on most of the project units.

Under Alternative A, no road decommissioning activities would occur that would directly 

improve soil conditions by decompacting soils and adding coarse woody material and other 

organic matter to the existing road surface. Soils in these areas would remain in a less 

productive condition. 

3.5.6.3.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

Landslide and Erosion Hazard Potential

The project area has been mapped and divided into landtypes—areas featuring similar soils, 

hydrology, and vegetation characteristics. Soil erosion and mass wasting are natural 

processes, and many landtypes across the Forest have high inherent hazards of erosion, mass 

wasting, and landslides (NRCS 2006). These natural processes have occurred over long time 

periods and are fundamental factors in creating the present-day landscape. 

Landslide-prone (LSP) areas were identified using GIS analysis and verified in the field. For 

Alternative B, approximately 245 acres of LSP area are located within 21 units. Alternative C 

has 255 acres within 22 units, and Alternative D had 135 acres in 14 units. These LSP areas 

would be further delineated in the field during unit layout and would receive a PACFISH

buffer. No harvest activities would occur in these areas. 

An erosion hazard assessment based on landtype properties was used to determine erosional 

characteristics of the project units and temporary roads. This assessment was used to develop 

project design measures to minimize erosion potential. Mass wasting, surface erosion, and 

subsurface soil erosion potentials were evaluated for the landtypes coinciding within the 

proposed harvest and burn units. (See project file for detailed information on individual 

units.) 

3-40

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 98 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Surface erosion was low to moderate for all harvest units. Only 16 acres were located on 

landtypes rated as high for mass wasting, and these acres were located within the same areas 

as the LSP areas. These acres would be incorporated in the PACFISH buffered areas. Under 

Alternatives B and C, ground-based logging would occur on approximately 3,080 acres 

located in areas with high subsurface erosion potential. Under Alternative D, ground-based 

logging would affect 2,950 acres located in areas with a similar high risk for subsurface 

erosion. Generally, logging in areas with high risk for subsurface erosion is problematic only 

if the surface soil is removed and the subsurface and parent material is exposed. Based on 

past monitoring on the Clearwater Forest, an estimated average 10% of areas using groundbased logging systems are detrimentally disturbed. Using this assumption, approximately 300 

acres would be utilized for skid trails and landings. 

Landtype erosion hazards used to assess the effects of the alternatives on soil stability and 

erosion potentials indicate an overall increase of erosion potential for each of the action 

alternatives. Surface soil loss through displacement and mixing with infertile substrata has 

long-lasting consequences for soil productivity. This loss occurs during temporary road 

construction, excavation of skid trails and landings, and displacement of soils during groundbased harvest. Even though the ash layer is not a significant source of soil nutrient content, 

loss of the ash layer reduces water-holding capacity and high-quality tree rooting material. 

Since volcanic ash is not easily replaced, these effects may be very long lasting. 

Design measures to reduce the potential for subsurface erosion include the following: 

limiting the amount of excavated skid trails and landings; fully decommissioning all

excavated skid trails and landings on these landtypes; and placing large, woody material over 

the contoured slope for soil stabilization. 

For Alternatives B and C, approximately 30 miles of proposed temporary roads are located 

on landtypes with high subsurface erosion potential. Approximately 8.0 miles occur on 

already existing road templates. For Alternative D, 15 miles of temporary roads (7.5 miles 

existing) occur on high subsurface erosion landtypes. Location on these landtypes is often 

only problematic if the surface soil is removed and the subsurface material is exposed. The

proposed temporary roads would be located on ridgetops and upper slopes, and only small 

portions would require some form of excavation. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after use, and large woody material (>3 inches in diameter) would be placed 

on the surface to aid in soil stability. Even if small segments in these roads cut into the 

subsurface material and some erosion does occur, the likelihood of sediment delivery to 

streams would be minimal, because temporary roads would be located on ridgetops far from 

stream channels. 

Soil Productivity

Compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, loss of surface organic 

matter, and soil mass movements can all reduce site productivity. For the purpose of the 

project, proposed harvest units, temporary roads, and prescribed burn units are all considered 

Activity Areas. 

Much research has been conducted on the extent of ground disturbance from harvest 

activities. Disturbance has been shown to range from 4% to over 40%, depending on 

equipment used, method and season of operation, and silvicultural prescription (Clayton 

3-41

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 99 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1981; Clayton 1990; McNeeland Ballard 1992; Tepp 2002). Megahan (1980) documented 

that the highest amount of disturbance came from tractor yarding, with lesser amounts from 

skyline and aerial methods. In order to estimate the potential increase in detrimental 

disturbance created by proposed activities, the following assumptions were made for groundbased skidding, skyline yarding, and temporary road construction: 

• Detrimental soil impacts from proposed ground-based skidding are estimated at 

8%–12% (average 10%) of an Activity Area based on use of designated skid trails 

(Archer 2008). Disturbance is generally limited to main skid trails and landings.

Soil disturbance can be minimized by using existing skid trails and/or by 

designating the locations of new skid trails (Froehlich and Adams 1984; Froehlich 

and McNabb 1983). 

• Estimated detrimental soil impacts from proposed skyline yarding are 4% of an 

Activity Area, and disturbance is mostly concentrated at landings. 

• Impacts to soil from temporary road construction are expected to span an average

width of 25 feet wherever roads are built. This estimate is based on the 

assumption of a running road surface 12–15 feet wide and an additional 3–6 feet, 

cleared of vegetation, on each side of the road, where the soil would likely be 

displaced and the organic litter layer disturbed and/or removed. Based on these 

estimates, temporary roads would affect <3% of any activity unit. 

• Activity-generated slash piled along roadsides and in landings would be 

dispatched via sale of biomass materials, chipping, or burning. Slash within units 

would be left in place or treated using prescribed burning, mastication, or machine 

piling and burning. Treatment of slash is already incorporated in the estimates 

discussed above, because piles occur on areas where soils are already displaced or 

compacted.

Based on the above DSD assumptions, the proposed activities could cause soil disturbance on 

approximately 521 acres for Alternative B, 541 acres for Alternative C, or 502 acres for 

Alternative D, with the estimated increase of DSD in the harvest units ranging between 4% 

and 21% (see project file). The estimated increase includes skid trails, landings, and 

temporary roads that would be obliterated after project activities, so some measure of 

improvement would occur on those areas. The highest percent increase in soil disturbance 

occurs in units with proposed ground-based yarding methods. Some of these units have 

existing skid trails and landings that could be reused, thus minimizing the amount of new 

detrimental disturbance. 

Implementation of project design measures and BMPs would minimize DSD, and the 

decommissioning of skid trails, landings, and temporary roads would further improve soil 

condition. Decommissioning activities include decompaction, recontouring, adding organic 

matter, and seeding/planting. Soil remediation improves water infiltration, reduces potential 

for weed invasion, stabilizes slopes, and improves tree growth and vegetation establishment. 

About half of the units are below Forest standards for down large woody material due to 

excessive slash management after previous harvest activities. Units 107, 117, 142, and 148 

(past partial cut units proposed for regeneration harvest), units 201–206, 208–212, 214–216, 

220–222, 225–227, 233, 236, 304–306, 309, 310, 315–320, 322–324, 330–332, 343–351, 

354, 356, 358, and 373 (past clear-cut proposed for commercial thin), and units 501 and 506 

3-42

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 100 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

(past partial cuts proposed for improvement harvests) are lacking coarse woody material (<5 

tons/acre). Units 209, 212, 213, 350, and 373 have thin litter/duff layers of <2 centimeters.

Commercial thin units would retain 40%–50% of their trees (or more), providing existing and 

future coarse woody material, which would maintain soil stability and productivity. For 

regeneration and improvement units, 14–28 standing trees per acre (tpa) would be retained as 

individuals or in groups. In addition, 7–33 tons/acre (depending on habitat type and aspect) 

of down woody material would be left in the interior of each unit. Units listed above for low 

coarse wood material would have tree retention levels on the high end of the range to account 

for the lack of existing down woody material. By adhering to these design elements, the 

action alternatives would meet Regional soil standards for organic material by adhering to 

these design elements.

Prescribed fire can remove organic matter from the soil or change the physical and chemical 

properties of soil if temperatures become too high, as in a severe burn. Underburning of drier, 

open stands using quick, light-severity burns that burn only top layers of duff would have 

minimal impacts on soils. Areas of mixed conifers where the objective is to create openings 

may experience more high-intensity fire, but not necessarily high-severity burns. Highseverity fires can create water-repellent soils, which may result in soil erosion via mass 

wasting, sheet erosion, and/or gully erosion events. Mapping of local wildfires and ongoing 

monitoring of past prescribed burns indicate that approximately 4%–10% of the burn units 

would burn severely. This would be considered DSD, but the amount would meet Regional 

soil standards. 

3.5.6.4 Cumulative Effects

For the purpose of the project, proposed harvest units and associated temporary roads and 

prescribed burn units are considered Activity Areas. The cumulative effects areas are the 

same as those discussed in the section addressing direct and indirect effects. 

Areas affected by DSD can take several decades to recover, depending on soil texture, depth 

of compaction, and loss of organic material (Powers et al. 2005; Froehlich et al. 1983). This 

analysis considers all activities from the 1950s to the present, as well as 20–50 years into the 

future.

Conditions in the project area are a result of both natural processes and human activities. Past 

management activities include permitted grazing (1960s to present), recreation, fire 

suppression, road building and maintenance, and previous harvest activities (1950s to 2005). 

Past harvest and associated road construction have caused the most impact to the soil 

resource. Soil disturbance from these activities was incorporated into the DSD calculations. 

Timber Harvest—Harvesting methods prior to the 1980s often consisted of hand felling 

trees, tractor skidding, machine piling of slash, and mechanical site preparation. Groundbased logging occurred on slopes exceeding 35%. Machine piling of slash often removed 

organic material and topsoil. Forest practices have changed over the last few decades. Project 

design measures, BMPs, and Forest Plan guidelines have been developed in order to reduce 

the extent of disturbance and maintain soil productivity. Designated skid trails, retention of 

woody material, operating under dry conditions, and limiting ground-based skidding 

activities to slopes less than 35% are now common practices. 

3-43

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 101 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Since the 1950s, 28% of the project area has been harvested. Most harvest activities occurred 

between the 1960s and 1990s, with approximately 2,500 acres of intermediate harvest and 

9,500 acres of regeneration harvest. The most notable effects from harvest activities were 

compaction, displacement, and burned areas at landings. In steeper units, impacts were more 

dispersed. Less steep units had linear disturbance, mostly in the form of compacted skid trails 

and landings. 

Fire—Approximately 19,490 acres (45% of the project area) have burned in the project area 

since 1870. Evidence of past wildfire was noted in many of the units during soil surveys. No 

impacts from fire suppression activities were observed. 

Roads—Roads also influence soil, with long-term to permanent impairment of soil 

productivity. Although system roads are excluded in the determination of whether projects 

meet Forest Plan and Regional standards, these roads are a part of the existing condition. 

Within the project area, approximately 180 miles or 1,100 acres of system roads occur where 

topsoil and subsoil have been displaced, mixed, or lost to erosion. This acreage represents 

about 3% of the project area. Since 1997, over 30 miles of roads have been decommissioned. 

The project proposes to decommission 13.8 miles of system roads. An additional 65 miles of 

nonsystem roads would be decommissioned under the Clear Ridge Road Decommissioning 

Project, which is currently under development.

Grazing—Effects from grazing are moderate and tend to be highest near meadow areas, 

seeps, and springs. Impacts within the units are transitory (in the form of livestock trails) and 

are mostly on the edges of units or along old skid roads. 

Recreation—Recreation activities that were noted during field surveys include dispersed 

camping, off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and full-size vehicle use, fuelwood cutting, and 

hunting. Dispersed camping is generally located on already disturbed sites along system 

roads. Effects from recreation activities are primarily associated with full-size vehicles and 

OHVs using system roads during wet conditions, creating wheel ruts that concentrate water 

flow. Disturbance from recreation activities within harvest and burn units is anticipated to be 

negligible.

Ongoing and foreseeable actions within the proposed Activity Areas (harvest and burn units) 

consist of grazing, recreation, and fire suppression. Grazing impacts could increase over a

period of up to 20 years after harvest when more forage is available in the harvest units.

Recreation activities are not expected to increase in the harvest units, so an increase in 

detrimental disturbance is not expected. Fuelwood cutting could increase after project

activities, but many of the units are located along closed roads and access is limited. Fire 

suppression activities could increase DSD but the timing and extent of such disturbances 

cannot be predicted. 

3.5.6.4.1 Alternative A—No Action

This alternative maintains the existing condition. It would not alter the current soil erosion or 

landslide potential and would retain the same amount of coarse woody material, both 

standing and down. Existing DSD would persist with very slight natural recovery of surface 

layers of compacted soils.

3-44

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 102 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.5.6.4.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

The cumulative effects of these Action Alternatives were based on the estimated potential of 

increased detrimental disturbance (based on Region 1 Supplement definitions) when added to 

existing disturbance and to evaluate whether the project met Regional and Forest Plan 

standards. 

The cumulative effect of past and proposed activities was determined by adding the 

estimated disturbance from the project (increase of 4%–21%) to the existing DSD (0%–

22%). Potential cumulative DSD within the harvest units is estimated to be between 7% and 

40% prior to implementation of project design measures. (See project file for detailed 

information on individual units.) 

As shown in Table 3-9, 75–78 units would require implementation of unit-specific design 

measures in order to meet Regional soil standards. These measures would limit the amount of 

increased DSD from project activities and reduce the amount of existing detrimental 

disturbance by obliterating existing skid trails and landings. The project would meet the 

Regional soil standards by limiting the extent of detrimental disturbance to <15% following 

project implementation or by trending positive for those units with DSD currently >15%. 

Table 3-9. Unit-specific design measures to meet Regional soil standards

Design 

Category

Design 

Measures Units

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Reuse

Units that would 

exceed 15% 

without the reuse 

of existing 

templates 

101, 104, 123, 133, 201, 

204, 206, 211, 213, 215, 

216, 221, 222, 228, 232, 

235, 238, 307, 316, 323, 

330, 331, 332, 337, 340, 

347, 349, 352, 356, 501

30 31a 31a

Special

Units that would 

exceed the 15% 

standard—limited 

new disturbance 

to meet standard

134, 135, 147, 202, 203, 

205, 208, 217, 220, 225, 

229, 233, 236, 305, 306, 

309, 315, 317, 335, 341, 

343, 348, 351, 357, 373

25 25 22b

Trending 

Positive

Units that are 

currently over the 

15% standard 

202, 205, 209, 210, 212, 

214, 219, 230, 231, 234, 

237, 301, 304, 318, 319, 

320, 333, 344, 345, 350, 

354, 358

19 19 19

Forest Plan 

Amendment

Units that are 

over the 20% 

Forest Plan 

Standard

304, 320, 344 3 3 3 

Number of Units with special design features/mitigations 77 78 75

Number of Proposed Harvest Units 143 145 130

a

Unit 329 added to Alternatives C and D

b

Units 203, 343, and 351 dropped from Alternative D

Reuse, Trending Positive, and Forest Plan Amendment Design Categories—Methods 

include the following: a logging system layout design would be developed to use as many of 

the existing skid trails and landings as possible to limit the amount of new detrimental 

disturbance; all skid trails and landings would be decommissioned after use; and equipment 

used for machine piling or mastication of activity slash would remain on designated skid 

3-45

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 103 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

trails or would necessitate rehabilitation (decompaction or recontouring) of any detrimental 

disturbance created by its off-trail activity. 

Special design category—Special attention is needed for these units to remain at or below 

15% DSD following project implementation. Methods to meet or ensure this goal may 

include the following: main skid trails would be located only on existing disturbed areas with 

minimal, one-pass trails occurring on undisturbed ground; cut-to-length forwarder systems 

would be used; equipment used for machine piling or mastication of activity slash would 

remain on designated skid trails; and logging system layout designs would limit the amount 

of new detrimental disturbance (portions of the unit would be dropped if the layout plan 

cannot reach the entire unit while staying under the 15% standard). The estimated number of 

acres of new disturbance has been calculated for each unit and can be found in the project 

file. In addition, all skid trails, landings, and temporary roads would be decommissioned. 

Decommissioning of skid trails and landings would directly improve soil conditions, 

processes, and functions in the units by decompacting soils and adding coarse woody 

material and other organic matter to the existing skid trails or road surfaces. Decompaction of 

soil would break up platy structure, increase water infiltration rates, and temporarily remove 

vegetation. Seed would be spread over disturbed ground to re-establish vegetative cover.

Where available, duff and woody material would also be spread over the disturbed area to 

increase the recovery rate. 

Skid trail decommissioning following harvest would utilize methods similar to Forest road 

decommissioning methods. Improvements in soil structure, water infiltration, aeration, root 

penetrability, and soil biological activity have been observed on the Clearwater National 

Forest after road decommissioning techniques were used there. A local soil study (Lloyd et 

al. 2010) observed that improved infiltration rates and soil bulk densities on decommissioned 

roads recover to values similar to never-roaded areas at 1, 5, and 10 years following 

decommissioning. In this same study and time frame, soil organic matter, total carbon, and 

nitrogen pools and processes increased to levels similar to those found in never-roaded 

surfaces. The Clearwater Forest Plan Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2009b) stated 

that road decommissioning monitoring on the Forest across a wide range of sites has 

documented an increase in vegetative cover from 18% the year after decommissioning to 

64% at 10 years after decommissioning. Skid trail and road decommissioning following 

reuse would also improve slope stability and decrease long-term erosion. Soil improvement 

activities on existing disturbed areas are expected to accelerate soil recovery and result in 

immediate or near-term (approximately 1–5 years) improvement in fundamental soil 

properties (e.g., bulk density, infiltration rates, soil organic matter, carbon, and nitrogen). 

These improvement activities would also provide support for continued long-term recovery 

of soil functions and productivity. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Loss of the volcanic ash–influenced loess through erosion or removal (excavated temporary 

roads and skid trails) is irretrievable. Remaining soil materials would eventually develop

(over a minimum of several decades) but may lack the water- and nutrient-holding properties 

of volcanic ash. 

3-46

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 104 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Small, localized areas would have reduced soil productivity until vegetation becomes 

reestablished and organic layers rebuild. These areas include temporary roads, skid trails, 

landings, and burned areas. Severely burned areas and areas with deep compaction could take 

decades to recover (Froehlich et al. 1983). Soil improvement activities such as decompacting 

soils and adding organic matter (woody material) could jump-start this process (Curren et al. 

2005a, b). 

3.6 VEGETATION

This section summarizes the effects of the alternatives on vegetation. This section was 

summarized from the “Clear Creek Restoration Project Vegetation Report,” located in the 

project file. 

Historically, the primary change agent within the Clear Creek drainage was a mixed-severity 

fire regime with return intervals ranging from 75 years to over 300 years. Insects, disease, 

and humans have become the primary agents of change since fire has been absent from the 

area. 

Historic logging practices generally created small patches with regular edges that are 

inconsistent with natural change agents. The project is designed to utilize existing small 

patches of young trees to create larger patches of young trees by implementing variable 

retention regeneration methods, thinning through younger stands, and retaining 100% of 

stands in some areas. All of these activities would occur within the Focus areas. These 

activities were designed to create a disturbance pattern that is more in line with the size and 

scale of what historically would have been a mixed-severity fire regime. The location of the 

Focus areas was intended to utilize the existing young forest and the existing transportation 

system.

The goals of the project are designed to promote forest health by maintaining and 

reestablishing long-lived, early seral species such as white pine, ponderosa pine, and western 

larch, which have declined significantly over the last 80 years due to white pine blister rust

and lack of disturbance (Arno et al. 2000; Keane and Arno 1996). Healthy forests with 

ecological resilience will help provide and sustain a broad range of ecosystem services 

including fire/fuels, wildlife, recreation, aquatics, and commodity production. Healthy, 

resilient landscapes have a greater capacity to survive natural disturbances and large-scale 

threats to sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future environmental 

conditions, such as those driven by climate change and increasing demand for human use. 

3.6.1 Analysis Area

The analysis area for this assessment includes only the 43,731 acres of NFS managed lands, 

all of which lie within the upper two-thirds of the drainage. The analysis area is ecologically 

and socially important for many reasons, including fish and wildlife habitat, opportunities for 

sustained local economic stability, protection of Nez Perce tribal treaty rights, and recreation 

opportunities. 

The analysis indicators discuss the existing conditions at treatment unit and analysis area 

scales. However, the existing conditions of the biophysical environment also need to be 

discussed at the larger spatial scale of the Middle Fork Clearwater River basin, and 

sometimes northern Idaho or the northwestern United States, to provide appropriate context 

3-47

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 105 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for analyzing Clear Creek conditions. Agents of change—such as succession, weather, 

climate, fire, insects, and disease—must also be considered in these discussions. 

3.6.2 Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan direction and all federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to the 

management of vegetative resources on the Forest would be applied to the project, including 

the NFMA of 1976. In addition, diagnosis, prescription development, and forest health 

analysis are guided by Forest Service regulations and policy (FSH 1909.60 and 2409.17; 

FSM 1920, 2020, 2470, 2471, and 2472) and the Region 1 Integrated Restoration and 

Protection Strategy. 

3.6.2.1 Nez Perce Forest Plan

3.6.2.1.1 Timber Standards

Timber Standard 1. Require silvicultural examination and prescriptions before any vegetative 

manipulation takes place on forested lands. Final determination of the silvicultural system for 

areas to be harvested will be made by a certified silviculturist after an on-the-ground, sitespecific analysis.

All proposed treatment stands have had stand exams or have been examined on the ground 

by a silviculturist, wildlife biologist, and fuels specialist. All vegetative treatments will have 

silvicultural prescriptions approved by a certified silviculturist prior to treatment 

implementation. Prescriptions will consider site-specific factors as well as multiple resource 

objectives, NEPA decisions, other regulatory requirements and Forest Plan goals, objectives, 

and standards. Action alternative treatments were proposed because they balance the 

management, operational, silvical, and human dimension requirements and respond to the 

purpose and need. 

Timber Standard 2. Clear-cutting will not occur adjacent to previously harvested areas that 

are still considered openings. 

No harvest is being proposed adjacent to stands that would be considered an opening. All 

proposed harvest units that are adjacent to previously harvested stands are certified as fully 

stocked, and the trees are greater than 10 feet in height. 

Timber Standard 3. Permit timber harvest on lands classified as “unsuitable” for timber 

management to accomplish multiple use objectives.

No harvest is being proposed on unsuitable lands. 

3.6.2.1.2 Protection Standards 

Protection Standard 3. Minimize the impacts of the mountain pine beetle and other insect and 

disease infestations to the extent necessary to achieve the overall goals and objectives of this 

Forest Plan.

Loss of the long-lived early seral components in the ecosystem is a major factor in the lack of 

ecological resiliency. Regeneration treatments would remove dead, dying, and at-risk 

vegetation, which would trend the project area toward species compositions with increased 

resilience. Proposed treatments would minimize adverse pest effects and maximize a range of 

objectives.

3-48

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 106 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.6.2.2 National Forest Management Act

Vegetation Manipulation (36 CFR 219.27(b)[1]): Ensure that technology and knowledge 

exist to adequately restock lands within 5 years after final harvest.

Restocking within 5 years of regeneration harvest is a required design item of the action 

alternatives. Technology and knowledge do exist to comply with this requirement. The 

Clearwater National Forest Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report for 2008 shows 

that 60% of stands harvested in 2002 have been certified, and the rest are progressing toward 

certification. Recent, similar monitoring data is not currently available for the Nez Perce 

National Forest; however, the project area is close enough to the Clearwater National Forest 

so that soils, habitat types, and moisture regimes are similar enough so that the Clearwater 

data can be used as a surrogate. The delay in certification was caused by a delay in achieving 

proper site preparation. This standard is met under the action alternatives. 

Vegetation Manipulation (36 CFR 219.27(b)[1]): Be chosen after considering potential 

effects on residual trees and adjacent stands. 

The potential short- and long-term negative effects of proposed activities on adjacent trees 

were considered during alternative development. Retention areas would be designed to 

minimize mortality during site preparation activities. Site-specific prescription modifications, 

such as change unit boundary, would be incorporated into the prescriptions. This standard is 

met under the action alternatives.

Silvicultural Practices (36 CFR 219.27(c): No timber harvest, other than salvage sales or 

sales to protect other multiple-use values, shall occur on lands not suitable for timber 

production. 

Guidelines for determining suitability are found in the FSH (2409.13). The proposed harvest 

units are within the productive habitat types (as described in Cooper et al. 1991). None of the 

areas being proposed for treatment as part of the project are designated as unsuitable under 

the 1987 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987b). This standard is met under the action 

alternatives.

Even-aged Management (36 CFR 219.27(d): When timber is to be harvested using an evenaged management system, a determination that the system is appropriate to meet the 

objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan must be made. Where clear-cutting is to be 

used, it must be determined to be the optimum harvest method. 

The action alternatives propose a combination of regeneration harvests (shelterwood 

establishment with reserves) and prescribed burning. The regeneration harvests are evenaged regeneration harvest systems. All vegetative treatments would have prescriptions 

prepared by a certified silviculturist. Overall, the analysis area stands display high mortality 

and low growth rates. All proposed treatments meet objectives and requirements of the Forest 

Plan.

3.6.2.3 Forest Service Manual 2471—Harvest Cutting

The size of harvest openings created by even-aged silvicultural in the Northern Region will 

normally be 40 acres or less. Creation of larger openings will require 60-day public review 

and Regional Forester approval. 

3-49

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 107 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The public was informed during scoping that regeneration openings in excess of 40 acres 

were proposed for the project area. A letter of approval to exceed the 40-acre opening size, 

with appropriate interdisciplinary analysis and documentation, would be received from the 

Regional Forester prior to project decision. The action alternatives would create openings on 

the landscape that are closer in scale and pattern to the openings developed under historic 

disturbance regimes for this area. Proposed harvest openings greater than 40 acres are 

discussed under Patch Size in the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects section. This

standard is met under all the action alternatives.

3.6.3 Resource Indicators

No single indicator is a definitive measure of forest health or resilience. A healthy and 

resilient forest ecosystem is characterized by composition, structure, pattern, and ecological 

processes sustainable under current and future conditions. 

The basis for the forest health analysis is comparison of the existing condition and the 

outcome of the alternatives to the desired condition in the project area. The desired condition 

is specific to the project area and was developed by incorporating data from Ecological Units 

of the Northern Region Subsections, VRUs, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Ecosystem Management Project, and the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment. Studying historical data can reduce the chances of major future surprises 

(Veblen 2003). Forest composition and three characteristics of forest structure are used to 

assess trends toward or away from health and resilient conditions. Current conditions for 

these indicators were derived from legacy data Timber Stand Management and Records 

System (TSMRS) and FSVeg data.

The effectiveness of the alternatives in addressing forest composition objectives is indicated 

by the following:

• Percent of the project area with forest cover type dominated by the long-lived 

early seral species (western white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine) 

compared to area dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir (Pseudotusuga 

menzeseii).

The effectiveness of the alternatives in addressing forest structure objectives is indicated by 

the following: 

• Percent of the project area in each stand age class. Age groups are young (0–40 

years), mid-seral (41–100 years), mature (101–149 years), and old (150 years and 

older). Age class will be analyzed at the project area scale to allow comparison of 

alternatives and desired conditions at various points in time-based age class 

distributions by vegetation response units. 

• Vertical structure is used as a within-stand structural arrangement indicator. It is 

represented by the number of vertical layers present in a stand. Vertical structure 

will be compared between alternatives. The 4 vertical structure classes are singlestoried, two-storied, three-storied, and continuous vertical structure.

Landscape arrangement is discussed in terms of changes in patch sizes of the age classes. 

Comparison of current conditions and action alternatives to the desired condition is an 

indicator of resiliency at the project area scale.

3-50

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 108 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.6.4 Analysis Methodology

This analysis relies on comparison of existing conditions to desired conditions at various 

spatial and temporal scales. The DFC was used for comparing the present condition of the 

project area and anticipated conditions under the No Action alternative and the action three 

alternatives over time.

The interaction of successional development (as represented by habitat types in Cooper et al. 

1991; USDA Forest Service 1997) and disturbances such as fire, insects, diseases, and human 

influences results in the species composition, structure, and landscape arrangement of an 

ecosystem Maps depicting habitat groups and VRUs are available in the project record. 

Existing conditions reflect past natural disturbances and management activities. 

The vegetative desired condition for the project area was developed prior to any effects 

analysis. It is based on multiple resource objectives, using direction from the 1987 Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987b), the proposed 2008 Plan Revision, the Selway Middle 

Fork Clearwater Sub-basin Assessment, and the draft Clear Creek NFMA document. 

3.6.4.1 Data Sources

Current vegetative conditions were summarized using a vegetation inventory model. The 

model uses forest stand data from FACTS, TSMRS, FSVeg, and the Most Similar Neighbor 

modeling program (a model that populates estimated stand data to areas without stand 

exams). The inventory model also uses the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to grow all the 

stands to 2012 conditions, starting from the time when the stands last received a stand 

examination. Additionally, Region 1 Vmap data were used to further evaluate current 

conditions of the project area. The data were collected in 2006 and classified using the 

Region 1 Vegetation Council Existing Forested Vegetation Classification System. Inventory 

work is performed on individual stands. A stand is defined as a contiguous group of trees 

sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of age classes, and condition on a 

relatively similar site (Oliver et al. 1996). 

The FVS model provided a variety of information that was used in the analysis, including 

species composition, growth over time, and fire and fuels parameters. Documentation of 

these FVS attributes is found in Graham et al. (1994), Dixon (2002), Crookston (1999), 

Frankel (1998), and McGaughey (2002). Additionally, a patch analysis derived from the 

Fragstats program was used to describe and compare landscape pattern, arrangement, and 

patch size. The patch analysis is available in the project record.

3.6.5 Affected Environment

3.6.5.1 Biophysical Environment

Much of the vegetation in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests is a result of the 

productive ash cap soils and the prevailing climatic pattern. The climate is dominated by 

Pacific maritime air masses and prevailing westerly winds. Within the analysis area, annual 

precipitation varies from 40 to 50 inches. Over 90% of the annual precipitation occurs during 

fall, winter, and spring months as a result of cyclonic storms in the form of a series of frontal 

systems moving east. The elevation of the analysis area ranges from 2,000 to 6,600 feet.

3-51

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 109 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.6.5.2 Ecological Settings and Vegetation Response Units

Bailey’s ecosections were used to summarize historic vegetation information (McNab and 

Avers 1994). Each ecosection contains broad vegetation and topographic conditions. Local 

landtype classifications were used to divide each section into 3 settings, which are roughly 

similar to the subsections described in Ecological Units of the Northern Region: Subsections 

(Nesser et al. 1997). A map of potential vegetation types was used to attribute the forest 

cover types to the settings (Northern Region Cohesive Strategy Team 2002). The primary 

settings within the analysis area are Idaho Batholith Breaklands, Idaho Batholith Uplands, 

and Idaho Batholith Subalpine (USDA Forest Service 2006). The Subalpine setting 

comprises only 160 acres of the project area, and no treatments are proposed for these acres. 

Therefore, the Subalpine acreage will not be discussed in this analysis. 

Incorporated within each of the 3 settings are 7 VRUs. These units are broad ecological land 

sections that contain habitat type groups and terrain that have similar patterns of disturbance 

and successional processes. Patterns of plant community composition, age class structure, 

and patch size tend to fall within certain ranges for each VRU. The components used to build 

the VRU classification system are habitat type groups (potential vegetation), landforms, 

climate, and presettlement disturbance processes (such as fire regimes). The desired 

conditions, potential natural vegetation that could occupy the project area following a 

disturbance, and a discussion of successional patterns and development are presented below. 

. The existing conditions for age class groups are also presented to give an idea of where 

potential land management activities could be used to shift the project area toward desired 

conditions. Existing conditions are described for the year 2012 and 2017. The year 2017 was 

included because that is the estimated year when actual vegetative management activities 

would be implemented. Stands will continue to age through that time, which will result in 

age class shifts.

Idaho Batholith—Breaklands 

The Breaklands are characterized by low- to mid-elevation canyons on steep south aspects. 

The Breaklands setting is dominated by steep slopes and deep canyon walls through which 

the Middle Fork and Clear Creek tributaries flow. Soils are derived from granite, border 

zone, and basalt geologies. Landslides and surface creep are the dominant erosion processes. 

The Breaklands are known for having inclusions of LSP areas and shallow soils. These 

characteristics make this setting more susceptible to erosion and more sensitive to 

disturbance. 

Wildfire was the primary process affecting plant succession, composition, and distribution. 

Steep terrain favors rapid, upslope spread of wildfires. Stand-replacing fires are more 

prevalent on long, steep slopes and less frequent in adjoining moist habitats. Patches on dry 

aspects are uneven-aged, resulting from nonlethal to mixed-severity wildfire. Patches on 

moist aspects are even-aged, with uniform vegetation and fuel conditions resulting from 

stand-replacing fires. Early seral species (shrubs, forbs, and grasses), Douglas-fir, ponderosa 

pine, and grand fir readily reestablish following wildfire episodes. 

3-52

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 110 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

VRU 3: 3,030 acres (7% of the analysis area)

Desired Condition: Open stands of large ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominate upland 

habitats. Approximately 40%–60% of the landscape contains 10–25 tpa of ponderosa pine 

and Douglas-fir older than 150 years. Mixed-severity disturbance occurs on about 10%–15% 

of the analysis area in any 2-decade period. Low-severity disturbances occur on up to 50% of 

the landscape in a decade. Old forests occur both as isolated or open-understory, large 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (uplands) and mixed to coniferous forest (shaded or moist 

habitats). 

The desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage distribution, and tree 

size class for VRU 3 are shown in Table 3-10. 

Table 3-10. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage distribution, and 

tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 3

Factor Desired Conditions Existing Conditions

Patch size

50–200 acres

6–183 acres

38% within size range

Successional Stage Distribution (%)

Young

Mid-seral

Mature

Old-forest

No data/no survey

15%–25%

15%–35%

10%–30%

20%–50%

--

6%

66%

13%

4%

11%

Tree Size Class

Non-forest

<5 inches dbh

 5–8.9 inches

 9–21 inches

21+ inches

No data/no survey

5%–20%

5%–30%

10%–20%

20%–40%

20%–40%

--

6% 

32% 

10% 

15%

8% 

28% (in roadless area)

The greatest departures from desired conditions in VRU 3 are the need for increases in both 

young- and old-forest successional stages. The action alternatives would use regeneration 

harvest to increase the young age class through management of the mid-seral stage, which 

exceeds the desired high condition by almost 1,000 acres. Commercial thinning or full 

retention would be used to promote healthy stands that could grow into the late- and oldforest stages. Patch sizes are on the low end of desired ranges. Proposed regeneration harvest 

and burning activities would increase patch sizes to better emulate natural disturbance 

patterns. 

VRU 8: 11,350 acres (26% of the analysis area)

Desired Condition: Grand fir, Douglas-fir, and western redcedar dominate stands during late 

successional stages. Early seral stages range from relatively open to densely stocked and are 

usually dominated by a mix of early seral and mid-seral species, including lodgepole pine, 

western larch, and western white pine. Ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, and Pacific yew 

may be present. Important elements include coastal disjunct plant species, early to seral tall 

shrub and hardwood communities, and old-growth inclusions of western redcedar riparian 

3-53

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 111 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

habitats. Patch sizes are widely variable and result from irregular, infrequent mixed-severity 

fires and very infrequent stand-replacing fires throughout the landscape. Old-forest habitats 

dominated by shade-tolerant conifers typically occur in patches of <40 acres and are 

associated with topographic inclusions (benches, basins, flat ridges, and moist habitats). 

These smaller patches are a result of stand-replacing fires. About 50%–60% of stands 

originate from stand-replacing fires. Postdisturbance stands include at least 10 live tpa that 

are >150 years old. Relict Douglas-fir, western larch, grand fir, and ponderosa pine are 

common on ridges. 

The desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage distribution, and tree 

size class for VRU 8 are shown in Table 3-11 below. 

Table 3-11. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 8 

Factor Desired Conditions Existing Conditions

Patch size

300–1,500 acres

8–282 acres 

0% within size range

Successional Stage Distribution (%)

Young

Mid-seral

Mature

Old-forest

 Private

15%–25%

20%–40%

15%–35%

10%–40%

--

9%

43%

22%

23%

2%

Tree Size Class

Non-forest

<5 inches dbh

 5–8.9 inches

 9–21 inches

21+ inches

No data/no survey

5%–20%

5%–30%

10%–20%

20%–40%

20%–40%

--

5%

15%

4%

34% 

36% old

6%

The greatest departure from desired conditions in VRU 8 is the need for an increase in young 

forest. The proposed action alternatives would use regeneration harvest and prescribed fire to 

reduce the mid-seral stage and increase patch size.

VRU 12: 40 acres (<1% of the analysis area) 

Desired Condition: Bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue dominate dry upland habitats; 

shrubs dominate draws and moist inclusions. Patch sizes are limited by aspect and coniferous 

vegetation. Invasive forbs and grasses are reduced or eliminated. Very frequent (5- to 20-year

intervals), low-severity fire maintains open grasslands and rejuvenates shrub habitats. 

Ponderosa pine and an occasional Douglas-fir occur incidentally. This VRU is incidental at 

the analysis scale because the unit comprises only 40 acres within the analysis area. All 

40 acres are proposed for grassland restoration activities.

Idaho Batholith—Uplands 

The Uplands setting is a mix of gentle-to-steep slopes that form shallow canyons. Surface 

soils are derived from granite, border zone, and basalt geologies. The warm, moist climate, in 

3-54

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 112 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

combination with deep volcanic ash soils, creates high site productivity for forested stands. 

Surface creep is the dominant erosion process; mass-wasted areas are local and uncommon. 

Fire was the primary landscape disturbance process affecting plant succession, composition, 

and distribution. The fire regime is variable due to irregular terrain that discourages rapid fire 

spread. This fire regime creates a mosaic of mixed- to lethal-burned uplands and nonlethal or 

unburned riparian habitats. Small openings created by the more frequent low- and mixedseverity fires result in a mix of tree species and ages. Stand-replacing wildfire occurs at 

intervals of 150–250 years or more (Kapler-Smith and Fischer 1997) and is likely associated 

with strong wind episodes in combination with extended drought. 

VRU 7: 2,570 acres (6% of the analysis area)

Desired Condition: Stands are often dominated by mixed occurrences of grand fir, Douglasfir, Pacific yew, western larch, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine. Western white pine 

may be present. The decline in white pine has led to the increase of grand fir and Douglas-fir, 

which have a high susceptibility to root diseases. Pacific yew and moist old-growth are 

important elements. About 20%–40% of stands originate from mixed-severity disturbances, 

and 60%–80% originate from stand-replacing disturbances. Postdisturbance stands include at 

least 10 live tpa that are >150 years old. Two or more age classes are common in any given 

stand. 

The desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage distribution, and tree 

size class for VRU 7 are shown in Table 3-12. 

Table 3-12. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 7 

Factor Desired Conditions Existing Conditions

Patch size

40–300 acres

1–282 acres

20% within size range

Successional Stage Distribution (%)

Young

Mid-seral

Mature

Old-forest

 Private

10%–20%

15%–35%

10%–30%

35%–65%

--

26%

25%

28%

20%

2%

Tree size class

Non-forest

<5 inches dbh

 5–8.9 inches

 9–21 inches

21+ inches 

1%–10%

5%–20%

10%–25%

25%–35%

35%–45%

2%

27%

10%

16%

46%

The greatest departure from desired conditions in VRU 7 is the need for an increase in old 

forests. The young-forest stage is in excess of the desired high condition by 150 acres. The 

action alternatives would use regeneration harvest to create young forests and would 

implement commercial and precommercial thinning to promote healthy stands (by selecting 

for preferred, long-lived species and reducing stand densities to reduce competition for light, 

water, and nutrients). Thinning would help the stands progress toward the older age classes. 

3-55

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 113 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

VRU 10: 5,170 acres (12% of the analysis area)

Desired Condition: Open-canopied, multi-aged old-forest stands of grand fir, Engelmann 

spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar, and Sitka alder are the dominant cover types. Isolated 

Douglas-fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, and Pacific yew locally occur on ridges. Mixed 

alder, forbs, and grasses are well distributed and persistent as inclusions. Multi-aged, mixedspecies stands originate from low- and mixed-severity disturbances, including windthrow. 

Old-forest habitats are dominated by shade-tolerant conifers associated with moist habitats.

The desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage distribution, and tree 

size class for VRU 10 are shown in Table 3-13. 

Table 3-13. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 10

Factor Desired Conditions Existing Conditions

Patch size

40–800 acres

5–282 acres

24% within size range

Successional Stage Distribution (%)

Young

Mid-seral

Mature

Old-forest

10%–20%

10%–30%

10%–30%

35%–65%

9%

18%

15%

58%

Tree Size Class

Non-forest

<5 inches dbh

 5–8.9 inches

 9–21 inches

21+ inches

Unknown/no survey 

data

1%–10%

5%–20%

10%–25%

25%–35%

35%–45%

--

0.1%

10%

0.1%

38%

40%

12%

The greatest departure from desired conditions in VRU 10 is the need for a slight increase in 

the young forest. Old forest occurs near the top end of desired condition. As expected, 

mortality from insects, disease, and old age is becoming more evident in these stands as they 

mature. Proposed regeneration harvest would be used to reduce the old-forest component 

while increasing the young forest. Proposed commercial thinning in the mid-seral forests 

would promote healthy, vigorously growing stands. 

VRU 17: 20,485 acres (47% of the analysis area)

Desired Condition: Western redcedar and grand fir are the dominant mature forest cover 

types in the absence of disturbance. With stand reinitiation, Douglas-fir, western white pine, 

and western larch occur as isolated relics in mature and old stands. The decline in white pine 

has led to the increase of grand fir and Douglas-fir, which have a high susceptibility to root 

diseases. Open-canopied, multi-aged old forest and tall shrub communities are important 

elements. About 40%–60% of stands evolve with mixed-severity disturbances, and 40%–

60% develop following stand-replacing disturbances. Postdisturbance stands include at least 

10 live tpa that are >150 years old. Old-forest habitats are dominated by shade-tolerant 

western redcedar and grand fir.

3-56

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 114 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

The desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage distribution, and tree 

size class for VRU 17 are shown in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-14. Desired and existing conditions for patch size, successional stage

distribution, and tree size class for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 17

Factor Desired Conditions Existing Conditions

Patch size

300–1,000 acres

2–270 acres 

0.4% within size range

Successional Stage Distribution (%)

Young

Mid-seral

Mature

Old-forest

10%–20%

15%–35%

10%–30%

25%–55%

20%

33%

14%

32%

Tree Size Class

Non-forest

<5 inches dbh

 5–8.9 inches

 9–21 inches

21+ inches

Unknown/ no survey 

data

1%–10%

5%–20%

10%–25%

25%–35%

35%–45%

--

3%

20% 

9%

20% 

43%

6%

No departures from desired conditions occur in VRU 17; however, young forest would 

decline toward low desired conditions by 2017. Proposed precommercial thinning in young 

forest and commercial thinning in mid-seral forests would promote healthy stands as they 

continue to grow into the late- and old-forest stages. Regeneration harvest would be used to 

increase patch sizes to more natural levels and to maintain desired levels within 5 years.

3.6.5.1 Vegetative Agents of Change

Vegetation is a fundamental part of terrestrial ecosystems. The vegetation that exists across 

an ecosystem and through time is a function of the physical state, the climate, the plant 

species available in an area, the disturbance history of the site, and the successional processes 

that follow disturbance. Most landscapes are a mosaic reflecting the interaction between 

disturbance and plant succession. The interaction between disturbance forces and 

successional processes is a keystone process shaping the landscape vegetation mosaic (Zack 

and Morgan 1994). Understanding disturbance and succession and how they relate to forest 

composition is necessary to understand the current vegetative state. Additionally, timber 

harvest has created disturbances to successional patterns 

3.6.5.1.1 Weather

While fires can create dramatic changes to successional development and the ecosystem, 

weather continually modifies the ecosystem. Moisture and temperature are important to 

characterize the biophysical environment. Weather disturbances (such as wind events, 

periods of high moisture, or drought) adjust species composition, structure (at the fine and 

coarse scale), and function (growth; conditions conducive for insect, disease, or fire 

mortality) consistently throughout successional development. Weather is not predictable in 

terms of ecological timing or landscape arrangement, but it has continual and important 

influence. Examples of weather-related influences include changes in composition and 

3-57

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 115 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

structure due to an ice/wind storm, extended drought creating conditions conducive to bark 

beetle infestation (mountain pine beetle currently occurring at higher elevations), and the 

survival of regeneration based on occurrence of a series of moist or droughty years. As 

discussions move from weather (atmospheric conditions over a short period of time) to 

climate (how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time), the continual effects of 

moisture, temperature, and weather disturbances define the environment and therefore the 

compositions, structures, and function of the ecosystem. 

3.6.5.1.2 Climate Change

Climate change and management of natural resources with a changing climate are both 

science and social issues. Managing in the face of climate change is a common forest 

management question, both in terms of the effect climate change will have on the managed 

ecosystem and the effect the Proposed Action may have on the climate.

The Forest Service has been involved in climate change research for about 2 decades and has 

a century of science and management experience. The Forest Service has stated its objective 

regarding climate change as follows:

The aim is to reestablish and retain ecological resilience of NFS lands and 

associated resources to achieve sustainable management and provide a broad 

range of ecosystem services. Healthy, resilient landscapes will have greater 

capacity to survive natural disturbances and large scale threats to 

sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future environmental 

conditions, such as those driven by climate change and increasing human uses 

(Forest Service Manual 2020.2). 

The future of forest management in a changing climate is best addressed with approaches that 

embrace strategic flexibility, characterized by risk-taking, the capacity to reassess conditions 

frequently, and willingness to change course as conditions change (Hobbs et al. 2006 from 

Millar et al. 2007). The appropriate approach is an integrated strategy involving a scientific 

and social climate change approach that considers predictions/scenarios specific to the local 

ecosystem as well as analysis of specific ecosystem responses. The Washington Climate 

Change Impacts Assessment2 is the most recent and area-specific tool available to understand 

potential changes in northern Idaho. Until more scientific details for this approach are 

available, a conservative forest management approach is reasonable; a conservative approach 

is based on diversity and resilience and can be adjusted in the short, middle, and long terms 

(adaptive management). This is the basis for proposed treatments in the Clear Creek project 

area. 

3.6.5.1.3 Fire

2 http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/pnwc.shtml

3-58

 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 116 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

While forests can be disturbed by weather, insects, and microorganisms, all of these interact 

with fire. Fire can release a large amount of energy in short periods of time, which is why fire 

is one of nature’s most powerful disturbance forces. During summer, the Clear Creek 

watershed experiences significant dry periods when vegetation can sustain fires. Lightning 

was probably the primary ignition source prior to Euro-American settlement. Lightning and 

human causes are the present-day ignition sources. Fire suppression was considered to be 

effective at the landscape scale in the 1930s. Understanding fire as an agent of change allows 

understanding of the functional interactions in a healthy, sustainable ecosystem. 

Understanding past fire disturbance or vegetation scenarios for an area allows increased 

understanding of the area’s resilience and sustainability. 

Data from the predominant VRUs within the 

project area (VRUs 8 and 17), combined with the 

analysis done for the Clear Creek watershed 

assessments, indicate that only the lethal, very 

infrequent (151- to 300-year interval) fire regime 

is still operating. The nonlethal underburning fire 

regime no longer occurs, due to fire suppression 

efforts. Fires that start under underburning 

conditions are usually extinguished at <1 acre in 

size. The mid-seral successional stages are, 

therefore, denser and more uniform over the 

landscape than those that would have occurred 

historically. For a more detailed discussion of 

fire ecology, refer to the fire/fuels specialist 

report. 

3.6.5.1.4 Insects and Disease

In the absence of fire, forest insects and diseases can accelerate or reset forest succession by 

affecting tree species, size, and stand density. Functions of pathogens and insects in forests 

can be divided into 2 parts: the action, such as killing trees, decaying heartwood, or reducing 

growth; and the outcome, such as changing species composition of stands or changing stand 

structure from a mature, closed canopy to a pole-size, low-density structure (USDA Forest 

Service 2000). Based on summarized species composition, tree diameters, and age classes 

from Vmap and FSVeg, approximately 76% of the project area may currently be susceptible 

to insect and disease activity. This level of susceptibility is important because over the last 75 

years, insects and disease have replaced fire as the most prominent agent of change. 

Root Diseases—Historically, root diseases were a significant factor in reducing subalpine fir 

and grand fir, which tended to outcompete western larch and, on some sites, white pine. 

Grand fir regenerated readily in the early stages of stand development but dropped out as a 

significant component due to high rates of mortality caused by root disease (Byler and 

Zimmer-Grove 1990). White pine and larch have a higher level of resistance to root diseases 

at this stage of stand development and were able to capitalize on the increased availability of 

growing space. Fire exclusion and the loss of these species through logging, blister rust, and 

mountain pine beetle have reduced the opportunity for early seral species to become 

established in root disease areas (Harvey et al. 2008). 

Fire Severity

• Nonlethal fires – fires that kill 10% or 

less of the dominant tree canopy. A much 

larger percentage of small, understory 

trees, shrubs, and forbs may be burned 

back to the ground lines.

• Mixed-severity fires – fires that kill more 

than 10% but less than 90% of the 

dominant tree canopy. These fires are 

commonly patch, irregular burns, 

producing a mosaic of different burn 

severities.

• Lethal fires – fires that kill 90% or more 

of the dominant tree canopy. These are 

often called stand-replacing fires, and 

they often burn with high severity. They 

are commonly crown fires.

3-59

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 117 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Insects: Major insect change agents of the Clear Creek watershed include mountain pine 

beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, Douglas-fir tussock moth, and fir engravers. Historically, 

mountain pine beetle played an important successional role in mature white pine or lodgepole 

forests; the presence of mountain pine beetle led to various significant changes, including 

altered species composition and widespread tree mortality that resulted in fuel buildup and 

increased fire susceptibility. Douglas-fir beetle and fir engravers have always been present 

throughout the Clear Creek watershed, and both have been observed in the project area over 

the last 10 years. The presence of root disease in many of the Douglas-fir and grand fir forest 

types has resulted in even higher endemic levels of the Douglas-fir beetle and the propensity 

for rapid beetle population buildups during favorable conditions (Lockman and Gibson 

1998). Historically, short-term increases in fuel loading may have led to increased fire 

intensity and severity and subsequent development of openings conducive to regeneration of 

early seral species. In some cases, insect infestations may have contributed to large standreplacing fires (USDA Forest Service 1998a).

White Pine Blister Rust: White pine blister rust was introduced into northern Idaho and this 

analysis area in the early 1900s. Blister rust is a fungal disease that forms cankers on 

branches or stems of trees; the cankers then weaken the trees and may eventually kill them. 

Weakened trees also become susceptible to other disease or to insect attack. Trees were 

either killed or harvest was accelerated to capture anticipated loss of economic value. In 

addition, the young white pine component (established following the 34 fires in 1910) was 

highly impacted by blister rust, as these young trees had little natural resistance, if any, to the 

disease. The project area has experienced substantial white pine mortality. Heavy fuel loads, 

along with increasing amounts of grand fir, are likely a result of high numbers of white pine 

succumbing to blister rust. The presence of live 50- to 80-year-old white pine is an indicator 

of some level of natural genetic resistance to blister rust in these survivors. Natural blister 

rust resistance is thought to be <10%. The live white pine is an ecologically important 

component of the resource area, both in terms of its resistance to blister rust and because of 

its role as a successional component as the stands develop. 

3.6.5.1.5 Harvest 

Logging activities were initiated in the area in the 1960s. Known past harvest in the project 

area has been cataloged and summarized in Table 3-15. Regeneration harvest converted 

mature stands into younger and to smaller size classes. Additional regeneration harvest 

occurred at the same time on adjacent private and State property.

3-60

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 118 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-15. Past harvest activities in the Clear Creek project area

Harvest Method

Year

1930–

1939

1950–

1959

1960–

1969

1970–

1979

1980–

1989

1990–

1999

2000–

2009

Grand 

Total

Commercial thin — — 61 130 357 29 — 577

Fuel break — — — — — 49 — 49

Improvement cut — — — — — 27 64 91

Liberation cut — — — — — — 82 82

Clear-cut 136 578 3,686 2,367 1,075 1,143 353 9,339

Precommercial thin — — 232 712 127 285 109 1,465

Sanitation (salvage) — — 270 680 225 1,431 579 3,185

Seed tree harvest — — 738 420 95 226 78 1,557

Shelterwood harvest — — 58 240 603 272 159 1,333

Single tree selection — — — 217 — 36 — 253

Grand Total 136 578 5,046 4,800 2,482 3,498 1,424 17,963

3.6.5.2 Vegetative Conditions in the Project Area 

3.6.5.2.1 Forest Composition

Forest cover types describe the dominant tree species present in a stand. The existing and 

desired forest cover types in the project area are displayed in Table 3-16. The forest cover 

types in the project area are primarily mixed conifers and shrubs. The Uplands and the 

Breaklands have relic, long-lived early seral species (western larch and ponderosa pine) but 

are primarily composed of late-seral, shade-tolerant species. Some scattered western white 

pine remain in the project area. The presence of long-lived early seral components can be 

used as an indicator of forest health. These species and their composition, structure, and 

functions have the desired resistance (ability to prevent impacts and protect valued 

resources), resilience (capacity of ecosystem to return to desired conditions after 

disturbance), and response (ability to transition from current to new conditions). Currently 

the project area is well out of the desired range for these species. This change is consistent 

with the Upper Columbia River Basin (USDA Forest Service 1997) and the Northern Region 

Overview (USDA Forest Service 1998a). While the Forest Plan does not mandate 

management at levels of historic species compositions and structures, these are helpful 

reference points to understand what trends may be needed over the long term to increase 

resiliency in the ecosystem. 

3-61

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 119 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-16. Existing and desired forest cover types in the Clear Creek analysis area

Dominance 

Type

Breaklands (36%)

(Vegetation Response 

Units 3, 8, 12)

Uplands (63%)

(Vegetation Response Units 

7, 10, 17)

Desired Range 

(%)

Existing 

(%)

Desired Range 

(%)

Existing 

(%)

Ponderosa 

Pine/Mix

15–30 11 10–15 8

Douglas-Fir 15–30 32 10–15 15

Lodgepole Pine 0–5 <1 20–30 4

Western Larch 5–10 0 5–10 <1

Cedar/Grand Fir 9–17 54 25–50 59

White Pine 0–5 1 0–5 <1

Spruce/Fir Mix 0–5 2 0–5 7

Alpine Fir/Mt. 

Hemlock

0 0 0 <1

Seral Grass/Shrub 8–15 7 0–5 6

Non-Forest 10 0 3 0

3.6.5.2.2 Structural Stages—Age Class

Age class distribution is useful in describing the natural disturbance pattern on a landscape. 

VRU age class distribution is based on the Upper Columbia River Basin Environmental 

Assessment and incorporates data from Kapler-Smith and Fischer et al. (1997). Fires in 1880 

and 1919, as well as past timber harvesting, have created the current age class distribution 

within the project area. The current and desired age class distributions are in Figure 3-2

through Figure 3-6. 

Figure 3-2. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 3 

(Breaklands)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0-40

years,

Young

Forest

41-100

years,

Mid

Seral

101-149

years,

Late

Seral

150+

years,

Old

Acres

VRU 3

Desired Low

Desired High

Year 2012

Year 2017

Total Acres: 

3,030

3-62

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 120 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-3. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 7 

(Uplands)

Figure 3-4. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 8 

(Breaklands)

Figure 3-5. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 10 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0-40

years,

Young

Forest

41-100

years,

Mid

Seral

101-149

years,

Late

Seral

150+

years,

Old

Acres

VRU 7

Desired Low

Desired High

Year 2012

Year 2017

Total Acres: 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0-40

years,

Young

Forest

41-100

years,

Mid Seral

101-149

years,

Late Seral

150+

years, Old

Acres

VRU 8

Desired Low

Desired High

Year 2012

Year 2017

Total Acres: 

11,350

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0-40

years,

Young

Forest

41-100

years,

Mid Seral

101-149

years,

Late

Seral

150+

years,

Old

Acres

VRU 10

Desired Low

Desired High

Year 2012

Year 2017

Total Acres: 

5,170

2,570

3-63

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 121 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(Uplands)

Figure 3-6. Current and desired age class distribution for Vegetative Response Unit (VRU) 17 

(Uplands)

3.6.5.2.3 Vertical Structure 

Vertical structure is used as a within-stand density indicator. Vertical structure depicts the 

number of vertical tree layers present in a stand (Berglund et al. 2008). The 4 vertical 

structure classes include single-storied (62% of the project area), two-storied (27%), threestoried (5%), and continuous (6%) vertical structure. The predominant class within the 

project area is the single-storied class, probably because the majority of the project area is in 

the stem exclusion stage. The single-storied stands will eventually enter the understory 

reinitiation stage and become multi-storied stands. The current condition is now within the 

desired range. It is desired to have dominance of single- and two-storied stands in the project 

area, with fewer areas of three-storied stands and continuous vertical structures. The singleand two-storied stands are favorable in terms of fuels management, and two-storied stands 

provide preferred habitat for some wildlife species. 

Landscape Arrangement

The arrangement of stand size classes and vertical structures on the landscape influences the 

way some types of fire, insects, or wildlife will move across the landscape. Managing for 

connected landscapes is seen as a way to increase a landscape’s resilience and allow animal 

movement (and in some cases, plant movement). The creation of a vegetation mosaic, by 

design, allows the land manager to control, or at least ameliorate, hazards of all kinds 

(Brackebusch 1973). 

Patch size and arrangement must be considered with all management actions: retaining 

resilient, large size class patches is an important objective; land managers must also consider 

that the young patch established this decade may become the most resilient old-growth 

patches in 150 years. Not all disturbance agents produce the same patch and scale 

characteristics. Mixed-severity fire causes a different patch size and arrangement on the 

landscape than large stand-replacing fire or insect and disease disturbances do. The current 

average patch sizes and ranges are displayed in Table 3-17. The desired condition varies by 

VRU but on average strives for patch sizes of 50–200 acres minimum and 1,000 acres 

maximum, with variable tree retention and forest connectivity where possible. 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0-40

years,

Young

Forest

41-100

years,

Mid

Seral

101-149

years,

Late

Seral

150+

years,

Old

Acres

VRU 17

Desired Low

Desired High

Year 2012

Year 2017

Total Acres: 20,485

3-64

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 122 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-17. Current average patch size and range

Structural Stage Percent of Analysis 

Area by Structural 

Stage (%)

Average Patch Size

(Acres)

Range of Patch 

Sizes (Acres)

Non-Forest 0 0 0

Seral Shrub 7 41 1–369

Stand Initiation 17 17 1–115

Stem Exclusion 26 13 1–434

Understory Reinitiation 17 23 1–153

Young Multi-Strata 3 20 1–21

Old Single-Strata 17 20 1–167

Old Multi-Strata 13 34 1–168

Old-growth Forest

The Forest Plan designates MA 20 to retain and to manage for old-growth habitats. MA 20 

“...is made up of forested lands...and occurs on a variety of landtypes. Approximately half 

of the area has a timber condition class of overmature sawtimber (150 years or older). The 

remainder of the area is comprised of immature stands (40–80 years) that will provide for 

replacement old-growth habitat” (USDA Forest Service 1987b, p. III-56). 

Data from the 2007 Forest Inventory and Analysis indicate that an estimated 13.4% of the 

Forest is old-growth habitat, as defined by Green et al. (2008). The lower and upper 

confidence interval bounds are 11% and 16.1%. The Forest meets the Forest-wide old-growth 

standard. 

The Forest Plan objectives for MA 20 are to maintain viable populations of wildlife species 

that are dependent on old-growth habitat. At least 10% of suitable old-growth habitat would 

be managed as old growth for old growth–associated species. This acreage will be distributed 

across the Forest in a way that ensures that at least 5%of the forested acres within major 

prescription watersheds of 6,000–10,000 acres will be managed as old-growth habitat 

(USDA Forest Service 1987b, page II-6). Appendix N of the Forest Plan describes the 

preferred distribution requirements and outlines an old-growth identification process: “Old 

growth stands should be at least 300 acres. Next best would be a core block of 150 acres with 

the remaining blocks of no less than 50 acres and no more than 1⁄2 mile away from another 

old growth block. If existing old-growth blocks are less than 100 acres, the stands between 

the old-growth blocks should be managed as an old-growth complex” (USDA Forest Service

1987b, p. N-2).

Old-growth analysis areas (OGAAs) were designated across the Forest in order to maintain 

the minimum Forest Plan requirements for amount and distribution of old-growth habitats. 

The analysis area includes 7 OGAAs (Table 3-18). Two of the OGAAs are small and do not 

meet the Forest Plan assessment scale of 5,000–10,000 acres. OGAA 618 is 1,036 acres, and 

OGAA 619 is 935 acres. For this analysis, these OGAAs were combined with adjacent 

OGAAs to comply with Forest Plan direction. 

Verified old growth is defined by Green et al. (2008) in Old-Growth Forest Types of the 

Northern Region. Figure 3-7 and Table 3-18 show the verified old growth in each OGAA; 

the data derive from 2010, 2011, and 2012 stand exams and field validation. 

3-65

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 123 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-18. Verified old-growth habitat in each Old-Growth Analysis Area (OGAA) in the

Clear Creek analysis area

Old Growth 

Analysis Area

Old Growth 

Analysis Area 

Acres

Verified Old Growth

Acres Percent 

(%)

40610 5,665 1,199 21

40611/618 7,935 933 13

40613 9,765 994 10

40615 12,928 1,141 9

40616/619 7,373 387 6

Total 43,666 4,654 11

Figure 3-7. Clear Creek verified and unverified old growth

3-66

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 124 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

The project area contains 11% verified old growth, which meets the Forest Plan standard. A 

total of 31 verified old-growth patches, ranging from 7 to 987 acres, exist within the OGAAs. 

Sixteen percent of the patches exceed the preferred 300-acre size, 28% are at least 150-acre 

core areas, 13% are between 50 and 150 acres, and 42% are <50 acres. Most of the small 

patches (<50 acres) are effectively enlarged by the adjacent RHCAs, which also provide 

linkages between all old-growth patches. This facilitates dispersal of old growth–associated 

species. 

Additional old-growth forest is present in each of the OGAAs but has not been verified by 

recent stand exams. Stand data (TSMRS) show an additional 1,722 acres (4%) over 150 years 

old and over 21 inches average dbh. Table 3-19 and Figure 3-7 show the unverified old 

growth in each OGAA. Additionally, 24% of the analysis area is contained within RHCAs, 

which would be managed for future old growth. 

Table 3-19. Unverified old growth in each Old-Growth Analysis Area (OGAA) in the Clear 

Creak analysis area 

Old-Growth 

Analysis 

Area

Old-Growth 

Analysis 

Area Acres

Unverified Old Growth 

Acres Percent (%)

40610 5,665 385 7

40611/618 7,935 178 2

40613 9,765 1,062 11

40615 12,928 0 0

40616/619 7,373 97 1

Total 43,666 1,722 4

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative A—No Action

Alternative A would not affect MA 20 or old-growth forest habitats, because no activities 

would be conducted. Fire suppression would continue. Risk of large-scale stand-replacing 

fire would increase; the size or severity of such an event cannot be predicted. 

MA 20 and old-growth habitats would continue to be altered by natural events such as 

succession, insect and disease, and wildfire. Some mixed-conifer habitats would mature and 

develop old-growth habitat characteristics, including multiple canopies, snags, and large 

downed wood, which provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Canopy openings 

created when snags fall would allow sunlight to reach the forest floor, providing for shrub, 

forb, and grass growth, which would become forage for ungulates and small mammals. 

The risk of a crown fire would increase with increasing surface and ladder fuels. A wildfire 

would create large numbers of snags and would initiate young forest conditions. Canopy 

cover would be lost in varying amounts. A fire would reduce the amount of old-growth 

habitat available to species such as fisher, pileated woodpecker, goshawk, and American

marten. 

If no fires occur, cumulative effects on MA 20 would be an increase in the amount of suitable 

old growth as stands age. A negative cumulative effect would occur in the event of a wildfire 

3-67

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 125 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

that removed old-growth habitat. Predicting the size and severity of wildfire is not possible, 

so the level of potential cumulative effects cannot be determined. 

Alternatives B, C, and D

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are analyzed for each of the 7 OGAAs. The time 

frame for cumulative effects is 150 years, which is the time required for stands to develop 

into old-growth habitat.

Forest Plan MA 20 would be allocated to 4,654 acres of verified old-growth habitat, which 

would meet Forest Plan old-growth standards. No treatment would occur in allocated MA 20 

under any alternative; therefore, no direct effects to the resource would occur. MA 20 would 

continue to be altered by natural events, such as succession, insects and disease, and wildfire, 

under any action alternative. Habitat would remain available for fisher, American marten, 

pileated woodpecker, and northern goshawks (old growth–associated species). PACFISH 

buffers would provide for current and future old growth and would provide connectivity 

between old-growth patches and uplands. Thinning stands adjacent to old growth would 

increase their resilience to insects and disease, which would increase their survival and 

development into larger patches of future old growth. 

Stand-replacing fire risk would be reduced on 7% of the analysis area through project 

activities. This could benefit MA 20 by making the landscape more resilient to wildfire and 

reducing the likelihood of stand-replacing fire in old-growth habitat. There could be a 

slightly positive cumulative effect to MA 20 when combined with fire suppression. 

The Forest plan states, “Where possible, roads should not be located through or adjacent to 

old-growth stands in order to reduce human disturbance, loss of snags to firewood cutters, 

windthrow, and micro-climate changes” (USDA Forest Service 1987b, page N-2). 

Alternatives B and C build 2 miles and Alternative D builds 1mile of temporary roads 

through old-growth habitats. The average length is 0.1 miles. Road building would remove 

an average of 0.4 acres of vegetation on 17 road segments under Alternatives B and C and on 

13 segments under Alternative D; the total amount of old growth disturbed by temporary 

roads would be 7 acres and 5 acres, respectively (or 0.1% of all verified old growth). The 

largest impact would be removal of large green and dead trees, but the effects would be 

indistinguishable when compared to natural diversity and openings in old-growth habitats. 

The roads would be decommissioned after use. Temporary roads would cause no cumulative 

effects to MA 20. 

3.6.6 Environmental Consequences

3.6.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects at the Treatment Unit Scale in terms of 

Eco-setting

As noted above, the analysis area for direct and indirect effects of the alternatives is the 

project area. 

3.6.6.1.1 Alternative A—No Action

Under the No Action alternative, no project activities would be conducted to maintain forest 

health or maintain resiliency. Activities to restore forest vegetation or increase its resilience 

3-68

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 126 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

would not be implemented. Two general trends would be expected to occur (Cooper et al. 

1991; Smith et al. 1997). 

The Uplands make up 65% of the project area. The short-term effects of the No Action 

alternative would include increased mortality of Douglas-fir and grand fir as stands continue 

to mature and experience in-stand competition, root diseases, and decay. In addition, insects 

would continue to cause deterioration of stands dominated by these species. 

The amount of existing early seral tree species in the project area would decline. The amount 

of medium and large size classes would decline as root disease and insects cause mortality. 

Grand fir and cedar would occupy the growing space left by the mortality of other species; 

stands would increasingly become dominated by grand fir and cedar (Byler and Hagle 2000). 

In the absence of natural disturbance such as fire, regeneration to fill gaps in the canopy 

would be limited to the same species of the current overstory, because white pine, western 

larch, and ponderosa pine will have limited seed sources. Douglas-fir would also gradually 

become less prevalent due to root disease and bark beetle mortality. 

Stands would continue to grow, and the diameters of trees would increase; however, the rate 

of this growth would slow as overstory trees die and are increasingly replaced by understory 

(smaller-diameter) trees. Canopy cover would remain about the same, as vertical structures 

would continue to move the remaining single- and two-storied stands to three-storied stands 

and continuous-storied stands due to mortality. The landscape would become more 

homogeneous, with continuous vertical structures and multiple ages (Byler and Hagle 2000). 

Stands would develop old-growth characteristics over time; however, when compared to 

similar areas 100 years ago, these stands would have fewer long-lived early seral species, 

more vertical structure, and multiple ages earlier in their successional development. The 

landscape would increasingly become less resilient to change or disturbances. Overall, while 

the numbers represented by current conditions are closest to desired conditions, the indirect 

effects of the No Action Alternative and the combination of species compositions, landscape 

arrangement, and structures would trend more areas to lesser health, less resistance, and less 

resilience than the current condition or desired conditions. 

The young age class (0–40 years) would continue to be underrepresented. Most stands 

currently within this age class will shift to the next age class (40–100 years) within 5 years. 

The Breaklands represent about 33% of the project area and contain a combination of 

Douglas-fir and dry grand fir habitat types, mostly on south-facing Breaklands. Indirectly, 

the No Action alternative would lead to increased grand fir and Douglas-fir as mortality in 

long-lived, early seral species continues due to competition and insects. Douglas-fir would 

not necessarily become less prevalent on the driest sites (because the lack of moisture limits 

natural regeneration of other species). Growing space opened by the Douglas-fir beetle 

mortality over the last decade would likely become grand fir and Douglas-fir, as that is the 

only seed source. This would continue as other disturbance agents cause mortality. Even if 

fire were to create sites for regeneration of long-lived early seral species of ponderosa pine, 

western larch, and western white pine, the lack of seed source would greatly limit this 

regeneration. 

The effects on stand growth rate, canopy cover, vertical structure, old-growth development, 

and overall stand health and resilience would be the same as the effects described for the 

Uplands setting, above. 

3-69

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 127 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

General Trends Common to All Eco-settings under the No Action Alternative:

• A substantial decrease in the young age class within the next 5 years

• An increase in multi-storied, multi-aged stands within stand structure due to the 

effects of root disease and bark beetles resulting from a continued absence of fire

• Continued increase of shade-tolerant cover types with the loss of shade-intolerant 

cover types

• An increase in the amount of mature structure 

• A decrease in overall resistance, resilience, and response to ecological disturbance 

agents

3.6.6.1.2 Alternatives B, C, and D

Overview of Vegetative Aspects of the Proposed Action

Table 3-20 displays the proposed vegetative management activities for each alternative, 

including activities proposed for Focus areas and activities proposed for other land within the 

project area.

Table 3-20. Acres of proposed vegetative management activities, by alternative

Activity Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Within Focus Areas

Regeneration (acres) 2,609 3,995 2,017

Commercial thin (acres) 2,240 854 1,997

Precommercial thin (acres) 998 998 998

Burn (acres) 1,371 1,371 1,371

Improvement (acres) 331 331 211

Restoration (acres) 41 41 41

Retention (acres) 3,940 3,940 4,892

Outside of Focus Areas

Regeneration (acres) 0 161 161

Commercial thin (acres) 3,366 3,366 3,144

Precommercial thin (acres) 889 889 889

The main goal of the project is to reintroduce disturbance patterns that would mimic the 

natural disturbance that would be typical in a landscape where fire would have been the 

primary disturbance agent. Historically, the most common fire regimes of the habitat types 

and VRUs located within the project area were lethal burns and mixed-severity fire (Smith 

and Fisher 1997). 

The project is designed to utilize existing small patches of young trees to create larger 

patches of young trees by implementing variable retention regeneration methods in 

appropriate adjacent stands, thinning through younger stands, and retaining 100% of the trees 

in some areas. 

3-70

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 128 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Structure classes in areas designed as full retention would not change, because the harvesting 

would not occur and incursions of prescribed fire into these areas would be minimal and 

classified as low-severity. 

All activities would occur within the Focus areas. The activities were designed to create a 

disturbance pattern that is similar to the size and scale of what historically would have been a 

mixed-severity fire. The location of the Focus areas was intended to utilize the existing 

young forest and the existing transportation system.

Regeneration harvest is used when stands have mortality rates that are higher than growth 

rates, either due to age or pathogens. Following harvest, stands receive site preparation and 

are reforested with long-lived early seral species that will increase resistance and resilience at 

the stand level and begin to trend the project area toward resistance and resilience.

Management activities that favor resistant tree species on sites that are prone to or infected 

with root disease would be utilized (Rippy et al. 2005; Byler and Hagle 2005; Hagle 2006). 

Treatment priorities were based on DFCs and take into consideration the VRUs and habitat 

types, landscape species, and structure objectives of the project area. Components within 

harvest areas that meet overall objectives (desired conditions) would be retained; where not 

present they would be established. Variability will be substantial within treatment areas 

because the amount of retention would be based on available components (large trees, 

preferred species, etc.). Wildlife, fire/fuels, and visual concerns played a prominent part in 

maximizing retention on sites while trending the overall area toward the DFC. 

3.6.6.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

Indicators focus on characteristics that contribute to forest health. Indicators are compared to 

the desired conditions. The desired conditions would trend the landscape toward increased 

ecological resistance and resilience to reasonably expected disturbances (e.g., fire, insects, 

disease, and weather). Analysis indicators are the same for direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects. Indicators to be discussed in this section include forest composition, age class, 

vertical structure, and patch size. Current conditions reflect all past natural disturbances and 

management activities, and while this discussion considers those current conditions, it will 

only specifically address the effects of the action alternatives. 

3.6.6.2.1 Direct Effects at the Treatment Unit Scale

Variable Retention Regeneration System (clear-cut with reserves) would establish and 

grow site-adapted western larch, white pine, and ponderosa pine while maintaining available 

and healthy western larch and ponderosa pine and groups of other species. Characteristics of 

the variable retention system units include the following:

• All action alternatives would be similarly distributed on the following VRUs: 

VRU 3 (5%), VRU 7 (7%), VRU 8 (29%), VRU 10 (4%), and VRU 17 (55%). 

• Alternative B proposes 73% of the regeneration harvest in the grand fir/Douglasfir cover type, Alternative C 78%, and Alternative D 75%. 

• 45% of all the treatment areas are in the 41–100 (years) age class, while 30% of 

the treatment areas are in the 101–149 (years) age class

The treatment areas would resemble a mosaic of even-aged groups after harvest and planting 

activities are completed. Overall residual tree retention would range between 14 and 28 tpa, 

3-71

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 129 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

based on a 12-inch dbh tree. Retention of biological legacy trees, both as individuals and 

small groups of trees and as undisturbed forest patches, is consistent with the goals of 

variable retention harvesting as described by Franklin et al. (1997) and Franklin and Johnson 

(2011). Variable retention harvesting type methods have also been discussed in Graham and 

Jain (2005), Jain and Graham (2007), and Franklin et al. (1997).The best available 

representative western white pine, western larch, and ponderosa pine would be retained to 

serve as shelter and, in some cases, a seed source. Some level of shelter is needed on harsh 

sites to ensure regeneration success. Retained trees would remain over the long term for 

structure and would result in stands with two-storied vertical structure. Species composition 

would meet desired conditions following reforestation. Prescribed fire would be used to 

prepare sites and reduce shrub competition so that planted seedlings could be established. 

Prescribed fire would also reduce post-harvest fuel loading. 

Intermediate (Thinning) Treatments will not directly affect species composition, age class, 

or patch size at the unit scale. These treatments will, however, shift all the acres that have 

been treated to the single- or two-storied vertical structure (Table 3-21). 

Table 3-21. Summary of effects (in acres) at the unit scale

Issue 

Indicator

Current 

Condition 

Alternative 

B 

(acres)

Current 

Condition 

Alternative 

C 

(acres)

Current 

Condition 

Alternative 

D 

(acres)

Alternative B

Following 

Treatment

(acres)

Alternative C

Following 

Treatment

(acres)

Alternative D 

Following 

Treatment

(acres)

Forest Composition

Early seral 334 368 309 1,863 2,954 1,563

Not early

seral 2,185 3,694 1,792 656 1,108 538

Forest Structure

Age Class

0–40 70 526 172 1,848 2,539 1,578

41–100 1,116 2,199 955 335 660 286

101–149 879 882 648 262 265 194

150+ 547 547 405 164 164 122

Vertical Structure

1- & 2-

Storied 2,263 3,594 1,922 2,263 3,594 1,922

3-Storied & 

Continuous

255 467 179 255 467 179

Note: Shifts in forest structure are based on Forest Vegetation Simulator Model runs.

Direct and Indirect Effects at the Resource Area Scale

Forest Composition: The project area is currently not within the desired range for forest 

composition. The composition within the project area is currently high in grand fir and red 

cedar and low in long-lived early seral species. Existing western larch would continue to 

decline due to inter-stand competition, while ladder fuels would continue to accumulate 

around existing ponderosa pine. The action alternatives would decrease the grand fir and red 

cedar dominance type and maintain/increase existing long-lived early seral species while 

reestablishing them in areas where they are currently underrepresented. Table 3-22 and 

3-72

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 130 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-23 represent the extent to which the action alternatives would shift species 

composition from the existing condition. 

Table 3-22. Existing condition, desired range, and shift in species composition for the action 

alternatives in the Breaklands

Breaklands (33%) (Vegetation Response Units 3, 8, 12)

Dominance 

Type

Desired Range 

(%)

Existing 

(%)

Alternative B 

(%)

Alternative C 

(%)

Alternative D 

(%)

PP/WL/WP 20–40 11 17 18 15

Douglas-fir 15–30 32 29 28 30

Lodgepole pine 0–5 <1 <1 <1 <1

Cedar/grand fir 9–17 54 47 46 48

Spruce/fir mix 0–5 2 2 2 2

Alpine fir/ 

Mt. hemlock

0 0 0 0 0

Seral grass/shrub 8–15 7 7 7 7

Non-forest 10 0 0 0 0

Table 3-23. Existing condition, desired range, and shift in species composition for the action 

alternatives in the Uplands

Uplands (65%) (Vegetation Response Units 7, 10, 17)

Dominance 

Type

Desired Range 

(%)

Existing

(%)

Alternative B 

(%)

Alternative C 

(%)

Alternative D 

(%)

PP/WL/WP 15–30 8 13 17 14

Douglas-fir 10–15 15 13 12 13

Lodgepole pine 20–30 4 4 4 4

Cedar/grand fir 25–50 59 56 53 55

Spruce/fir mix 0–5 7 7 7 7

Alpine fir/ 

Mt hemlock

0 <1 <1 <1 <1

Seral grass/shrub 0–5 6 6 6 6

Non-forest 3 0 0 0 0

Age Classes: The action alternatives increase the younger age classes while slightly reducing 

the older age classes and maintaining the oldest age class. The oldest age class is currently 

well represented. Managing for long-term resistance and resilience within the project area 

would help maintain existing structure development into the older age classes. Table 3-24

depicts the shift in the young age class, as this is the only age class that can realistically be 

managed. The time frame for the direct effects to occur would be within 5–10 years. Based 

on this temporal scale, the analysis includes the existing condition (2012) and 5 years into the 

future, when implementation is expected to take place. This is an important distinction, as 

current condition for some VRUs would show they are well within the DFC for the young 

age class; however, after 5 years many of the acres in the young age class shift to the next 

age class (leaving them outside of the DFCs). Additionally, comments from the public during 

scoping expressed concern about a deficit of the very young (brush and seedling) stage. This 

3-73

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 131 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

deficit is a reality, as 1,575 acres of the project area are in the 0–19 age class. VRU 10 

contains minimal activity acres, which are insignificant at the resource area and VRU scales 

and are not shown in Table 3-24. 

Table 3-24. Shift in the young age class (in acres), by alternative and Vegetation Response Units 

(VRU)

VRU Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Breaklands VRU 3 (Desired Range = 450–750 acres)

0–40 Age Class (2012) 195 296 371 221

0–40 Age Class (2017) 142 206 318 168

VRU 8 (Desired Range = 1,700–2,800 acres)

0–40 Age Class (2012) 1,037 2,028 2,190 1,701

0–40 Age Class (2017) 909 1,900 2,062 1,579

Uplands VRU 7 (Desired Range = 250–500 acres)

0–40 Age Class (2012) 664 917 1,091 903

0–40 Age Class (2017) 590 843 1,017 829

VRU 17 (Desired Range = 2,000–4,100 acres)

0–40 Age Class (2012) 4,177 5,430 6,526 5,409

0–40 Age Class (2017) 2,744 3,997 5,093 3,973

Vertical Structure: Vertical structure is important when describing some types of wildlife 

habitat, fuel ladders and fire spread, and successional development. The vertical structure of 

the project area is well within desired condition. Vertical structure at this scale would not be 

changed by the action alternatives since all treatments would maintain a single- or twostoried vertical structure.

Patch Size: The desired condition strives for patch sizes from hundreds of acres up to 

1,000 acres. Minimum patch sizes would be 50–500 acres, with variable retention and 

connectivity where possible. The current condition does not have patches of the desired size 

in any of the structural stages. Table 3-25 displays the shift in average patch size by 

successional stage. The action alternatives would decrease the later successional stages and 

increase early successional stages. The increase in patch size for the young-successional 

stage (stand initiation) would enable the establishment of long-lived early seral species where 

appropriate, which would increase long-term resilience and potential to desired patch sizes in 

the future. Locating regeneration treatments next to existing young forest leads to an increase 

in patch size among all of the structural classes.

3-74

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 132 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-25. Shift in average patch size by successional stage, by alternative 

Structural 

Class

Existing Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Percent of 

Analysis

Area

(%)

Existing 

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Percent of 

Analysis

Area 

(%)

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Percent of 

Analysis

Area 

(%)

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Percent of 

Analysis

Area 

(%)

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Seral shrub 7 41 6 252 6 252 6 252

Stand 

initiation 17 17 25 96 26 104 25 91

Stem 

exclusion 26 13 20 131 20 119 21 128

Understory 

reinitiation 17 23 20 83 18 83 18 83

Young multistory 3 20 2 26 2 904 2 26

Old singlestory 17 20 16 116 17 121 16 116

Old multistory 13 34 11 81 11 72 11 81

Commercial Thinning: The objectives for commercial thinning are to maintain and/or 

improve diameter/tree growth with stocking control. Alternative B proposes 2,240 acres of 

commercial thinning inside the Focus areas, Alternative C proposes 3,995 acres, and 

Alternative D proposes 2,017 acres. This management activity was designed to mimic an 

underburn as part of a mixed-severity fire disturbance pattern. Outside of the Focus areas, 

Alternatives B and C propose 3,366 acres of commercial thinning, and Alternative D 

proposes 3,144 acres. All action alternatives were designed to address the issue of stands not 

reaching the culmination of mean annual increment; the action alternatives take advantage of 

thinning opportunity while maintaining and improving stand growing conditions. 

Approximately 40%–60% of the overstory would be removed, leaving the largest, healthiest 

ponderosa pine, western larch, white pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. 

Treatment would result in a slight improvement in species composition compared to the No 

Action alternative but would not meet desired conditions. Stand structure would be much as 

it is now, with a reduction of the intermediate trees competing with the overstory. Fuel 

loading would be roughly the same, although canopy base height would be raised and canopy 

bulk density reduced. Mortality due to insects and disease would continue to change canopy 

and structure over the long term, with areas needing consideration for regeneration treatment 

in the next few decades. Gradual changes to growing space and conditions would favor 

regeneration of Douglas-fir and grand fir. 

Precommercial Thinning: All action alternatives allocate the same amount of acreage for 

precommercial thinning. The effects would be similar to the effects of commercial thinning. 

Early seral species would be retained, improving species composition by reducing 

competition and improving growing space. Approximately 200–300 tpa would remain 

following treatment.

Improvement cutting: Improvement cutting is proposed in stands with an existing 

component of large, old ponderosa pine and western larch. In the absence of fire, these stands 

3-75

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 133 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

have substantial amounts of understory in-growth composed of grand fir and western 

redcedar. Improvement cutting would affect within-stand structure in much the same manner 

as commercial thinning does. The lower canopy would be reduced more than in a 

commercial thin, due to the focus on maintaining the large relic trees, reducing ladder fuels, 

and creating enough spacing to allow ground fire and prevent crown fire. This would 

increase the amount of air movement through the affected stands and increase the amount of 

sunlight reaching the forest floor relative to the existing condition of the stands. These two 

factors would increase the rate of drying of dead and down fuels during the summer months 

and may stimulate additional growth of understory herbs, shrubs, and shade-tolerant conifer 

regeneration. Slash and other dead and down fuels would be reduced through underburning 

following harvest. Underburning would also reduce ladder fuels, further increasing the 

distance between the ground and the base of the live overstory canopy. Improvement cutting 

typically increases the growth rate of the residual stand of trees. However, improvement 

cutting may also increase the rate of infection by root diseases in residual Douglas-fir and 

grand fir, because stumps and their attached root systems would become readily available for 

colonization by fungi that cause root disease. Included stands would have an even-aged 

overstory that may be uniformly distributed throughout the stand or may be clumpy and 

somewhat irregular where clumps of healthy white pine, western larch, or ponderosa pine are 

retained. 

Planting of ponderosa pine, western larch, and/or western white pine may occur wherever 

pre-harvest mortality has resulted in the development of small openings in the improvement 

cuts. This planting would improve the long-term species diversity of the overstory and the 

long-term resilience of the stand(s).

Burning: See fuels specialist report.

Restoration: Restoration is proposed on dry, upland grassland habitats and on moist 

inclusions (historically dominated by shrubs). Patch sizes are limited by aspect and 

coniferous vegetation. Invasive forbs and grasses have been introduced and are becoming 

dominant. Historically, very frequent (5- to 20-year intervals), low-severity fire maintained 

open grasslands and rejuvenated shrub habitats. Ponderosa pine and an occasional Douglasfir occur incidentally. Restoration activities would include herbicide application and 

prescribed fire for site preparation, followed by seeding of native species. 

3.6.6.3 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area will be the entire 65,000-acre Clear Creek watershed. 

This area includes federal, state, and private lands. Cumulative effects will be analyzed15 

years after project implementation. Regeneration harvest areas would be certified stocked 

within 5 years. However, by 15 years, the stand would be moving out of the plantation 

seedling/sapling stage and establishing tree dominance at the sapling/pole stage.

Past regeneration and intermediate timber harvests on the Forest were the only activities on 

federal lands considered for cumulative effects. No other present or foreseeable management 

activities on federal lands would affect vegetative composition, structure, arrangement, or 

disturbance types at the stand scale or at larger scales. Vegetative conditions on State and 

private lands were considered and reviewed using VMap. The Clear Creek watershed 

includes 24,235 acres of State or privately owned land, all of which is downstream from 

federal lands. Roughly 10,400 acres are in the grass or shrub cover type. The remainder is in 

3-76

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 134 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

a mixed grass/forest or forest cover type. Future timber harvest on forested private lands 

adjacent to the project area is expected. The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) provided 

information regarding upcoming State and private harvest proposals. One private proposal 

involves harvest timber, but no acres were provided. The acres are expected to be small, 

since land ownership in the area appears as many houses on small (<100-acre) lots. The focus 

of harvesting on small, private ownerships is often salvage and/or partial harvest to remove 

dead/dying trees and/or trees of high economic value. The IDL is also proposing a 160-acre 

seed tree (regeneration) harvest directly adjacent to the Forest boundary and one of the 

proposed project harvest units (Unit 123). This harvest would remove most of the trees but 

would retain an average of 8 seed trees per acre. 

3.6.6.3.1 Species Composition

Alternative A—No Action

The cumulative effect of this alternative would continue the long-term trends in loss of early 

seral species composition. This alternative would allow the continued decline of the 

remaining ponderosa pine and western larch present in these stands. Harvest activities on 

private and State lands would not contribute toward the establishment of early seral species, 

since both rely on natural regeneration to restock the stands. Shade-tolerant grand fir, cedar, 

and Douglas-fir typically regenerate on these sites.

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

All of the action alternatives trend the project area toward the DFC by creating openings 

large enough to establish long-lived early seral species at a scale that is large enough to 

measure. Alternative C trends toward the desired conditions the most, while Alternative D 

trends the least. Harvest activities on private and State lands would not contribute toward the 

establishment of early seral species, since both rely on natural regeneration to restock the 

stands. Shade-tolerant grand fir, cedar, and Douglas-fir typically regenerate on these sites.

Therefore, no cumulative effects would occur at the analysis area scale.

3.6.6.3.2 Age Class

Alternative A—No Action

This alternative would have no effect on age class in the project area. The area would 

continue to be dominated by mid- and late-seral shade-tolerant species with a lack of young 

structure. Insects and disease would continue to be the major agents of change, resulting in 

multi-aged stands with continuous ladder fuels. Harvest on State lands would increase the 

young age class by 160 acres, which at the analysis scale would have no measurable effect. 

Since no federal activities are proposed under this alternative, no cumulative effects to age 

class would occur. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

The action alternatives increase the younger age classes while reducing the mature age 

classes and maintaining the oldest age class. The oldest age class is currently well 

represented. Managing for long-term resistance and resilience within the project area would 

help maintain existing structures develop into the older age classes. Placement of the 

3-77

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 135 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

proposed regeneration treatments next to existing stands of young forest helps trend the 

analysis area toward the desired condition. Regeneration harvest on state land adds 0.2% 

toward the DFC for younger age class. 

3.6.6.3.3 Vertical Structure

Alternative A—No Action

Although the vertical structure of the resource area is well within desired condition, the 

stands proposed for regeneration treatment are in the stem exclusion phase. They are 

currently transitioning into the understory reinitiation and a multilayer condition due to age 

and natural change agents. The No Action alternative would ultimately result in an area 

dominated by stands with continuous vertical structure, causing the area to eventually fall out 

of the range for DFCs.

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

All the action alternatives would continue to maintain the desired range for single- and twostoried stand conditions through regeneration, intermediate harvest, and precommercial 

thinning. Regeneration harvest on State lands would also maintain these conditions. 

Cumulatively, a slight positive effect to vertical structure would occur.

3.6.6.3.4 Patch Size

Alternative A—No Action

This alternative retains the existing patch sizes, which are and would remain, on average, 

small and fragmented. No activities are proposed that would alter patch size on federal lands. 

The proposed 160-acre IDL harvest would not contribute to increases in patch size on federal 

lands. Since no activities are proposed under this alternative, no cumulative effects to patch 

size would occur. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

All action alternatives increase average patch size across all structural stages and reduce the 

number of patches overall within the area. All action alternatives trend the area toward the 

DFC by increasing patch size of existing older forest and increasing the representation of 

long-lived early seral species in new large patches. The harvesting on State land would 

contribute only slightly to increasing patch size in the cumulative effects analysis area by 

creating new openings adjacent to existing openings. 

3.7 WILDLIFE

This section summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the management of wildlife 

resources. This section was summarized from the “Clear Creek Restoration Project Wildlife 

Report,” located in the project file. 

3.7.1 Analysis Area

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis areas considered home range size, mobility, 

habitat requirements, habitat availability, and habitat quality of the analyzed species. In most 

cases, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis area is the 43,700-acre project area 

3-78

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 136 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

which includes all proposed activity areas. It is large enough to assess the effects of proposed 

activities, but not so large as to make habitat changes undetectable. Effects were based on the 

acres of potential habitat treated by proposed activities. The timeframe for direct and indirect 

effects is 5 years, which is the estimated time needed to complete harvest activities. For oldgrowth, elk, and lynx predetermined analysis units were used as required by Regional or 

Forest Plan direction. There are 7 old growth analysis areas 7 elk analysis areas (EAAs), and 

a small portion (3,300 acres) of one 24,000 acre lynx analysis unit in the analysis area.

The analysis area includes 43,700 acres of National Forest within the upper two-thirds of the 

Clear Creek drainage which includes the 9200 acres (21%) Clear Creek Roadless Area. The 

roadless nature of this area provides secure habitat for many species, such as wintering elk 

herds, which are dependent on more remote, isolated environments with relatively little 

human disturbance. 

Terrestrial environments in the area are diverse and provide habitat for many birds, 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Wildlife habitat is dominated by grand fir and western 

red cedar at mid-elevations (91%). Open, dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest, dry and 

moderately moist grand fir/Douglas-fir forest, and grasslands comprise 8% of the lower 

elevation, more westerly portions of the area. Cool subalpine forests in the headwaters make 

up the remaining 1% of the area. 

The primary ecological settings in the area are the Idaho Batholith Breaklands, Idaho 

Batholith Uplands, and Idaho Batholith Subalpine. The Subalpine setting is found on only 

160 acres, has no treatments proposed in it, and will therefore not be addressed in this 

assessment. 

The Breaklands provide a variety of forest conditions that offer a mix of forage and cover 

for wintering big game and many forest raptors. Large trees, especially western larch, 

Douglas-fir, western red cedar, grand fir and some ponderosa pine, provide habitat for a 

variety of cavity-using species. Fires and endemic insect infestations also provide a 

continuous supply of standing snags for wildlife nesting and feeding. 

Young forests are essential for providing quality elk and white-tailed deer winter browse. 

Preferred browse species include redstem ceanothus, mountain maple, scouler willow, and 

service berry. These are associated with mixed-coniferous forests and are adapted to, and 

thrive following, dry-season (summer/fall) fire. North-slope habitats provide mid-seral and 

mature forest habitats for northern goshawk. Southerly exposed habitats provide mature, 

open-forest conditions for flammulated owls. Large patches of mature and old-forest habitats 

throughout provide nesting and foraging habitats for pileated woodpecker. Large 

standing/down dead wood levels typically range from 7 to 13 tons/acre. 

Sensitive and Management Indicator Species that would benefit the most from achieving the 

desired vegetation conditions on the breaklands include the flammulated owl, pygmy 

nuthatch, goshawk, pileated woodpecker, and elk summer and winter range.

The Uplands provide young-forest habitats that offer quality elk and deer spring, summer, 

and fall forage. Plant communities with Pacific yew are a key moose winter browse. Moose 

favor mature grand fir forest habitats with a closed tree canopy and moderate snow depths. 

Moose also successfully forage in shrub habitats commonly following stand-initiation 

disturbances. 

3-79

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 137 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Large patches of mature- and old-forest provide nesting and foraging habitats for pileated 

woodpecker and denning and prey habitats for fisher and American marten. Mid-seral and 

mature-forests provide habitat for northern goshawk. Infrequent wildfires favor the 

accumulation of large standing/down dead wood, which typically range from 20 to 40 

tons/acre. 

Standing snags provide roosting habitats for several Sensitive bat species (fringed, longlegged, and long-eared myotis) as well as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of birds. 

Large downed wood provides cover, foraging, and denning habitats for Sensitive western 

toads and ringneck snakes. Endemic populations of black-backed woodpeckers would be 

sustained across the landscape by dying and recently dead (less than 6 years since tree death) 

standing trees (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Sensitive and Management Indicator Species that would benefit from achieving the desired 

vegetation conditions in the Uplands include the American marten, fisher, moose, elk winter 

range, pileated woodpecker and goshawk. 

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework

3.7.2.1 Nez Perce Forest Plan

The 1987 Forest Plan documents goals, standards, objectives, and guidelines for managing 

Forest wildlife species and habitats. Project related Forest Plan wildlife standards and 

objectives are displayed in Table 3-26. The Proposed Action complies with the Nez Perce 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan requirements relevant to wildlife 

species and their habitats (Table 3-26). 

3-80

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 138 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-26. Forest plan compliance—wildlife resources

Standard 

Number

Forest Plan Standards 

Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

1 

Maintain viable populations of existing native 

and desirable non-native vertebrate wildlife 

species

Viable populations would continue to be 

maintained in the project area and on the 

Forest.

5 

Coordinate with the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game to achieve mutual goals for fish and 

wildlife.

The Forest continues to work with the IDFG in 

managing wildlife species and their habitat. 

IDFG has a representative on the project ID 

Team.

6 

Use “Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing 

Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho” to 

manage for and to assess the attainment of 

summer elk habitat objectives in Project 

evaluations (Appendix B).

The Forest uses these guidelines to assess 

existing condition and effects of Project 

alternatives. This Project was analyzed using 

the Guidelines (see Elk section).

7 

Provide management for minimum viable 

populations of old-growth and snag dependent 

species by adhering to the standards stated in 

Appendix N.

Old-growth standards would be met or 

exceeded with this Project. Snag standards 

would be met or exceeded. See Chapter 2 

Design Measures.

10

Maintain or improve elk habitat at, or near, 

optimum levels by applying elk guidelines in key 

wolf areas outside wilderness.

Elk forage production would increase by 

implementing this Project. Elk guidelines were 

applied to wolf habitat in the Project area. 

11

Design timber harvest activities in moderate and 

high elk objective areas, when compatible with 

established fish/water quality objectives and 

economics, so that units at the far end of the 

road will be cut first.

Harvest units are dispersed throughout the 

Analysis Area. Units at the far end of roads 

would be harvested first when compatible with 

fish/water objectives and economics (Chapter 

2, Design Measures). 

13

Consult with IDFG and USFWS to determine 

management of known or suspected initial wolf 

home sites.

Correspondence with IDFG and USFWS 

occurred with this Project. No known or 

suspected wolf home sites occur in the 

Analysis Area.

Standard 

Number

Forest Plan Amendment 20

Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

FW 1

Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat 

restoration and enhancement that contributes to 

Riparian Management Objectives

This Project implements Forest Plan 

Amendment 20 (PACFISH).

Objective Forest Plan Objective 

Subject Summary (FP page II-5 & II-6) Compliance Achieved By

Page II-5 

Road access and timber sale scheduling will be 

coordinated to achieve the elk summer habitat 

objectives. The Forest-wide goal is to manage 

for at least 75, 50, and 25% habitat 

effectiveness in the high, moderate, and low 

areas, respectively.

The “Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing 

Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho” (Leege 

1984) was used to determine objectives have 

been achieved in the affected elk analysis unit. 

Page II-6 

[Pacific yew] communities will be managed 

under appropriate silvicultural prescriptions to 

maintain habitat for existing and slightly 

increased moose populations. Road access will 

be controlled during fall and winter to reduce 

harassment and poaching. 

The Project has been designed to comply with 

this objective in MA 21 (Chapter 2, Design 

Measures). There would be no permanent 

road construction. There are no access 

management changes proposed. 

Page II-6 Viable populations of old-growth-dependent 

species will be maintained. 

No MA 20 old-growth habitat would be 

harvested. Riparian habitat conservation areas 

would be protected. Snag and large down 

wood retention would meet minimum Region 1 

guidelines. 

3-81

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 139 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Standard 

Number

Forest Plan Standards 

Subject Summary Compliance Achieved By

Page II-6 

Habitat will be maintained to provide for 

population viability of all sensitive 

species...Important habitat components include 

riparian zones, caves, mine shafts, snags, and 

large open waters. Management actions will 

acknowledge and protect other key habitat 

components important to these species as they 

are discovered and accepted. 

Riparian habitat conservation areas are 

protected by implementing PACFISH/land 

management plans, there are no caves, mine 

shafts or open water bodies in the Project 

area. Snag and large down wood retention 

would meet minimum Region 1 guidelines. No 

old-growth habitat would be regeneration 

harvested. See Chapter 2, Design Measures. 

3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act of 1973

This act directs that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

adverse modification of habitat critical to these species. It is also the responsibility of the 

Forest Service 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 of 1973, as amended, requires threatened and endangered species be 

protected from “harm” and “harassment” wherever they occur, regardless of recovery 

boundaries. This Project analyzed effects to Canada lynx, the only listed wildlife species in 

the Project area. All Action Alternatives are consistent with the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction (NRLMD) and are in compliance with the ESA and FSM 2670. 

Informal coordination with the USFWS on this Project was initiated on September 28, 2012. 

3.7.2.3 National Forest Management Act

This act requires the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities 

based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B)). The Forest Service’s focus for meeting the 

requirement of NFMA and implementing its regulations is on assessing habitat to provide for 

diversity of species. All alternatives would be consistent with NFMA direction for diversity 

of animal communities. Although the Action Alternatives analyzed in the Project may impact 

individual animals, the Project would not affect the viability of any species across its range.

The Vegetation Section discusses the distribution of age classes (successional stages) and 

shows the Project area is trending toward historic distributions of each successional stage. 

Design measures (Chapter 2) were developed to retain elements of diversity (green trees, 

snags, and large down wood) in harvested areas. Additionally, there would be no timber 

harvest in RHCAs or MA 20 (old growth). 

Sensitive Species: Sensitive wildlife species are those that show evidence of a current or 

predicted downward trend in population numbers or habitat suitability that would 

substantially reduce species distribution. Federal laws and direction applicable to sensitive 

species include the NFMA and FSM 2670. The Forest is required to determine the potential 

effect of proposed activities on SS and to prepare biological evaluations. The Forest Service 

is bound by federal statutes (ESA, NFMA), regulations, and agency policy (FSM 2670) to 

conserve biological diversity on NFS lands and assure sensitive species populations do not 

decline or trend toward listing under the ESA. This document fulfills the requirements of the 

biological evaluation for sensitive species. The Proposed Actions would not affect sensitive 

3-82

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 140 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

species viability on federal lands, nor would it cause sensitive species to become federally 

listed as threatened or endangered.

Species Viability: The Proposed Action, in combination with and within the context of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future management actions in the Analysis Area, would 

not affect population viability or distribution of native and desired nonnative vertebrate 

species on the Forest. The Draft Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG 

2005) contains information on species of concern or interest including range-wide and statewide status and known population information. At the Forest-wide scale, this Project would 

not disturb, agitate or bother populations to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, a 

measurable decrease in productivity by substantially interfering with normal breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering behavior. 

3.7.3 Resource Indicators

The primary indicator for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife species is the 

effect to their habitat, or disturbance associated with proposed activities. Existing habitat 

conditions were determined by field observations, vegetation data, habitat modeling, 

disturbance/management history, and sighting records. Analysis indicators for species 

analyzed in detail are displayed in Table 3-27. 

Table 3-27. Wildlife analysis indicators used to compare alternatives in the Clear Creek 

Integrative Restoration Project Area

Species Analysis Indicator

American, marten, Black-backed Woodpecker, Fisher, 

Flammulated Owl, Fringed Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, 

Long-legged Myotis, Mountain Quail, Pygmy Nuthatch, 

Northern Goshawk (nesting habitat), Pileated Woodpecker 

(nesting habitat), Ringneck Snake, Western Toad

Acres treated in modeled suitable habitat

Elk Winter Range (MA 16) Acres treated in Forest Plan MA 16

Elk Summer Range Elk Habitat Effectiveness Areas meeting Forest Plan 

Standards using Leege (1984)

Elk/Wildlife Security Number of Elk Analysis Areas meeting 

recommendations for elk security 

Gray Wolf

Elk Habitat Effectiveness Areas meeting Forest Plan 

Standards

Numberof Elk Analysis Areas meeting 

recommendations for elk security

Canada Lynx

Acres of denning habitat treated

Acres of foraging habitat treated

Consistency with Northern Rockies Lynx Management 

Decision

Moose Winter Range Acres treated in Forest Plan MA 21

3-83

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 141 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.7.4 Analysis Methodology

The Nez Perce Forest Plan designated 11 management indicator species (MIS). The Forest 

Service Northern Region (R1) has identified 21 sensitive species (SS) that are suspected or 

known to be present on the Forest. The USFWS recognizes the Forest as secondary area, 

unoccupied habitat for threatened Canada lynx. Additional information for these species can 

be found in the Project file. 

The wildlife analysis identifies wildlife species and/or their habitat potentially present in the 

Analysis Area. Species include ESA listed, sensitive and MIS. The analysis presents the

distribution, population status, and habitat ecology of each species and their existing habitat 

conditions. Modeling of potential habitat in the Analysis Area was conducted using GIS and 

was based on vegetative characteristics preferred by each species. 

Table 3-28 displays the habitat criteria used to identify suitable habitat for each species.

Suitable habitat considered includes that necessary for breeding, nesting, rearing, and 

foraging activities. Suitability is based on stand characteristics such as tree species, tree size, 

and tree canopy cover. Other habitat quality considerations include patch size, snag numbers 

and size, downed wood, riparian habitat, and security areas. Stand criteria used to assess 

species’ habitat suitability were obtained from peer-reviewed technical literature on species 

specific research. 

Table 3-28. Habitat criteria used to identify suitable wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.

Wildlife Species Primary Tree Speciesa Tree 

Diameter 

(inches dbh)

Tree 

Canopy 

Cover 

(%) 

Age 

Class

(years)

Suitable 

Habitat 

(Acres)

Canada Lynx Denning

Foraging – – – 1,220

1,420

Pygmy Nuthatch PP, DF >9 <70 >80 960

Flammulated Owl PP, DF >12 35-70 >80 779

Ringneck Snake VRU 3 – – – 3,030

Fringed Myotis PP, DF >12 <80 >100 192

Long-legged Myotis

Long-eared Myotis All Species >12 <80 >100 8,157

Mountain Quail All Habitat s in VRU 3 – – – 187

Pileated 

Woodpecker Nesting

PP, WL, DF, WWP, GF, 

WRC >15 > 15 – 8,160

Black-backed 

Woodpecker PP, DF, WL, LPP, S >10 >40 >40 2,357

Northern Goshawk 

Nesting

PP, DF, WL, LPP, GF, 

WWP >13 >35-70 >50 2,066

Western Toad 

Uplands

All species on southerly 

aspects

All <30 – 510

American Marten SAF, S, LLP, GF, WRC – >17 >100 17,328

Fisher

Summer

Winter WRC, GF, DF, LPP, SAF, S >13

Sapling/young

>40

>40

>100

-

10,037

13,570

Moose Winter 

(MA 21) Mapped MA 21

Outside MA 21 – – – 2,700

8,156

a

PP- ponderosa pine; DF- Douglas-fir; WL-Western larch; WWP-Western white pine; LPP- Lodgepole pine; GF- grand fir; 

WRC- Western redcedar; S- Englemann spruce; SAF- Subalpine fir

3-84

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 142 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Habitat status and population viability at the Forest level is presented for some species based 

on Forest Service Northern Region analyses (Samson 2006; Bush and Lundberg 2008). This 

provides a broader scale context relative to the Analysis Area.

This analysis uses the best available science to assess effects. Data related to vegetative 

features to model potential habitat, including species, age, size, density, canopy cover, and 

harvest history were taken from the TSMRS, FSVEG, FACTS, 2011 VMap, and LIDAR

databases. The database was recently updated with stand exams that were conducted in 2011 

and 2012. ArcMap GIS was used for modeling, mapping, and quantifying habitats and 

Project impacts. Considerable information on wildlife habitat conditions was obtained from 

the following four supporting documents: “Clear Creek NFMA Assessment” (USDA Forest 

Service 2011); “Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment” (USDA 

Forest Service 2001); “Proposed Land Management Plan Nez Perce National Forest” (USDA

Forest Service 2007a), and; the “Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan” (USDA Forest Service 1987b). Field review of treatment areas was conducted in 2011 

and 2012. Field visits combined with National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) images 

were used to validate information gathered from other sources. 

The Idaho State Conservation Data Center (CDC) is the primary storehouse of sensitive or 

rare wildlife species survey and observation data. CDC data was mapped within a 5-mile 

radius of the Project area boundary to identify sensitive species potentially using the Project 

area. Old-growth habitat was identified using NRIS R1 Old-Growth Report Query based on 

2011 and 2012 stand exams and field review during the same time period. The Idaho State 

Wildlife Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy provides background habitat and 

population information and is incorporated by reference (IDFG 2005). 

Information for bird species has been synthesized from the Northern Region Land Bird 

Monitoring Program with data available from the avian science center3

, as well as The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey4

 (Sauer et al. 2011). 

Population trend information for elk and moose was synthesized from data available from the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game research reports5

. 

This analysis incorporates the effects on terrestrial sensitive species and fulfills the

requirements of the required Biological Evaluation, per direction pertaining to the FSM and 

streamlining process (USDA Forest Service 1995). The streamlined process for doing 

biological evaluations for sensitive species focuses on the following two areas:

• Incorporating the Effects on Sensitive Species into the NEPA Document 

• Summarizing the Conclusions of Effects of the Biological Evaluations for 

Sensitive Species

3 http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/

4 http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html

5 http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/

3-85

 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 143 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The following Regional Forester sensitive species may occur in the Project area: blackbacked woodpecker, fisher, flammulated owl, fringed myotis (bat), gray wolf, long eared 

myotis, long-legged myotis, mountain quail, pygmy nuthatch, ringneck snake, and western 

toad. 

3.7.4.1 Species Dropped from Detailed Analysis

The following Sensitive species or MIS species were dropped from detailed analysis as 

suitable habitat is not present, or the project would not affect individuals or their habitats: 

American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, bighorn sheep, black swift, Coeur d’ Alene 

salamander, common loon, harlequin duck, long-billed curlew, Townsend’s big-eared bat,

white-headed woodpecker, wolverine, northern Idaho ground squirrel, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

and grizzly bear. Detailed information on why these species were dropped can be found in 

the wildlife technical report in the project record. 

3.7.4.2 Species Analyzed in Detail

The area used for species analysis is primarily the 43,700 acres Project area scale. This scale 

is small enough to detect potential changes in habitat but not too large for them to be diluted 

beyond measure. There are several species where specifically identified analysis units are 

required to be used for the analysis. They include: Old Growth Analysis Areas (OGAAs), 

Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), and EAAs. 

Fire suppression is the only future foreseeable management action that would occur in the 

project area and could affect species habitats. It is the only foreseeable action considered in 

the cumulative effects analysis for all species. All past activities are considered as part of the 

existing condition and there are no present activities that would affect the analyzed species. 

Private lands were not considered for most species because there is not enough detailed 

information on forest stand size, age, canopy cover, and species composition to determine 

whether or not suitable habitats are present for each species.

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences

3.7.5.1 Fringed, Long-eared, and Long-legged Myotis

The fringed, long-eared, and long-legged myotis are Region 1 Sensitive species. Habitat for 

the fringed, long-eared, and long-legged myotis occurs in the project area. The fringed 

myotis is also considered a species of greatest conservation need in Idaho (IDFG 2005). 

All three species are known to be multiple habitat bats in regard to roosts, hibernacula and 

foraging habitats. They utilize caves, mines, buildings, cliff faces, bridges, exfoliating tree 

bark, snags, and crevices in rocks as roost and hibernacula sites. Large trees with protective 

bark and large snags provide the primary roosting habitat in the Analysis Area. 

The long-legged myotis generally occurs in forested montane regions (Harvey et al. 1999). 

Habitat is often relatively continuous tracts of late-successional forest. They forage

throughout most of the night in and above the forest canopy (Harvey et al. 1999, Warner and 

Czaplewski 1984). In managed forests, the long-legged myotis avoided harvest units unless 

large snags and old trees were left in relatively high densities, such as in shelter woods and 

aggregate retention patches (Taylor 1999). These bats have been found in north central Idaho 

using managed forests with trees that range from 5 to 15 inches in diameter. 

3-86

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 144 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

The long-eared myotis often occurs in rocky areas in an extensive variety of habitats (Adams 

2003). Individuals typically roost under bark, in tree cavities, in crevices in cliffs, or in 

abandoned buildings (Romin and Bosworth 2010, Harvey et al. 1999, Nagorsen and Brigham 

1993). The species has been found roosting in the snags and stumps of Douglas-fir, western 

hemlock (Barclay and Kurta 2007), western red cedar (Arnett and Hayes 2009), and pine 

(Vonhof and Barclay 1997). There are 8,157 acres of suitable habitat for long-legged and 

long-eared bats.

The fringed myotis inhabits a variety of habitats, including sagebrush steppe, grassland, and 

montane forests (Adams 2003, O‘Farrell and Studier 1980), primarily at middle elevations of 

3,900 to 7,050 feet. It is often found in dry habitats where open areas are interspersed with 

mature forests, creating complex mosaics with ample edges and abundant snags 

(Keinath 2004). There are 192 acres of suitable habitat for fringed myotis. 

The reduction in the amount of large diameter trees and snags in previously harvested areas 

and the transition of older forests dominated by large shade-intolerant tree species toward a 

dense structure of smaller diameter, shade-tolerant tree species, primarily due to fire 

exclusion (Wisdom et al. 2000) has subsequently reduced bat roosting habitats. The change 

in species composition resulting from fire exclusion has slowly replaced such species as 

ponderosa pine, white pine and western larch, with stands trending toward smaller and 

younger size and age classes that are more susceptible to insects and disease before reaching 

maturity. These conditions have limited suitable habitat for fringed myotis in the project area. 

Two long-legged and 2 long-eared myotis were captured in the Analysis Area in 2006. Both 

locations occurred in grand fir forest older than 130 years. The fringed myotis has not been 

observed in the Project area but they were netted during a bat survey at Moose Creek Ranger 

Station in 1998. The Station is within 5 miles of the project area and it is assumed that this 

species could occur in the project area. 

Population Trends: Long-legged and long-eared myotis have a global rank of G5 (secure) 

and an Idaho State rank of S3 (vulnerable). The long-eared myotis is a bat of western North 

America and one of the most widely reported bats in northern Idaho (Romin and Bosworth 

2010). 

The fringed myotis has a global rank of G4/G5 (apparently secure/widespread, abundant, and 

secure) and an Idaho State rank of S2 (imperiled). The Western Bat Working Group (1998) 

ranked long-eared myotis and long-legged myotis as moderate conservation concern. The 

present population status of fringed myotis is unknown. The Western Bat Working Group 

concluded that it may be uncommon or rare through most of its western range. It was one of 

the least common detected species during surveys in northern Idaho (Romin and Bosworth 

2010). 

3.7.5.1.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative A—No Action

No timber harvest, temporary road construction, or prescribed burning would occur under 

Alternative A. Fire exclusion allows forests to become denser, preventing sunlight from 

entering potential roost sites. This alters the microclimate of roosts and limits easy access to 

the sites (Knight 1994; Mannan et al. 1996; Vonhof and Barclay 1997). Fire suppression 

3-87

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 145 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

would continue under this alternative and habitats would become denser, creating conditions 

that would promote stand-replacing fire. Wildfires can change vegetative structure and 

composition, altering roost habitat by removing loose, exfoliating bark and opening tree 

canopy. However, fires assist in snag recruitment, thus potentially providing more roost sites. 

This alternative could have both positive and negative impacts on long-legged, long-eared 

and fringed myotis.

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination for fringed, long-eared, and long-legged 

myotis is “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on 

the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability 

rangewide”. Forest management activities can have direct (i.e., fatality) and indirect (e.g., 

loss of habitat and/or changes in prey availability) impacts on bats. Roost abandonment or 

death can occur in the winter if bats are disturbed (Adam 2003). 

Alternative B and C would treat 593 acres (7%), and Alternative D would treat 406 acres 

(5%), of long-eared and long-legged myotis habitat through regeneration and improvement 

harvest. Six acres would be commercially thinned under all Alternatives. Under all Action 

Alternatives, landscape burning would occur on 75 acres (1%) of long-eared and long-legged 

myotis habitat. 

Alternative B and C would treat 93 acres, and Alternative D would treat 72 acres of suitable 

fringed myotis habitat using regeneration harvest. Under all Action Alternatives, landscape 

burning would occur on 53 acres of fringed myotis habitat

Large tree and snag, old-growth habitat, and riparian habitat retention, would ensure that 

adequate snag habitat is available for myotis species through time. Timber harvest would 

remove roosting habitat; however retained live, dead, and legacy trees within treatment units 

would provide for some roosting and foraging and would provide future habitat structure 

through time. Regeneration harvest would also enhance herbaceous growth important for 

insect production and bat foraging. Long-legged myotis would likely use treated areas due to 

tree retention within the units. Treatments in fringed myotis habitat would create open areas 

but would remain adjacent to mature stands that contain snags preferred for roosting. 

Commercial and precommercial thinning would promote large tree growth for future roosting 

sites but would remove little habitat (thinned trees are generally too small in diameter for 

use). Design features include the retention of an average of 14–28 tpa in regeneration units, 

80–100 tpa in improvement units, and 120 tpa in commercial thinning areas. Prescribed 

burning would be both positive and negative. It would create new snags but may reduce 

habitat availability by removing bark on trees or causing snags to fall. Burning would create 

more open areas preferred by fringed myotis resulting in slightly increased suitable habitat. 

3.7.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects

Alternative A—No Action 

There would be no cumulative effects to myotis species since cumulative effects can only 

arise from proposed actions when combined with past, present, and future foreseeable 

actions. There are no proposed actions associated with this alternative. 

3-88

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 146 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area. The cumulative effects timeframe 

is 100 years because it would take this long to develop large snags in regeneration harvest 

and burning areas. Past actions have been accounted for in the existing condition. There are 

no present actions that would affect snags and bat roosting habitat. Fire suppression is the 

only future foreseeable management action that could affect snag and old growth habitats. 

Wildfires may be allowed to burn in the Clear Creek Roadless Area; however there is no way 

to determine the extent of fires that may occur. Fire suppression would continue outside the 

Roadless Area where snags would be created primarily through insect and disease outbreaks. 

These would be available for use by bats. The direct and indirect effects of the action 

alternatives are expected to maintain suitable bat habitat both within and outside of treatment 

areas. Old growth and PACFISH buffers would provide habitat during the cumulative effects 

time frame. Fire suppression and allowing fire to burn in the Roadless Area would also 

provide habitat for bats. No cumulative effects are therefore expected from the Action 

Alternatives when combined with fire suppression. 

3.7.5.2 Black-backed Woodpecker

The black-backed woodpecker is a Region 1 sensitive species. It is found in post-fire areas 

and in areas of insect outbreaks. They occur at highest densities in 1–6 year-old burns where 

there are abundant snags for nesting and beetles and wood-boring insects for feeding (Hutto 

1995a, 1995b; Saab et al. 2004). Old forests allow populations to persist between fires in 

regions with long fire intervals. Black-backed woodpecker presence was primarily influenced 

by the occurrence of high severity burn patches (Hutto 1995 a,b). 

Nearly 180,000 acres burned on the Nez Perce Forest between 2006 and 2011. Over 155,000 

acres burned in 2012. On average 20,000 acres burned per year for the last 20 years. Insect 

and disease activity has also been occurring since the 1980s. All of these areas provide 

habitat for black-backed woodpeckers.

One fire burned 36 acres within the project area in 2008. No other fires have occurred that 

would provide highly suitable habitat. Black-back woodpecker occupancy is expected to be 

low as a result. Endemic populations of black-backed woodpeckers are likely sustained by 

dying and recently dead standing trees from localized insect and pathogen activity (USDA 

Forest Service 2007d), such as the tussock moth outbreak that occurred in 2011 in the upper 

South Fork of Clear Creek. There is an estimated 2,357 acres of suitable habitat in the 

Analysis Area. 

Population Trends: Idaho ranks this species as S3 (vulnerable). Breeding bird survey 

(BBS) data show a long-term upward trend of >0.25% per year since 1966 in north-central 

Idaho (Sauer et al. 2011). Idaho Partners in Flight estimates a population of 4000 birds in 

Idaho. The state-wide population objective is to increase bird numbers to 4400 (Rosenberg 

2004). 

Field surveys targeting pileated and American three-toed woodpeckers were conducted in 

2012 in the Analysis Area. One of 12 sample units detected black-backed woodpeckers. 

These surveys did not target black-backed woodpeckers, so this is an underestimate of blackbacked woodpecker presence in the Analysis Area. 

3-89

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 147 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

No scientific evidence exists that the black-backed woodpecker is decreasing in numbers 

(Samson 2006) in the Northern Region. The study indicates 29,406 acres of suitable habitat 

are required to maintain a viable black-backed woodpecker population in Forest Service 

Region One. Bush and Lundberg (2008) show over 700,000 suitable acres on the Nez Perce 

Forest alone. As of September 22, 2012, the very active and prolonged fire season on the Nez 

Perce and Clearwater National Forests has created over 200,000 acres of burned habitat. 

There is adequate black- backed woodpecker habitat across the Forest.

3.7.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

None of the proposed activities would be implemented. Tree mortality is expected to 

continue in the upper South Fork tussock moth outbreak area. Root disease is also prevalent 

in the Analysis Area and would provide a continuous supply of snags. Fire suppression 

would continue allowing for an increase in fuel loading. This would make the area 

susceptible to a stand replacing fire event which would create highly suitable black-backed 

woodpecker habitat. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the black-backed woodpecker. 

Alternatives B and C would treat 420 acre (18%), and Alternative D would treat 363 acres 

(15%) of black-backed suitable habitat through regeneration and improvement harvest. 

Regeneration harvest would remove snags where necessary for logging safety but would 

retain them where possible. Canopy cover would also be reduced. Regeneration harvest 

would reduce foraging opportunities for black backed woodpeckers. Improvement harvest 

would reduce canopy cover to 30%–40% which is at or just below preferred levels but would 

large trees and snags. Landscape burning would increase habitat on 229 acres (10%) of 

suitable habitat. Fire killed snags would provide foraging opportunities for up to 10 years. In 

general, project activities would reduce insect and disease mortality and reduce the risk of 

future stand-replacing forest fires on 28% to 25% of suitable habitat. This would reduce the 

potential quality and quantity of future habitat by reducing tree densities. Commercial and 

precommercial thinning would indirectly promote large tree growth for future roosting sites 

but would remove little habitat. 

Project design features would retain live trees and snags in all harvest units that would 

provide limited foraging habitat. Use of the Project area by black-backed woodpeckers could 

continue as untreated area would continue to provide feeding and nesting habitat. Prescribed 

site preparation burning would cause some mortality in retained trees, also providing future 

feeding and nesting habitat. This effect would be greatest under Alternatives B and C 

because they have the greatest number of treatment acres. 

3-90

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 148 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.7.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no cumulative effects to black-backed woodpeckers since cumulative effects 

can only arise from proposed actions when combined with past, present, and future 

foreseeable actions. There are no proposed actions associated with this alternative.

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area. The cumulative effects timeframe 

is 150 years because it would take this long to develop habitats with high levels of snag 

habitat. Past actions have been accounted for in the existing condition. There are no present 

actions that would affect snag habitat. Fire suppression is the only future foreseeable 

management action that could affect snags. 

Wildfires may be allowed to burn in the Clear Creek Roadless Area; however there is no way 

to determine the extent of fires that may occur. A burn would create highly suitable 

woodpecker habitat for up to a decade. Fire suppression would continue outside the Roadless 

Area where snags would be created primarily through insect and disease outbreaks. These 

would be available for use by woodpeckers. The direct and indirect effects of the action 

alternatives are expected to maintain suitable woodpecker habitat both within and outside of 

treatment areas. Fire suppression and allowing fire to burn in the Roadless Area combined 

with the retention of old growth and other retention areas would maintain habitat for blackbacked woodpeckers. No cumulative effects are therefore expected from the Action 

Alternatives when combined with fire suppression. 

3.7.5.3 Canada Lynx

The Canada lynx is a Threatened species. The NRLMD Record of Decision (ROD) amended 

18 Forests Plans in Region 1. The direction of that decision applies to “mapped lynx habitat 

on NFS lands presently occupied by Canada Lynx, as defined by the Amended Lynx 

Conservation Agreement between the Forest Service and the USFWS. When National 

Forests are designing management actions in unoccupied mapped lynx habitat they should 

consider the lynx direction, especially the direction regarding linkage habitat.” (USDA Forest 

Service 2007c, p. 1). The NRLMD, ROD selected Alternative F, Scenario 2, which states: 

management direction would be incorporated into all forest plans, but would only apply to 

occupied habitat. Under Scenario 2, the direction should be “considered” for unoccupied 

units, but would not have to be followed until such time as lynx occupy the unit. The Nez 

Perce was considered to be unoccupied based on the best scientific information available at 

that time of the NRLMD Forest Plan Amendment.

Currently, there are inconsistencies in the status of lynx on the Nez Perce National Forest.

The Nez Perce Forest is labeled as unoccupied, yet there are historical and more recent 

anecdotal observations of lynx across the forest. However, these observations are not 

considered to be “verified” as defined by the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007a, b; pg 3, 

pg 99-100, pg 142-143; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 pg 4), nor do anecdotal 

sightings determine that there is reproduction or a resident population. The accuracy of a few 

of the lynx sightings is reputable because lynx were caught in traps and then verified by the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. These trapped lynx were prior to 1999 and so any lynx 

3-91

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 149 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

documentation prior to 1999 was not considered in designation of a unit being listed as 

occupied or unoccupied. The accuracy of other sightings many be low due to observer bias in 

confusing lynx and bobcats. Due to the infrequent nature of lynx observations on the Nez 

Perce National Forest, there is no evidence to show that there is a resident population or 

reproduction. 

The Rocky Mountain Research Stations conducted surveys for lynx in 2007 for the Nez 

Perce National Forest. The surveys were conducted according to established protocols 

outlined in the NRLMD (Ulizio et al. 2007). The surveys conducted in 2008 (hair snare) and 

2009 (winter track surveys) were reduced in size and scope due to snow conditions, limited 

personnel and limited funding. No lynx were detected during any of these survey efforts 

(2007, 2008, or 2009). 

Due to inconsistencies on the status of lynx on the Nez Perce NF, the USFWS sent a letter 

addressed to the Forest Supervisor, Rick Brazell on December 10, 2012 stating that “there is 

consensus that transient lynx may be present on the Nez Perce National Forest, at least 

occasionally”. The USFWS referenced two pieces of information to come to this conclusion: 

1) Ulizio et al. (2007) that noted, “Historical sightings that may have been confirmed may be 

the result of transient lynx moving through the forest, but the infrequency of such reports 

suggests lynx are incidental to the area”, and 2) McKelvey et al. (2000) reported “numerous 

verified historical records from Idaho County”. The letter also stated that, “the issue of lynx 

occupancy on the Nez Perce National Forest is a separate but related matter that is not the 

focus of this letter”. Follow-up discussions with USFWS occurred on December 17, 2012 

with Nez Perce National Forest personnel to assist in clarifying the letter. The USFWS stated 

that a Biological Assessment (BA) should be prepared and informal consultation would need 

to be completed with USFWS if a determination of a “May Affect, but Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect” determination was reached for Nez Perce National Forest projects. 

USFWS also clarified that this does not change the Nez Perce National Forest status as 

‘unoccupied’, but further lynx surveys are needed to determine occupancy and any analysis 

for a BA should be focused on analyzing the project and its impacts on transient (not resident 

or breeding) lynx. 

The 2005 Canada Lynx Recovery Area map identified the Nez Perce Forest as secondary 

Canada lynx habitat6

. In the 2009 mapping effort, the USFWS did not identify critical lynx 

habitat on the Forest7

 (74 FR 8616 8702). The modeled lynx habitat within the analysis 

would be considered secondary areas that may contribute to lynx persistence by providing 

habitat that allows dispersing lynx to travel between core areas. The USFWS concluded that 

Forest vegetation management in secondary areas would provide adequate connectivity and 

opportunistic foraging habitat for dispersing lynx in the absence of specific habitat 

management direction (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). 

The direct and indirect effects area will be assess using modeled lynx habitat in the Analysis 

Area (3,300 acres). The cumulative effects are assessed across the LAU 3050305, which 

6 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/lynx/final%20lynx%20RecoveryOutline9-05.pdf

7 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/lynx/criticalhabitat_files/AllUnitsMap.jpg

3-92

 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 150 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

totals 24,057 acres. The entire LAU contains modeled lynx habitat that consists of winter 

foraging (35%), lynx denning (34%). Of those areas, 9% is currently unsuitable lynx habitat. 

About 31% of the LAU is not modeled as potential lynx habitat and is referred to as non-lynx 

habitat. Impacts across an entire LAU are assessed, because the LAU contains enough habitat 

to support the home range of a female lynx and is large enough to assess the effects of 

proposed activities but not too large as to make habitat changes undetectable. 

Fourteen percent of LAU 3050305 lies within the Clear Creek analysis area. There are 3,300 

acres of modeled lynx habitat within the analysis area. Of the 3,300 acres, 1,220 acres is 

winter foraging, 1,420 acres is denning, and 660 acres is non-lynx habitat. The denning and 

foraging habitat are dominated by grand fir and subalpine fir with a small component (10%) 

of lodgepole pine. The remainder of the Analysis area is too low in elevation and does not 

provide suitable habitats for lynx. 

The NRLMD established standards and guidelines for the management of lynx. Standards are 

management requirements used to meet desired conditions. Standards were used in those 

situations where it was desirable to provide sideboards for project activities. To deviate from 

a standard, a plan amendment would need to be completed. Guidelines were used for those 

risk factors that may have possible adverse effects to individual lynx. The NRLMD states, 

“When National Forests are designating management actions in unoccupied mapped lynx 

habitat they should consider the lynx direction.” The direction provided in the NRLMD is 

applied to lynx habitat at the LAU scale. In Table 3-29, the alternatives for the Clear Creek 

project are evaluated for consistency with the NRLMD Standards for Vegetation (VEG) 

Management activities and practices from the NRLMD ROD ( USDA Forest Service 2007c).

Population Trends: Lynx populations occur at naturally low densities and very few museum 

or trapping records exist for Idaho County (McKelvey et al. 2000). No Canada lynx sighting 

records have been reported in the Project area (IDFG 2010). Two sightings have been 

recorded within 5 miles of the Analysis Area. The sightings are reasonably dated (1915 and 

1992) and reported by people with unknown ability to correctly identify species (bobcat vs. 

lynx). Lynx surveys conducted on the Forest in 2007 found no evidence of lynx (Ulizio et al. 

2007). At this time and based on new information presented by the USFWS (USFWS letter 

dated December 10, 2012), the Nez Perce National Forest will consider lynx to be 

occasionally present or transient. This does not suggest that lynx are breeding, denning, or 

rearing young on the Nez Perce National Forest, but that lynx may move through the Nez 

Perce National Forest during dispersal events. The Nez Perce National Forest is coordinating 

with the Rocky Mountain Research Station to conduct lynx surveys in the winter of 2013 

following accepted NRLMD protocols to garner a better understanding of the status of lynx 

on the Nez Perce National Forest. 

3-93

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 151 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-29. Clear Creek Project consistency with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management 

Direction

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to the Project and has it been met?

Where direction is applicable but has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL): The following objectives, standards, and guidelines 

apply to management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU) and in linkage areas, subject to valid 

existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use.

Standard ALL S1

New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation 

management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an 

LAU and/or linkage area.

No new or expanded developments are proposed. Habitat 

connectivity would be maintained in untreated areas of the LAU. 

Vegetation treatments would occur on less than 0.5%of the LAU. 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJETS (VEG): The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to 

vegetation management projects in lynx habitat in LAU. With the exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically 

concerns wildland fire use, the objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland fire 

use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments such as mineral operations, ski runs, and roads. None of 

the objectives, standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas.

Standard VEG S1 – Stand initiation structural stage limits

Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management 

projects that regenerate timber, except for fuel treatment 

projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined 

by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet 

Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may 

occur on no more than 6% (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on 

each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG 

G10.

The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been 

completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand 

initiation structural stages limit disturbance in each LAU as 

follows:

If more than 30% of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in 

a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide 

winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be 

regenerated by vegetation management projects. 

No lynx habitat occurs in the WUI. At this time, only 9% of lynx 

habitat in the LAU 3050305 is currently unsuitable or in the 

stand initiation structural stage. The acres converted to a 

stand initiation structural stage for each of the alternatives 

include: 110 acres (0.5%) for Alternative B, 87 acres (0.4%) 

for Alternative C, and 58 acres (0.2%) for Alternative D. All 

activities are associated with regeneration harvest. No 

landscape burning occurs within the LAU. The project 

complies with Standard VEG S1 and is well below the 30% 

Threshold. 

Standard VEG S2 – Limits on regeneration from timber 

mgmt. projects

Standard VEG S2 applies to all vegetation management 

projects that regenerate timber, except for fuel treatment 

projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA

The Standard: Timber management projects shall not 

regenerate more than 15% of lynx habitat on NFS lands in 

an LAU in a 10-year period.

No lynx habitat occurs in the WUI. At this time, only 9% of 

LAU 3050305 is currently unsuitable or in the stand initiation 

structural stage. The acres converted to a stand initiation 

structural stage for each of the alternatives using regeneration 

harvest include: 110 acres for Alternative B, 87 acres for 

Alternative C, and 58 acres for Alternative D. The project 

complies with Standard VEG S2 and is well below the 15% 

Threshold. 

3-94

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 152 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to the Project and has it been met?

Where direction is applicable but has not been met, 

explain the reason(s).

Guideline VEG G11 – Denning habitat 

Denning habitat should be distributed in each LAU in the 

form of pockets of large amounts of large woody debris, 

either down logs or root wads, or large piles of small wind 

thrown trees (“jack-strawed” piles). If denning habitat 

appears to be lacking in the LAU, then projects should be 

designed to retain some coarse woody debris, piles, or 

residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future.

No treatments would occur in field verified lynx denning. 

Though treatments are proposed in ‘modeled’ lynx denning 

habitat, the habitat in treatment areas would be better 

described as lynx travel habitat. Vegetation treatments are not 

planned in the spruce-fir community or areas with an 

abundance of dead, down woody material. Treatments are 

proposed in dry community types made up of Douglas fir, 

ponderosa pine, grand fir, western larch, and western white 

pine. As a project design measure, harvest units will retain 

large down logs. 

Standard VEG S5 – Precommercial thinning limits

Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning 

projects, except for fuel treatment projects that use 

precommercial thinning as a tool within the WUI as defined 

by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

The Standard: Precommercial thinning projects that reduce 

snowshoe hare habitat may only occur from the stand 

initiation structural stage until the stands no longer provide 

winter snowshoe hare habitat

Does not apply to the Clear Creek project. No precommercial 

thinning would occur in lynx habitat. 

Standard VEG S6 – Multi-storied stands & snowshoe hare 

horizontal cover 

Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management 

projects, except for fuel treatment projects within the WUI as 

defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

The Standard: Vegetation management projects that reduce 

snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story, mature- or latesuccessional forests may occur only under certain conditions 

noted in the NRLMD. 

There would be no harvest in mature- or late-successional, 

multi-story hare habitat. Though treatments are proposed in 

‘modeled’ lynx winter foraging habitat. The habitat in treatment 

areas would be better described as lynx travel habitat. 

Vegetation treatments are not planned in the spruce-fir 

community or areas with dense horizontal cover. Treatments 

are proposed in dry community types made up of Douglas fir, 

ponderosa pine, grand fir, western larch, and western white 

pine.

Guideline VEG G1 – Lynx habitat improvement

Vegetation management projects should be planned to 

recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs 

where such habitat is scarce or not available. Priority should 

be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage 

stands for lynx or their prey (e.g., mesic, monotypic 

lodgepole stands).

Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning 

habitat.

Regeneration harvest, prescribed burning (site prep), and 

planting in LAU 3050305 would recruit a high density of 

conifers near denning habitat. Tree retention would occur 

within all units to provide for future woody material.

The acres converted to a stand initiation structural stage for 

each of the alternatives include: 110 acres (0.5%) for 

Alternative B, 87 acres (0.4%) for Alternative C, and 58 acres 

(0.2%) for Alternative D.

Guideline VEG G4 – Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire activities should not create permanent travel 

routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing 

permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be 

avoided.

Prescribed fire associated with site preparation would not 

create permanent travel routes. No firebreaks are proposed in 

lynx habitat. 

Guideline VEG G5 – Habitat for alternate prey species

Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel, 

should be provided in each LAU.

Habitat for alternate prey would remain available in matureand old-growth forest in the LAU.

Note: The only guidelines discussed are those that are affected by the project. Standards LAU S1 and 

Guidelines ALL G1, VEG G10 do not apply to the project and are discussed in the project record.

3.7.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

This alternative would have no direct or short-term indirect effects on Canada lynx because 

no treatments would be conducted. Red squirrel (an alternate forage species to snowshoe 

3-95

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 153 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

hare) habitat would remain available on nearly 50% of mature and old forest in the Analysis 

Area and about 46% of the LAU. Over the long term (50–100 years), forest succession would 

continue in the analysis area, as modified by natural processes. Existing younger patches 

would continue to grow and mature. This succession would tend to reduce lynx foraging 

habitat, but would increase lynx denning habitat. If wildfires or extensive windstorms occur 

in the area, foraging habitat could be replenished, but these events may decrease denning 

habitat. Insect infestations and root disease would continue causing numerous dead trees to 

fall to the ground, which may provide high quality denning habitat if downed logs are 

densely layered. Because the events and processes that might affect forest succession (and 

therefore lynx habitat) in the analysis area are either unknown or highly variable in frequency 

and size, the long term indirect effect on lynx of Alternative 1 is not predictable. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

All Action Alternatives are consistent with the NRLMD. The following analysis will 

evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the project on ‘transient’ or ‘dispersing’ lynx, or 

more specifically, lynx that may be incidental to the area or present during dispersal events.

This analysis focuses on transient lynx since no lynx have been documented breeding on the 

Nez Perce National Forest. The areas that are not designated as ‘core lynx areas’ are 

considered ‘peripheral areas’, which are important in providing habitat to support lynx during 

dispersal movements or other periods, which then allow lynx to return to core areas 

(NRLMD, USFWS Biological Opinion, p. 59). These peripheral areas have secondary habitat 

and would include the Nez Perce National Forest. The lynx records in peripheral areas are 

sporadic and generally correspond to periods following cyclic population highs in Canada 

(NRMLD, USFWS Biological Opinion, p. 59). In the Biological Opinion, USFWS 

hypothesized that the peripheral areas may enable successful dispersal of lynx between 

populations or subpopulations, but the USFWS did not have enough information to clearly 

define the relative importance of secondary or peripheral areas and indicated that more 

research was necessary. 

It is unlikely that the proposed project would have adverse impacts to transient lynx since the 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) described resident lynx 

as being generally tolerant of humans and their management activities in forested landscapes. 

There is limited information on how a dispersing lynx reacts to changes in landscape 

connectivity, but some conclusions can be drawn. Ruggiero et al. (2000) reported “Lynx 

readily move across landscapes fragmented by conventional industrial forestry” and even 

further, “documented lynx movements have involved crossing open valley bottoms and large 

rivers“, thus concluding that lynx can move long distances and are capable of these dispersal 

events. Although existing data was sparse, the data did not indicate that vegetation 

management or logging has impacted resident lynx or for that matter, transient lynx. It could 

be inferred that a threshold may be present for resident lynx. The thresholds established 

within the NRLMD for VEG S1 (30%) or VEG S2 (15%) were likely generated from this 

type of information. The Clear Creek alternatives maintain adequate habitat for a transient 

lynx and does not exceed the thresholds for VEG S1 or VEG S2, and would have minimal 

direct or indirect impacts on transient lynx. 

In treatment units, habitat connectivity may be disrupted at a local level by regeneration 

harvest or commercial thin treatments, but overall landscape connectivity would continue to 

3-96

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 154 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

allow lynx movements through this landscape in conjunction with riparian areas as well as in

mature and old growth forests. Cumulatively, the proposed project would not regenerate 

more than 15% of lynx habitat in LAU 3050305 (Table 3-29). The majority of lynx winter 

foraging and denning habitat would be retained across the LAU. Even further, the treatments 

could create optimal conditions for lynx foraging and denning habitat considering that stands 

will be regenerated into younger stands adjacent to mature stands that may provide potential 

denning habitat. As recommended under Guideline VEG G1 (NRLMD, p. 4), “vegetation 

management should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers where such habitat is 

scarce....Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning habitat”. In addition, potential 

future denning substrate would be retained in newly created early successional stages through 

snag, green tree, and coarse woody debris retention guidelines.

The potential for a transient lynx to be present while implementation is occurring is 

extremely low. Project related (direct) impacts are considered negligible for transient lynx.

Should a transient lynx be present in nearby areas when tree removal takes place, minor 

short-term disturbance impacts are possible. It could be perceived that lynx may be directly 

impacted by the noise and commotion created by heavy machinery, if present. Direct effects 

could be related to disturbance of individuals with lynx avoiding the area during 

implementation. If disturbance to individuals does occur, it would not significantly interrupt 

critical life history factors such as foraging for food, due to the difference in activity periods 

since lynx primarily forage at night or crepuscular periods. Further, given that project sites 

are localized areas that are mostly in timber management areas, minimal disturbance is 

anticipated. Overall, the short-term direct impacts are anticipated to be outweighed by the 

indirect, beneficial impacts to lynx by improving habitat quality over the mid- and long-term

as discussed in the following section. 

No precommercial thinning would occur in lynx habitat under any alternative and complies 

with NRLMD VEG S5 (Table 3-29). (Reference NRLMD, ROD, p.33) 

Mature tree harvest and commercial thinning do not occur in multi-story stands and are 

consistent with NRLMD VEG S6 (Table 3-29). The higher elevations of LAU 3050305 have 

subalpine fir, grand fir and lodgepole pine; however there is minimal Engelmann spruce 

within the analysis area. The Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir community is important for 

lynx to meet its life history requirements (foraging and denning) as well as provide habitat 

structure for snowshoe hares that contribute to dense horizontal cover. As for the project 

area, it was stated in the vegetation section that the Subalpine setting comprises only 160 

acres and has no treatments proposed. Alternatives B, C, and D propose to treat dry, lower 

elevation stands of grand fir and Douglas fir to promote early seral species such as 

ponderosa, western larch, and western white pine. The lower elevation, dry types are not 

considered important lynx habitat. Though treatments are proposed in modeled lynx winter 

foraging and denning habitat, the habitat types are relatively dry and would be better 

described as lynx travel habitat. The following description outlines which “modeled” habitats 

(winter foraging or denning) are being treated, but it should be noted that the models are not 

accurately predicting lynx habitat. 

For Alternative B, proposed commercial thinning would occur in 55 acres (4%) of foraging 

habitat and 2 acres (0.2%) of denning habitat. Regeneration harvest for Alternative B would 

occur in 7 acres (0.5%) of foraging and 103 acres (8%) in denning habitat. Under Alternative 

C, proposed regeneration harvest would occur in 6 acres (0.4%) of foraging and 81 acres 

3-97

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 155 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(7%) of denning as well as commercial thinning in 55 acres (4%) in foraging and 2 acres of 

denning. Lastly, Alternative D proposes commercial thinning in 55 acres of foraging and 2 

acres in denning as well as regeneration harvest in 2 acres of foraging and 56 acres (5%) of 

denning. The commercial thinning treatments would remove trees but would not reduce 

overstory cover significantly. Since the treatment areas would be better described as lynx 

travel habitat, no indirect effect to transient lynx habitat is anticipated. 

The regeneration harvest treatments would remove most trees and convert the stands over to 

a stand initiation structural stage. The acres converted to a stand initiation structural stage for 

each of the alternatives include: 110 acres (0.5% of the LAU) for Alternative B, 87 acres 

(0.4%) for Alternative C, and 58 acres (0.2%) for Alternative D. Regeneration harvest would 

reduce canopy cover for a transient lynx over the short-term, but over the mid and long-term 

regeneration harvest would provide future hare foraging habitat in 20–30 years when trees 

become dense and tall enough to provide cover above the snow line. None of the alternatives 

would impede lynx travel, exploratory movements, or dispersal through this landscape 

because proposed treatments occur at a small scale (<0.5% of the LAU). 

Though forest roads can change landscape connectivity for many wildlife species, 

preliminary information suggests lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 1994). After the 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) was published in 2005, the USFWS 

published a Clarification of Findings in the Federal Register commonly referred to as the 

Remand Notice, which stated, “We found no evidence that some activities such as forest 

roads, pose a threat to lynx” (USDA Forest Service 2007c, p.3). Lynx-vehicle collisions have 

been found on paved, high-speed highways with high volumes of traffic (e.g., reintroduced 

lynx in Colorado and Maine). Forest roads generally have low speeds and are gravel. The 

CFLRA does not allow the construction of permanent roads, thus, permanent road 

construction is not proposed for this Project. Any new temporary roads constructed will be 

recontoured after use, so a short-term loss of habitat connectivity can be anticipated, but will 

be restored after project is implemented. 

A linkage area is defined in the NRLMD, Record of Decision as “providing connectivity 

between blocks of lynx habitat. Linkage areas occur both within and between geographic 

areas, where basins, valleys, or agricultural lands separate blocks of lynx habitat, or where 

lynx habitat naturally narrows between blocks.” Linkages are ‘officially’ designated in 

collaboration with the Forest Service and USFWS to provide for connectivity across areas 

that are generally non-forested. The Clear Creek project area does not contain any official 

linkage areas.

3.7.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects

Alternative A—No Action

A total of 2,035 acres (9%) of lynx habitat in the LAU has been harvested or burned within 

the last 30 years. These areas are in the stand initiation or earlier structural stage and do not 

provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Roughly 2% of these areas will become hare habitat

within the next10 with the remainder to follow in up to 25 years. There would be no 

cumulative effect to hare or lynx habitat since there are no future foreseeable activities that 

would affect it.

3-98

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 156 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

For threatened species it is required under the ESA that cumulative effects are measured 

across state and private lands. There is no state or private lands that exist within LAU 

3050305 and so no ESA cumulative effects are anticipated.

For NEPA, cumulative effects can only occur when added to past, present, and future 

foreseeable actions. Past and proposed actions are accounted for and discussed under the 

direct and indirect effects sections above. All past vegetation management projects have been 

incorporated into the baseline information for the lynx habitat models. Fire suppression is the 

only future foreseeable action in the LAU; however the effects cannot be determined since 

the amount of potential suppression is not known. There are no cumulative effects from the 

project since there are no other measurable foreseeable actions and the effects to lynx habitat 

from the proposed actions are small (0.2% - 0.5% of the LAU). Under all action alternatives, 

the NRLMD standards and guidelines would continue to be met in the LAU. 

Existing Canada lynx habitat and snowshoe hare winter habitats are expected to remain 

available, well distributed and connected, within the LAU due to minimal proposed 

management. No measurable effects to lynx populations at the Forest or regional scale, or 

alteration of current population trend, are expected from any of the alternatives based on the 

widespread availability of suitable habitats across the Forest and region (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b). 

The proposed federal action described for Alternatives B, C, and D will have “no effect” on 

the Canada lynx and/or its habitat. This determination is based on: 

1. All objectives, standards and guidelines in the 2007 NRLMD would be met. 

2. Negligible, short-term direct effects to transient lynx may occur related to disturbance 

(noise and mechanize equipment) during implementation of vegetation treatment. 

However, over the mid and long-term any short-term impacts would be offset by the 

positive benefits of regenerating snowshoe hare habitat for lynx foraging as described 

as a Guideline in VEG G1 (Table 3-29).

3. Travel habitat would be maintained across the LAU. Lynx, if present, are potentially 

transient animals traversing across the forest, thus no long-term impacts to individual 

lynx and their habitat are anticipated. 

4. Forest roads generally have low speeds and are gravel, and do not pose a threat to 

lynx. No permanent road construction is proposed. Any new temporary roads 

constructed will be recontoured after use. 

5. Lastly, the proposed Federal actions described under Alternative B, C, and D is not 

occurring within designated critical habitat, it would not result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat.

3.7.5.4 Fisher

The fisher is a Region 1 sensitive species, a Forest MIS, and an Idaho species of greatest 

conservation need (IDFG 2005). There have been 11 fisher observations (2 observed tracks, 

the rest are individuals or trapping records) reported within five miles of the Analysis Area 

between 1982 and 2005. Two occurred within the Project area. The scattered distribution of 

these reports indicate well-distributed habitat. 

3-99

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 157 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Fishers are associated with mature coniferous forests and specific structural elements—

particularly large trees and coarse woody debris (Ruggiero et al. 1994). They inhabit mesic, 

coniferous forest between 3,500–6,000 feet elevation, although habitat preference changes 

with season, age, and sex (Badry 2004; NatureServe 2012). Fishers avoid open ground 

(Buskirk and Powell 1994; Powell 1993) and have a preference for structurally complex 

areas with multiple canopy layers, including understory shrubs and large amounts of woody 

debris (USDA Forest Service 1998b, Marshall et al. 1996, Powell 1993). Ruggiero et al. 

(1994) concluded that riparian zones, high elevation old growth grand fir, and subalpine fir 

stands are important habitat components for fisher (Powell 1993). Fishers appear able to use 

"many different habitats for hunting as long as these areas provide overhead cover at either 

the stand or patch scales" (Weir and Harestead 2003: p. 9). Sufficient overhead cover in 

foraging habitat may be provided by either tree or shrub cover. 

In a study on the Nez Perce National Forest in the Elk City area from 1985 to 88, most fisher 

observations were in mesic grand fir habitat types (Jones 1991). Grand fir and Engelmann 

spruce dominated stands the fishers used in summer. Similarly, in winter fishers used grand 

fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine dominated stands. Summer habitat had a relatively 

high component of moderate to large diameter Engelmann spruce, large diameter Douglasfir, and pacific yew. Fishers avoided stands with a strong lodgepole or ponderosa pine

component. Winter habitat included stands with a relatively high basal area in Douglas-fir 

and lodgepole pine. Fishers also strongly selected wetland forest types, with selection for 

forested riparian habitats evident at several scales in summer and winter (Jones 1991). In 

summer, 50 percent and 75 percent of observations were within 49 and 75 feet of water. 

Moving across landscapes, fishers commonly used forested riparian areas, where preferred 

resting habitat and prey may be more available than in surrounding habitats. 

In north-central, Idaho, home ranges contained 53 percent mature/old growth stands on 

average. In summer, 90 percent of observations were in mature/old growth forest. In winter, 

54 percent were in mature/old growth and 46 percent in young forest (Jones and Garton 

1994). Availability of large diameter logs (>21 inches dbh) appeared to be particularly 

important in winter habitat selection. Mature/old growth stands were used extensively for 

resting, while hunting occurred in a range of successional stages, including young sapling 

and pole forest. For resting, fishers preferred stands with canopy cover greater than 60 

percent and for hunting they preferred canopy cover greater than 80 percent. They avoided 

areas with less than 40% canopy closure and drier habitats. 

There are 10,037 acres (23%) of currently suitable summer habitat (mature/ old forest) and 

13,570 acres (31%) of winter habitat (seedling/sapling/young forest) for fisher in the analysis 

area.

Population Trends: Fishers have a global ranking of G5 (secure) and a state rank of S1 

(critically imperiled). Fishers are distributed throughout most of their historical territory in 

the Clearwater drainage, although the population remains at a low level (Buskirk and 

Ruggiero 1994). Samson (2006) indicates 100,078 acres are required to maintain a viable 

fisher population in Forest Service Region One. Bush and Lundberg (2008) show over 

440,000 suitable acres of summer habitat and over 700,000 acres of winter habitat occur on 

the Nez Perce Forest.

3-100

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 158 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.7.5.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

This alternative would have no direct effects to mature or old growth habitat since no 

activities are proposed. Habitats would continue to be altered by natural events such as 

succession and insects/disease. Fire suppression would continue. Snag and large down wood 

habitat elements would remain available as trees die (and fall) from natural causes. A 

wildfire and/or insect and disease activity would leave greater numbers of snags and large 

down wood than exist now but would also reduce canopy cover. These more open areas 

would provide unsuitable conditions for fisher. Ongoing fire suppression may be beneficial 

for this species because it can help maintain mature and older habitats on the landscape 

longer. Winter habitat would continue to be available across the analysis area. Connectivity 

across the landscape would continue to be provided by RHCAs. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the fisher as Sensitive species. As an 

MIS, fisher populations would be expected to continue to display population stability across 

the Nez Perce National Forest under Alternatives B, C, and D. Proposed regeneration harvest 

would simplify suitable fisher habitats in the short term (<50 years) by eliminating canopy 

cover and layering, reducing large down wood, and reducing standing snags in treated areas.

Snags and down wood would be provided for over the long term through tree retention 

design features. Canopy cover would increase to suitable levels after about 30 years. 

Proposed commercial thinning would have minimal effects by retaining enough structure and 

overstory canopy to be used by fisher. The Action Alternatives would reduce the likelihood 

of a large, intense fire. Fires have both positive and negative effects on fisher (as discussed 

under the No Action alternative). 

Jones (1991) suggests that landscape scale habitat management should incorporate young- to 

mid-successional stages to provide habitat for prey species while retaining mature and latesuccessional habitats that provide important denning and resting habitat. The project has been 

designed to maintain all successional stages within the Project area which would continue to 

provide suitable habitat for fisher. 

Alternatives B and C would conduct regeneration and improvement harvest on 580 acres 

(6%) of currently suitable summer habitat and Alternative D regenerates 438 acres (4%). 

Landscape burning occurs on 22 acres (0.2%) and would have similar effects to regeneration 

and improvement harvest activities. Retained trees, snags, and down logs in these areas 

would provide future habitat for fisher as the stands age. All action alternatives commercially 

thin 35 acres (0.3%) of summer habitat. Commercial thinning would reduce canopy cover to 

40%–60% and would maintain a canopy cover level suitable for fisher use. 

Alternatives B and C conduct regeneration and improvement harvest on 1,124 acres (8%) and 

1,646 acres (12%) of fisher winter habitat respectively. Alternative D does not conduct these 

types of harvest. No landscape burning is conducted on fisher winter habitat under any 

alternative. Alternative B, C, and D commercially thin 2,210 acres (16%), 1,731 acres (13%), 

3-101

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 159 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and 2,013 acres (15%), respectively. The effects of regeneration/improvement harvest and 

commercial thinning on winter habitat are the same as for summer habitat.

Habitat quality in currently suitable summer and winter fisher habitat would decrease in all 

Action Alternatives. Alternatives C would convert 18% of mature habitat to early seral 

conditions. Alternative B converts 16% and Alternative D coverts 4%. No harvest would 

occur in verified old-growth or RHCAs under any alternative. These areas would continue to 

provide suitable habitat and well as connectivity between suitable habitat patches on over 

30% of the landscape. Insects and disease events would continue across the landscape

causing tree mortality. These would produce snags and large down wood used by fishers for 

denning and resting. Commercial thinning would have minimal effects on up to 16% of 

fisher habitat. Summer and winter fisher habitats would remain well distributed and available 

under all alternatives. Trends in fisher populations at the local and forest scale would not be 

affected by project activities due to the wide availability of suitable habitats. 

3.7.5.4.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for fisher is the 43,700-acre project area. The time frame for 

cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands 

to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that 

provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species. 

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no negative cumulative effects from this alternative since no actions would 

occur. The effects of fire suppression are the same as those discussed under the direct and 

indirect effects of the No Action alternative.

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

Past activities have been accounted for in the existing condition. Fire suppression could have 

positive effects on fisher habitat by limiting fire in mature and older forests. The cumulative 

risk to fisher habitat from the action alternatives is considered low due to the retention of old 

growth, PACFISH buffers, snag retention guidelines, and other mature stands that would 

provide fisher habitat after treatment. Young forest would continue to provide winter habitat 

for fisher. Woody debris would continue to accumulate and be created as trees age and die. 

At the Forest level and across the range of the species, the effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would be small to negligible. 

3.7.5.5 Flammulated Owl

This species is a Region 1 sensitive species and an Idaho species of greatest conservation 

need (IDFG 2005). Idaho flammulated owl habitats are typically mid-elevation, mature or 

older open ponderosa pine and/or Douglas-fir forest (IDFG 2005). Groves et al (1997) 

showed flammulated owls used “...stands with mature to old ponderosa pine and Douglasfir, multiple canopy layers, low tree densities, moderate to low canopy closure, and moderate 

ground cover”. They prefer habitat on warm, south facing slopes. Clear Creek has limited 

habitat for these birds. There are 779 acres (2%) of suitable habitat in the Analysis Area.

Habitat for flammulated owls is scattered and occurs in relatively small patches. The highest 

quality habitat occurs primarily on breaklands along lower Clear Creek. 

3-102

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 160 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Population Trend: In Idaho, the flammulated owl has a state rank of S4 (apparently secure). 

There is no population trend data for Idaho; however the Forest Service Region 1 conducted 

flammulated owl surveys across Montana and Idaho. Sixty-nine owls were detected on Nez 

Perce Forest. The 2005 effort included surveys in the nearby South Fork Clearwater River.

Additional surveys were conducted in 2008 in Region One, including on the Forest.

Flammulated owls were detected on 55% of the routes with the Nez Perce Forest having the 

highest proportion detections. A study conducted by Samson (2006) found no scientific 

evidence that the flammulated owl is decreasing in numbers in the Northern Region of the 

Forest Service (Samson 2006). There were 2 confirmed sightings 4 miles north of the Project 

area in 1995 (IDFG 2010). 

Flammulated owl presence in the Project area has not been confirmed. Flammulated owls are 

difficult to detect because they are nocturnal and have low population densities. 

3.7.5.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

No activities would occur under this alternative. Habitat would continue to be sparse, widely 

scattered, and in relatively small patches. Habitat quality and quantity would decrease as tree 

density in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitats increase due to a lack of disturbance and 

fire suppression. Forest conditions would trend away from preferred open grown, old-growth 

habitats. The increase in tree density would also increase the risk of stand-replacing fire in 

potential habitats. This type of fire would lead to habitat loss. Nesting habitat would increase 

slowly as a result of insect and disease outbreaks where fire does not occur. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the flammulated owl. 

Proposed activities would have both positive and negative effects. Regeneration harvest 

would have the greatest potential to negatively affect flammulated owls. It occurs on 20%, 

27%, and 21% of suitable owl habitat under Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. Harvest 

would remove snags suitable for nesting and roosting. It would also reduce the number of 

canopy layers and ground cover which would improve foraging opportunities. Design 

features would retain 14–28 tpa and 15%–20% canopy cover in clumps and as scattered 

individual trees. All legacy trees would be retained. Retained trees would provide nesting and 

perching habitat after implementation and into the future as stands become denser and 

develop multi-layered canopies. Wright et al. (1997) found that flammulated owls were 

present in approximately half of the selectively logged stands in her study area south of 

Missoula, Montana. Howie and Ritcy (1987), in a British Columbia study, found that most 

owls occurred in mature and old stands of Douglas-fir with 35%–65% canopy closure that 

had been selectively logged 2 to 3 decades prior.

Improvement harvest would occur on 13% of potential owl habitat under Alternatives B and 

C. Roughly 4% would be treated under Alternative D. Proposed activities would improve 

habitat by making ponderosa pine stands more resilient to wildfire, reducing the Douglas-fir 

3-103

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 161 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and grand fir component, and retaining large ponderosa pine habitats in an open understory 

condition. Canopy would be reduced and would provide for foraging opportunities. 

Commercial thinning would occur on 5%, 1%, and 4% of flammulated owl habitat under 

Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. This activity would maintain suitable feeding, 

perching, and nesting habitat by retaining 120 tpa and retain 40–60% canopy cover. 

Precommercial thinning would occur on 3% of owl habitat under all alternatives. Both 

commercial and precommercial thinning would select for ponderosa pine and other resilient 

species preferred by owls. These activities would reduce tree density and promote the 

development of large trees and suitable owl habitat over the long term (>100 years). 

Landscape burning would occur on 4% of owl habitat under all alternatives. It would 

increase snag habitat, decrease understory Douglas-fir and grand fir, and increase stand 

resiliency to wildfire. In higher severity areas, it may reduce habitat quality or quantity but 

the amount is not predictable. 

The proposed activities would reduce nesting habitat through regeneration harvest but would 

retain or improve foraging habitat. Ponderosa pine cover types would increase on up to 7% of 

the breakland setting where regeneration harvest occurs. This would increase the amount of 

future habitat for flammulated owls. All treatments would increase the resilience of 

ponderosa pine and create the forest structure necessary to support the flammulated owl over 

time. The proposed activities are not likely to alter the population trend at the project or 

forest level due to the mostly positive effects associated with them. The negative effects are 

expected to be limited and there is no sign of decline at the regional level (Samson 2006). 

Owls would also continue to be able to use the treated areas primarily for foraging. 

3.7.5.5.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for flammulated owl is the 43,700-acre project area. The time 

frame for cumulative effects is 100 years which is the time it takes to develop large snags and 

trees used for nesting. 

Alternative A—No Action

The direct and indirect effects of this alternative when combined with fire suppression could 

lead to negative cumulative effects on flammulated owl in the event of a wildfire. Snags 

would be created but canopy cover would be reduced. Determining the extent and probability 

is not possible; however 50% of the Project area is currently susceptible to stand replacing 

fire. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

 There would be both positive and negative cumulative effects associated with the action 

alternatives. The project would reduce the amount of flammulated owl habitat by 21–27% 

through regeneration harvest in the short term (<100 years) but would create suitable habitat 

in all commercial, precommercial, and burned areas over the cumulative effects time frame. 

The potential for stand replacement fire is reduced by 7% across the Project area under all 

action alternatives. Fire suppression would maintain dense stands in untreated areas reducing 

the quality of owl habitat and increasing the risk of stand replacement fire in those areas. The 

level of cumulative effects cannot be assessed but are expected to be negligible.

3-104

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 162 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.7.5.6 Gray Wolf

Gray wolf is a Region 1 Sensitive species. Wolf habitat spans a broad range of elevations and 

habitat types. Key habitat components include: a sufficient year-round prey base of ungulates 

and alternate prey; suitable, somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites; and sufficient 

space with minimal exposure to humans (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). 

The Pilot Rock wolf pack uses the Analysis Area. One rearing location was documented in 

2007, and wolves with pups were observed in 2007, 2008, and 2010, where two rendezvous 

sites have been confirmed. No den sites were identified. Two wolves were captured in 

Hoodoo Creek in 2007 and wolf tracks were observed in 2011. The Analysis Area provides a 

variety of suitable habitats for wolves and their prey. 

Ungulates comprise more than 90 percent of wolves' diets from spring through winter in the 

Rocky Mountains. Mule and white-tailed deer, elk, and moose are the principal prey species 

(USDI FWS 1987). Elk provide the primary prey base for wolves. Maintaining elk habitat 

effectiveness (EHE) above minimum Forest Plan standards, providing elk security areas 

above minimum recommendations and managing winter range to enhance elk forage 

productivity and quality would provide a sufficient prey base to sustain wolf populations 

according to State objectives for the Dworshak and Lolo Wolf Management Zones (WMZs). 

Population Trends: The gray wolf recovery plan (USDI FWS 1987) established a recovery 

goal of 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years in central Idaho. There are currently 101 

wolf packs in Idaho as of 2011. Recovery objectives have been met and exceeded. 

3.7.5.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct or indirect effects to denning or rendezvous sites. Habitat security 

would remain unchanged and high (see Elk section). Wolves would continue to have 

abundant prey sources. Insects and disease pockets would help maintain the prey species 

forage base of shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Fire suppression would continue which would 

increase the risk for wildfire. Large infestations or wildfire would reduce hiding cover for 

wolves and their prey, but would increase forage over a period of 20 years. Foraging habitat 

for elk would decline in these areas after 20 years as a result of forest succession. 

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

The proposed activities would have no direct or indirect effects on known rendezvous sites 

since no activities are proposed in or near them. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the gray wolf. All Action Alternatives 

would increase forage for elk. Harvesting and landscape burning would reduce tree canopy 

cover and promote the growth of native shrub species important for elk forage. The amount 

of forage from regeneration and improvement harvest would increase by 7%, 10%, and 5% 

under Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. Forage improvements would last for about 30 

years. Hiding cover would decrease by the same amounts in the treated areas and would be 

recovered in about 20 years. Landscape burning would occur on 3% of the Project area and 

3-105

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 163 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

would promote forage growth on winter range in all Action Alternatives. Elk habitat 

effectiveness would decline from 0% to 8% under the Action Alternatives, but would remain 

above minimum Forest Plan objectives (see Elk section). There would be no change to elk 

security as a result of the action alternatives. Increases in elk forage, and therefore forage 

opportunities for wolves, are expected on 8% to 13% of the Project area. Reduced hiding 

cover would improve the potential hunting success for wolves in treatment areas. 

3.7.5.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area and includes seven elk analysis 

units. The cumulative effects timeframe is 20 years because it would take this long for 

regeneration harvest and burned areas to develop into hiding cover. Cumulative effects were 

assessed using EHE because elk are the main prey base for wolves. Elk security was not 

addressed since there are no changes to it as a result of any of the alternatives. 

Alternative A—No Action

The effects of this alternative are the same as those described under the direct and indirect 

effects. There would be no cumulative effects since there are no proposed actions with this 

alternative.

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The cumulative effects of the action alternatives on EHE and wolves would be both positive 

and negative. Fire suppression would reduce forage quality and quantity by not allowing fires 

to burn; however proposed activities would increase forage by 8% to 13% depending on the 

alternative. The level of potential positive or negative cumulative effects cannot be 

determined as fire severity and size is not predictable.

3.7.5.7 Mountain Quail

This species is a Region 1 Sensitive species and an Idaho species of greatest conservation 

need (IDFG 2005). The species is on the fringe of its western range in Idaho and on the 

Forest (Idaho PIF 2000). Preferred habitat is dense thickets of rose, hawthorn, black currant, 

serviceberry, elderberry, blackberry, chokecherry and willow (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gutierrez 

and Delehanty 1999, Heekin and Reese 1994). They also use densely vegetated draws, 

shrubby understory and forest and meadow edges in open ponderosa pine and Douglas fir 

(Heekin and Vogel 1995). In Idaho, mountain quail habitat was dominated by tall shrubs that 

averaged 10 feet in height with an average canopy density of 45 percent that were within a 

few hundred feet of water. They occur most frequently in draws with shrub galleries along 

the breaks and secondary drainages of the Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater Rivers. Nests are 

primarily located within 200-300 yards of water since chicks require water soon after 

hatching (Johnsgard 1973; Wisdom et al. 2000). Known, recent locations on the Forest are in 

dry, low elevation, face drainages of the Salmon River. Mountain quail habitat is more 

commonly found on private lands at lower elevations in the Clear Creek watershed near 

Kooskia, Idaho (about 10 miles northwest of the Analysis Area) and along the lower Selway 

River canyon. Mountain quail historically occurred in the Project area. 

Mountain quail breed and winter in warm and dry shrub-dominated communities (IDFG 

2005). Healthy shrub-dominated riparian areas are important features of suitable habitat and 

provide corridors for quail to move to higher elevation breakland habitat in summer. 

3-106

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 164 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

There are 187 acres of currently suitable early successional mountain quail habitat in the 

Project area. All if it is within VRU 3 in the Clear Creek Roadless Area and occurs along 

stream breaklands. VRU 3 contains 6% young seral conditions and is well below the desired 

condition of 15–25%. A small covey of mountain quail were observed 1 mile from the 

northeast boundary of the Project area in 1997 (IDFG 2010); however the observations were 

not confirmed. 

Population Trend: Mountain quail populations have been declining in the intermountain west 

for the past several decades (Gutierrez and Delehanty 1999), and the Idaho population has 

experienced the same pattern of decline since the 1930s (Heekin and Reese 1994). Mountain 

quail occur along the Snake, Boise, Clearwater, Salmon, and Little Salmon River canyons 

(Heekin and Reese 1994). Remaining habitat areas are fragmented and populations often 

exist in isolated islands (Wisdom et al. 2000). Habitat in the Salmon River near Riggins, 

Idaho, supports a stronghold population. 

3.7.5.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

Currently suitable habitat would become unsuitable over time as tree density and canopy 

cover increase and shrubs decrease. Habitats would be more susceptible to stand-replacing 

wildfire, which could directly harm birds but would create additional habitat for quail. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the mountain quail. Proposed landscape 

burning would increase mountain quail habitat by 19% (35 acres). Burning would reduce the 

Douglas-fir and grand fir component in ponderosa pine stands, retaining large ponderosa pine 

and Douglas-fir trees, and promoting shrub growth. Landscape burning would help maintain 

open conditions; however birds may be disturbed by proposed activities. The risk is 

considered low given the small amount of proposed treatment acres and the expected low 

number of birds in the area. 

3.7.5.7.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area. The cumulative effects timeframe 

is 20 years because this is when shrub habitat conditions would begin declining.

Alternative A—No Action

There could be minor cumulative effects from this alternative. No activities would be 

conducted to improve quail habitat and fire suppression would prevent the development of 

suitable habitat resulting from wildfire.

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The Action Alternatives would improve habitat quality through the use of prescribed fire. 

Proposed treatments may increase the potential for allowing the future use of naturally 

ignited fire in the Roadless Area. This could be beneficial to quail. Fire suppression would 

3-107

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 165 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

continue outside of the Roadless Area; however little habitat for quail exists outside of it. 

Minimal, but positive cumulative effects to mountain quail would be expected. There could 

be a positive trend in quail populations but it would be negligible due to the limited number 

of acres being treated.

3.7.5.8 Pygmy Nuthatch

This species is a Region 1 sensitive species and an Idaho species of greatest conservation 

need (IDFG 2005). In Idaho, the pygmy nuthatch has a state ranking of S1 (critically 

imperiled). They are residents in mountain conifer woodlands, often in open woodland 

with large trees (Baicich and Harrison 1997). In Idaho, they are mainly found in pine 

forests and woodlands, especially ponderosa pine. They prefer older, open ponderosa pine 

habitat with <70% canopy cover. Nests appeared most often in cavities excavated by other 

birds (McEllin 1979). Raphael and White (1984) and Brawn and Balda (1988) found 

100% of nests were in snags, not live trees.

There are 960 acres of suitable habitat in the Analysis Area, most of which occurs on the 

breakland setting in VRU 3. Old forest preferred by nuthatches on this VRU is at 4% which 

is well below the desired condition of 20%-50%. Habitat is scattered in small patches 

generally under 15 acres in size. Home ranges of nuthatches are 4 to 10 acres. This species 

requires snags for nesting and forages on pine seeds and insects extracted from tree bark. 

Two pygmy nuthatches were recorded in the Analysis Area during a breeding bird point 

count survey in 1994. 

Population Trend: Rosenberg (2004) and Partners In Flight (PIF) estimate approximately 

5,000–5,300 individuals on a year-round basis in Idaho. BBS data indicate a positive 

population trend of >1.5% change per year from 1966–2010 for the northern and northcentral Idaho pygmy nuthatch population. 

3.7.5.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

Suitable habitat would be reduced in the Project area over time as tree density and canopy 

cover increases with forest succession. Ponderosa pine habitats would continue to be 

encroached on by shade tolerant Douglas-fir and grand fir further limiting suitable habitat. 

Fire suppression would limit the creation of new habitat. Snags would be retained across the 

landscape and would continue to develop as stands age which would provide nesting habitat 

for nuthatches. Existing young pine plantations would not provide suitable habitat for about 

100 years. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the pygmy nuthatch. Landscape burning 

on 280 acres (9%) of VRU 3 in currently unsuitable habitat would be beneficial to 

nuthatches. It would create suitable habitat by reducing Douglas-fir and grand fir, retaining 

large legacy trees, creating snags and maintaining ponderosa pine habitats in an open 

understory condition. Under all Action Alternatives, 87 acres (9%) of currently suitable 

habitat would be maintained with prescribed fire. Improvement harvest would open the 

3-108

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 166 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

understory and enhance conditions on 37 acres (4%) of suitable habitat under Alternatives B 

and C, and 23 acres (2%) under Alternative D. 

Commercial and precommercial thinning would reduce canopy cover and promote the 

development of large ponderosa pine over 100 years which would be beneficial to pygmy 

nuthatch. Commercial thinning would occur on 131 acres (14%) of suitable habitat under 

Alternatives B and D, while Alternative C thins 101 acres (11%). All Action Alternatives 

precommercially thin 46 acres (5%) of suitable habitat. 

Regeneration harvest under the Action Alternatives would reduce nesting potential by 46 

acres (5%), 77 acres (8%), and 19 acres (2%) under Alternatives B, C, and D respectively. 

Green tree and snag retention within treatment units would help retain some nesting and 

foraging habitat through the life of the stand. Ponderosa pine would be planted on breaklands 

which would increase its representation by 6%, 7% and 4% under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

respectively. This would create habitat over the long term and would benefit pygmy 

nuthatches. The project could have a positive trend on local pygmy nuthatch populations over 

time as it maintains 9% of the currently suitable habitat, increases habitat in the short term 

(10 years) by 13% and increases habitat in the long term (100 years) by up to 35%. The 

project partially reduces nesting habitat through regeneration harvest by 2% to 8%. 

3.7.5.8.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area. The cumulative effects timeframe 

is 100 years because it would take this long to develop large snags and trees used for nesting 

after regeneration harvest.

Alternative A—No Action

The direct and indirect effects of this alternative when combined with fire suppression could 

lead to negative cumulative effects on pygmy nuthatch in the event of a wildfire when older 

forest are burned. Snags, however, would be created and would be available for future 

nesting. Determining the extent and probability of fire effects is not possible; however 50% 

of the Project area is currently susceptible to stand replacing fire. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

There would be both positive and negative cumulative effects associated with the action 

alternatives. The project would reduce the amount of nuthatch habitat by 2% - 8% through 

regeneration harvest in the short term (<50 years) but would create suitable habitat in all 

commercial, precommercial, and burned areas over the cumulative effects time frame. The 

potential for stand replacement fire is reduced by 7% across the Project area under all action 

alternatives. Fire suppression would maintain dense stands in untreated areas reducing the 

quality of nuthatch habitat and increasing the risk of stand replacement fire in those areas. 

Fires would have short term negative but long term positive effects. 

3.7.5.9 Ring-necked Snake

This species is a Region 1 sensitive species and an Idaho species of greatest conservation 

need (IDFG 2005). Ring-necked snakes can be found in forested, brushy areas or open 

hillsides that have rocks, logs, talus or other debris for cover and they may use microhabitats 

that are moist (Storm and Leonard 1995). In west-central Idaho they are typically found 

3-109

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 167 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

adjacent to perennial rivers or streams in grassland or forested habitats (IDFG 2005). They

are nocturnal and hide underground or under surface cover (wood, rocks) during the day 

making detections difficult. They feed on small invertebrates. An unrecorded observation of 

a ring-necked snake 5 miles north of the Project area was made in the 1990s. Similar 

elevations and drier vegetation types occur in the Analysis Area making it possible that these 

snakes are present in the area. 

There are 3,030 acres of potential ring-neck habitat on the low elevation breaklands (VRU 3) 

where grasslands, open dry forest, and dry and moderately moist forest provide suitable 

conditions. Roughly 730 acres occurs within PACFISH RHCAs. 

Population Trends: The ring-necked snake has a global rank of G5 (secure) and an Idaho 

State rank of S2 (imperiled). Current population and trend are unknown. 

3.7.5.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

Fire suppression would continue under this alternative and habitats would become denser, 

creating conditions that would increase the risk of stand-replacing fire. Wildfires can directly 

harm ring-neck snakes and reduce their habitat. Long-term (>20 years) beneficial effects 

from fire include snag recruitment and subsequently large down wood recruitment which 

creates habitat for ring-necked snakes. Currently 50% of the Project area is susceptible to 

stand replacement fire. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the ring-necked snake. Timber harvest 

and landscape burning activities can cause direct mortality through contact with fire, 

machinery, or yarded logs. The effects on direct mortality cannot be estimated, but given the 

lack of observations and the use of protected riparian areas as habitat, the risk is expected to 

be low. Riparian habitat used by snakes would not be affected due to PACFISH buffer 

implementation. 

Regeneration harvest would treat 66 acres (2%), 177 acres (6%), and 27 acres (1%) of 

suitable habitat under Alternatives B, C, and D respectively. Commercial thinning would 

treat 236 acres (8%), 125 acres (4%), and 171 acres (6%) of suitable habitat respectively.

Improvement harvest would treat less than 1% under all alternatives. Harvest activities would 

remove trees that would have eventually become downed wood and suitable habitat for 

snakes. Regeneration harvest would remove the most potential habitat compared to other 

treatments. Snags and standing live trees as well as downed wood would, however, be 

retained in all harvest units which would provide limited current and future habitat for 

snakes. Talus slopes and rock outcrops used by snakes would not be affected. Opening the 

tree canopy would stimulate shrub growth which could increase invertebrate production and 

therefore foraging opportunities for ring-necked snakes.

Landscape burning would treat 191 acres (6%) of suitable habitat under all alternatives. The 

effects to ring-necked snakes would vary depending on fire intensity. Low intensity areas are 

expected to have no effects while high severity areas could cause direct mortality to snakes. 

3-110

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 168 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Beneficial effects would be the increase in downed wood material (suitable habitat) 5 to 10 

years after the burn when snags fall. 

Grassland restoration activities occur on 0.1% of suitable habitat and would have no effect on 

this species. The overall negative effects to ring-necked snakes from proposed harvest and 

burning activities is expected to be low due to the retention of trees and downed wood in 

treatment areas and the retention of PACFISH buffers. No change to population trends of 

ring-neck snakes would therefore be expected from proposed activities. 

3.7.5.9.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area. The cumulative effects timeframe 

is 20 years because this is the time when snags would to start falling in treated units creating 

habitat for ring-neck snakes.

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct effects to ring-necked snakes from this alternative. Indirect effects 

include increased stand densities resulting from fire suppression and an increased risk of 

stand replacing fire. This could result in direct mortality of snakes; however the risk is 

expected to be low as snakes can take cover under and may be protected by downed wood, 

rocks or talus slopes. Both positive and negative cumulative effects would be expected from 

this alternative as previously discussed. The levels are expected to be low due to the limited 

amount of potential habitat and effectiveness of fire suppression. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Cumulative effects to ring-neck snakes are expected to be both positive and negative and are 

the same effects as those discussed in the direct and indirect effects section. No quantitative 

estimate of cumulative effects can be provided since the number of potential fires and their 

size cannot be predicted. Harvest and landscape burn activities would reduce the risk of 

crown on 7% of the project area and 17% of VRU 3. Fire suppression would continue outside 

the Clear Creek Roadless Area (which is 28% of VRU 3). Naturally ignited fires in the 

Roadless Area may be allowed to burn after harvest and burn treatments are completed. This 

would allow for natural process to continue on 2,180 acres (72%) of VRU 3 which would be 

both beneficial and detrimental to ring-necked snakes depending on fire severity and size. 

3.7.5.10 Western Toad

The western toad is a Forest sensitive species and an Idaho species of greatest conservation 

need (IDFG 2005). Western toads breed in temporary and permanent lakes, ponds, streams, 

and road ditches. They prefer shallow, warm areas with mud bottoms, and typically breed in 

May and June. Potential breeding and dispersal habitat occurs throughout the area along the 

network of riparian areas (10,700 acres, or 24% of the Analysis Area). Toads can be found 

from dry grasslands to moist subalpine forests, but optimal habitat is found in humid areas 

with moderate undergrowth (Nussbaum et al. 1983). They are largely terrestrial, but 

generally found within fair proximity to water. In Idaho, western toads are associated with 

almost all habitats within 1,600 feet of water. 

Adult western toads are largely terrestrial and are very active at night. They have been known 

to move up to 1 mile from their breeding habitats, (Bartelt et al. 2004) often into upland 

3-111

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 169 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

habitats (Bull 2006). Toads selected south-facing slopes, preferred open sites to forested 

settings, and sites with high density of burrows, rocks, logs, or rootwads that provided cover 

(Bull 2006). Burned and harvested sites were not avoided by western toads in Bull’s study. 

Guscio et al. (2007) found western toad occurrence increased after wildfires and they used 

severely burned areas. Use shifted from severely burned to moderately burned areas in the 

late summer likely as a result of more ground/canopy cover and higher soil moistures. There 

are 510 acres of potential upland toad habitat (<30% canopy cover and south aspects) in the 

Project area. 

Population Trends: This toad has a state rank of S4, apparently secure. Population trends in 

Idaho are difficult to track due to a lack of baseline information, but they are well distributed 

(Engle and Harris 2001). The western toad is known to occur on the Forest but none have 

been reported in the Analysis Area. 

3.7.5.10.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no actions, and therefore no direct effects to western toad upland habitat 

under this alternative. There would be a reduction in the amount upland openings preferred 

by toads as forest stands age and become denser. Fire suppression would minimize the 

amount of new openings that could be potentially created by wildfire. Downed wood used for 

cover currently exists and recruitment would continue as a result of tree mortality caused by 

insects, diseases, and potential wildfire. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Western toad breeding habitats would be protected under all alternatives through no-harvest 

RHCA implementation. A minor amount of habitat could be lost through road 

decommissioning and road improvement activities. Permanent puddles occur along the edges 

of several roads as a result of poor road drainage. Long-toed salamanders were observed in 5 

different roadside puddles (Smith, personal observation in 2010 and 2011). Tadpoles have 

been observed in similar pools but were not identified to species. Tadpoles are likely either 

western toads or Columbia spotted frogs. Road improvement or decommissioning would 

improve drainage and are proposed to limit the affect to area streams. The effects to toads 

from these activities are considered low due to a low numbers of sites where roadside 

puddles occur. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the determination is a “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” for the western toad. Alternatives B and C 

would improve upland habitat for toads on 55 acres (11%) and Alternative D would improve 

59 acres (12%) of suitable habitat respectively through regeneration harvest. Commercial 

thinning would occur on 4 acres under Alternative B and D. Harvest activities would 

decrease canopy cover while retaining downed wood for cover. No landscape burning would 

occur in suitable toad habitat. Proposed activities have the potential to cause direct mortality 

to toads due to tree falling and yarding, site preparation burning, and road work. The risk is 

expected to be low due to design features that minimize yarding corridors in harvest units 

and road work being completed during the drier parts of the year. No change in the 

3-112

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 170 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

population trend of toads is expected at the project level due to the limited amount of habitat 

being affected and the fact that treatments would slightly improve habitat quality for toads. 

All breeding habitat would be protected through the retention of RHCAs. 

3.7.5.10.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area. The cumulative effects timeframe 

is 20 years because this is the time when tree canopy cover would begin to close and reduce 

the quality of upland toad habitat.

Alternative A

There effects to upland toad habitat are the same as the direct and indirect effects discussed 

above. This alternative would cumulatively reduce upland toad habitat because no landscape 

disturbance would occur which would maintain relatively closed canopies across the project 

area. Fire suppression would limit the number and size of fires that could create upland 

habitat for toads. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

All action alternatives would maintain or increase the quality of upland habitat for toads. 

Treatments may allow for the use of naturally ignited fire in the Clear Creek Roadless Area 

which could create additional habitat. Fire suppression would occur outside of the Roadless 

Area limiting disturbance opportunities and toad habitat development there. The cumulative 

effects of the project would be beneficial (from harvest) to neutral depending on the amount 

of fire suppression activities. It is not possible to predict the amount of disturbance 

minimized by fire suppression. 

3.7.5.11 American Marten

The pine marten is a Nez Perce Forest high elevation old growth MIS. Optimal habitat for 

marten has been described as mature/old-growth spruce-fir forest with at least 30% canopy 

cover, plentiful fallen logs and stumps, and a lush understory of shrubs and forbs. Marten in 

north-central Idaho were found to use a variety of forest types in winter, but activity was 

highest in Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stands with mesic habitat types, >30% canopy 

cover, and overstory age >100 years (Koehler et al. 1975, Koehler and Hornocker 1977). 

Mature lodgepole pine is also suitable in moist habitat types, and in areas of high 

precipitation, dense cedar-grand fir forests at lower elevations provide habitat for the marten 

as well (Koehler et al 1975). There are 17,328 acres of suitable habitat for marten in the 

Project area. Marten habitat is well distributed and connected throughout the area in the midto upper elevations. 

Population Trends: Total population size is unknown, but probably is at least several hundred 

thousand in the United States and the species can be regarded as secure (NaturServe 2012). 

Few data sets allow evaluation of population trends over long periods (Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

Samson (2006) indicates 17,297 suitable habitat acres are required to maintain a viable 

marten population in the Forest Service Northern Region. Bush and Lundberg (2008) show 

over one million suitable acres on the Forest. 

3-113

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 171 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3.7.5.11.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

This alternative would have no direct effects to mature or old growth habitat since no 

activities area proposed. Habitats would continue to be altered by natural events such as 

forest succession and insects/disease. Fire suppression would continue. Snag and large down 

wood habitat elements would remain available as trees die (and fall) from natural causes. A 

wildfire and/or insect and disease activity would leave greater numbers of snags and large 

down wood than exist now but would also reduce canopy cover. These more open areas 

would provide unsuitable conditions for marten. Ongoing fire suppression may be beneficial 

for this species because it can help maintain mature and older habitats on the landscape 

longer. Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

Under Alternative B, C, and D, marten populations would be expected to continue to display 

population stability across the Nez Perce National Forest. Proposed regeneration harvest 

would simplify suitable marten habitats in the short term (<50 years) by eliminating canopy 

cover and layering, reducing large down wood, and reducing standing snags in treated areas. 

Snags and down wood would be provided for over the long term through tree retention 

design features. Canopy cover would increase to suitable levels after about 50 years. 

Proposed commercial thinning would have minimal effects by retaining enough structure and 

overstory canopy to be used by marten. The Action Alternatives would reduce the likelihood 

of a large, intense fire. Fires have both positive and negative effects on marten (as discussed 

under the No Action alternative). 

Jones (1991) suggests that landscape scale habitat management should incorporate young- to 

mid-successional stages to provide habitat for prey species while retaining mature and latesuccessional habitats that provide important denning and resting habitat. The project has been 

designed to maintain all successional stages within the Project area which would continue to 

provide suitable habitat for marten. 

Alternatives B and C would conduct regeneration and improvement harvest on 1,189 acres 

(7%) of currently suitable habitat and Alternative D regenerates 796 acres (4%). Retained 

trees, snags, and down logs in these areas would provide future habitat for marten as the 

stands age. All action alternatives commercially thin 40 acres (0.2%) of marten habitat. 

Commercial thinning would reduce canopy cover to 40%–60% and would maintain a canopy 

cover level suitable for marten use. No landscape burning occurs in marten habitat. 

No harvest would occur in verified old-growth or RHCAs under any alternative. These areas 

would continue to provide suitable habitat and well as connectivity across over 30% of the 

landscape. Insects and disease events would continue across the landscape causing tree 

mortality. These would produce snags and large down wood used by martens for denning and 

resting. Marten habitat would remain well distributed and available under all alternatives.

Trends in marten populations at the local and forest scale would not be affected by project 

activities due to the wide availability of untreated suitable habitats at the project and Forest 

level. 

3-114

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 172 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.7.5.11.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for marten is the 43,700-acre project area. The time frame for 

cumulative effects is 150 years which is the approximate amount of time required for stands 

to develop into a mature or older vegetative state and snags to develop into a condition that 

provides habitat for old growth and snag dependent species. 

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no negative cumulative effects from this alternative since no actions would 

occur. The effects of fire suppression are the same as those discussed under the direct and 

indirect effects of the No Action alternative.

Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

Past activities have been accounted for in the existing condition. Fire suppression could have 

positive effects on marten habitat by limiting fire in mature and older forests. The cumulative 

risk to marten habitat from the action alternatives is considered low due to the retention of 

old growth, PACFISH buffers, snag retention guidelines, and other mature stands that would 

provide marten habitat after treatment. Woody debris would continue to accumulate and be 

created as trees age and die. 

3.7.5.12 Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk was identified as a Forest MIS for old-growth forest. Nesting habitat 

was chosen as the indicator because it is the primary limiting factor for goshawks and is 

represented by a much narrower range of vegetation structure and composition than the postfledgling areas and forage area. Foraging habitat for goshawks may occur along the edges of 

open areas and is not considered limiting.

Goshawks use large landscapes, integrating a diversity of vegetation types over several 

spatial scales to meet their life-cycle needs (Squires and Kennedy 2006). In “The Northern 

Goshawk Status Review,” the USFWS found that the goshawk typically uses mature forest or 

larger trees for nesting habitat; however, it is considered a forest habitat generalist at larger 

spatial scales (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The USFWS found no evidence that 

the goshawk is dependent on large, unbroken tracts of old-growth or mature forest (63 FR 

35183 June 29, 1998). 

Nest areas are usually mature forest with large trees, relatively closed canopies (50%–90%) 

and open understories (Squires and Kennedy 2006). In central Idaho, goshawks nest in a 

variety of forest stands that are comprised of mature trees with relatively high canopy cover 

and open understories (Moser 2007). Nest trees typically range between 12” and 21” dbh and 

are located on relatively gentle terrain with 70% of nests occurring on shaded aspects. 

Favored habitats typically are located in forest stands having only 1 or 2 canopy levels with 

an open or mixed-density understory. 

The goshawk is a habitat generalist at the foraging area scale. Goshawk foraging areas are 

heterogeneous and may include some mature forest components (Squires and Kennedy 2006) 

as well as a mix of other forest and nonforest components (i.e. sagebrush, grasslands, 

lowland riparian, and agriculture) (Younk and Bechard 1994, Reynolds 1994, Patla et al. 

1997). Goshawks require habitats for prey that contain snags, downed logs, woody debris, 

3-115

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 173 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

large trees, herbaceous and shrubby understories, and a mixture of stand structural stages 

(Wisdom et al. 2000). They are an opportunistic predator that take prey items on the ground, 

on vegetation, in the air, and rely on a variety of forested and non-forested habitats. 

There are 2,066 acres (5%) of currently suitable nesting habitat in the Analysis Area.

Goshawks have been recorded across the Forest and one was observed foraging near the 

Project boundary during recent field reviews. 

Population Trends: The goshawk is rated secure across its range (global rank G5) and is 

apparently secure (state rank S4) in the state of Idaho (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2010). The 

goshawk population in the northern Idaho portion of the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) is estimated to be approximately 3,900 birds (Rosenberg 2004). State-wide, 

the goshawk estimated population is 5,600, with a population objective of 6,200 individuals 

as noted by Rosenberg (2004). Survey data indicates an overall declining population Idaho 

since 1966; however it remains relatively stable in the Northern Rockies BCR (Sauer et al. 

2011). 

No evidence exists that the northern goshawk is declining in number in the western United 

States (Kennedy 1997, USFWS 1998, Kennedy 2003, Anderson et al 2005, Squires and 

Kennedy 2006). Samson (2005) also concluded no scientific evidence exists that the northern 

goshawk is decreasing in number in the Forest Service Northern Region. Samson (2006) 

concluded that 30,147 acres of post-fledging habitat was needed across Region One to 

maintain a minimum viable population of the northern goshawk. Bush and Lundgren (2008) 

found over 275,000 acres of post-fledgling habitat on the Forest, more than nine times the 

area needed to maintain viable populations region-wide. 

3.7.5.12.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

No management actions would take place. Habitats would continue to be altered by natural 

events such as succession, insect and disease, and potential wildfire. A wildfire and/or insect 

and disease activity would likely leave behind greater numbers of snags than exist now but 

would also reduce canopy cover that may create unsuitable conditions for goshawk nesting. 

In general, nesting habitat would increase and foraging habitat would decrease as forest 

succession continues to fill in understories and increase stand canopy closure. Fuel build-up 

resulting from fire suppression activities would continue, thereby increasing the likelihood of 

a stand-replacing fire. Stand-replacing fires would reduce nesting habitat in the short term 

(<50 years) but would create it and other various elements of goshawk habitat in the long 

term (>50 years). 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Under Alternative B, C, and D, Northern goshawk populations would be expected to 

continue to display population stability across the Nez Perce National Forest. All action 

alternatives would harvest in suitable goshawk nesting habitat. Alternatives B and C would 

regeneration harvest 93 acres (5%), and Alternative D would harvest 85 acres (4%).

Activities would reduce habitat quality by eliminating canopy cover and layering, and 

reducing some standing snags. Landscape burning on 45 acres (2%) of nesting habitat would 

have similar effects except that snags would be retained and additional ones created. Harvest 

3-116

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 174 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

and burning activities would preclude treated areas from being used by nesting goshawks 

until canopy cover increases to suitable levels (generally >50 years). Implementation of snag 

and green tree retention guidelines in harvest units, as well as PACFISH buffers, would 

retain trees for future nesting and help limit effects of habitat simplification.

Commercial thinning would remove suppressed trees leaving 40%–60% of the tree canopy 

and about 120 tpa. All alternatives would thin 160 acres (8%) of suitable goshawk nesting 

habitat. Treatments may not retain enough overstory canopy to be used by nesting goshawks, 

but would promote large tree growth and would provide for foraging opportunities. Thinned 

areas would become suitable habitat as canopy cover increases over time (>20 years). 

During Project implementation, human activity, equipment noise, and burning might 

preclude use of the area by goshawks. Any active nests found in a treatment unit would be 

reported to the Zone or Forest a wildlife biologist and activities halted while site specific 

conservation measures are developed. This would reduce the likelihood of disturbance or 

injury to individual birds.

None of the Action Alternatives would harvest in the 4,654 acres of MA 20 or the 10,700 

acres of RHCAs. This equates to 35% of the analysis area. Mature and old forest habitat 

would therefore be maintained across the Project area and would be available for goshawk 

use. The Project is not expected to negatively affect goshawk population trends in the project 

area or at the Forest level due to the availability of untreated habitat in at both of these scales. 

Regional estimates indicate sufficient habitat is available to maintain population viability 

(Samson 2006; Bush and Lundgren 2008). 

3.7.5.12.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area, which includes seven OGAAs. 

The cumulative effects timeframe is 150 years because it would take this long for 

regeneration harvest areas to develop old growth habitat characteristics. OGAA’s were also 

selected because goshawks are an old growth MIS.

Alternative A—No Action

The potential cumulative effects of this alternative are the same as those described under the 

direct and indirect effects of the No Action alternative. There is a potential for cumulative 

effects; however levels cannot be determined because estimating the size and severity of 

potential future fires resulting from fire suppression is not possible. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Harvest and burning activities open and remove tree canopy, creating edges and clearings 

which would increase the amount of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and tree seedlings and improve 

habitat conditions for some goshawk prey species. Fire suppression would maintain closed 

canopies in untreated areas potentially improving nesting habitat over time. Suppression also 

increases the risk of stand replacing fire which could remove nesting habitat. Proposed 

treatments reduce the crown fire (stand replacement) potential by 7% across the project area. 

The OGAAs would retain 6% to 21% verified old growth (see Old Growth section) which 

would provide nesting habitat for goshawk over time. Additional old growth would be 

maintained in RHCAs. Negative cumulative effects are not expected due to the availability of 

3-117

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 175 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

untreated habitats and the likelihood that a wildfire would not burn all available nesting 

habitats during a fire event. There may be slight positive cumulative effects associated with 

creating openings for prey species.

3.7.5.13 Pileated Woodpecker

The pileated woodpecker was identified as a Forest MIS for old-growth forest and large snag 

habitat. The pileated is most often associated with mature forests (Samson 2006) although the 

presence of large trees for nesting is reported to be more important than forest age (). Pileated 

woodpeckers are relatively common in both cut and uncut mid-elevation forests, and appear 

to do well in a matrix of forest types (Hutto 1995a). They nest in both previously harvested 

stands that contain remnant large trees and snags, and in mature and old growth forests. The 

pileated woodpecker is able to do well in young and fragmented forests that retain abundant 

remnant structure, such as large diameter snags and down woody debris (Mellen et al. 1992). 

Pileated woodpecker surveys were conducted in 2012 in the Analysis Area and within a mile 

outside of its boundary. Eleven pileated detections were made, 8 within the area and 3 in the 

one mile buffer. Nineteen additional observations were recorded throughout the Analysis 

Area during project review in 2011 and 2012. Pileated woodpeckers were also detected in 

59% of the surrounding surveyed areas of the Middle Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers. 

Pileated woodpeckers are common and widespread in the Project area and across the Forest. 

Nesting habitat was chosen as the indicator because it is the greatest limiting factor for 

pileated woodpeckers. Nesting habitat has a narrower range of vegetation conditions when 

compared to foraging habitat. The Northern Region of the Forest Service summarized 

available scientific information on the pileated woodpecker (Samson 2006). The report found 

that the nest tree is the most important variable to estimate breeding habitat use by the 

pileated woodpecker (). Large snags (>20 inches dbh) were preferred over live trees for 

nesting in the Northern Rocky Mountains, and nesting occurred in, mature cottonwood 

bottoms, ponderosa pine, and larch stands but also reported use of mixed conifer and cedarhemlock. The minimum canopy cover selected by pileated woodpeckers for nesting stands 

ranges from 15 to 60 percent depending on the habitat type (Bull et al. 1992 Warren 1990, 

Bull and Holthausen 1993, Bonar 2001). 

There are 8,160 acres (19% of the Analysis Area) of currently suitable nesting in the Project 

area. About 3,000 acres of Douglas-fir habitat was attacked by tussock moth in 2011. Tree 

mortality is expected to increase in the area in combination with mortality caused by root 

disease which would provide additional nesting and foraging habitat for woodpeckers. 

Population Trends: The pileated woodpecker is rated as secure across its range (global rank 

G5) and apparently secure (state rank S4) in Idaho (Digital Atlas of Idaho 2010). There are 

an estimated 9,000 birds in Northern Idaho (Partners in Flight 2007). 

Breeding Bird Surveys compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey show an increasing 

population trend for pileated woodpecker over the past 45 years both at the scale of the 

Northern Rockies and in Idaho (Sauer et al 2011). The time frame covers almost five 

decades, including the period when intensive timber harvesting occurred (Bull and Jackson 

1995). 

3-118

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 176 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Samson (2006) concluded that no scientific evidence exists that indicates pileated 

woodpeckers are declining in the Northern Region. He indicates 90,441 acres are required to 

maintain a viable pileated woodpecker population in the Forest Service Northern Region. 

Bush and Lundberg (2008) show 444,789 acres of foraging habitat and 299,667 acres of 

nesting habitat on the Nez Perce Forest. Based on Bush and Lundberg’s (2008) estimate, the 

Forest contains over three times more nesting habitat than is needed to provide viability at 

the Regional level.

3.7.5.13.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

Root disease is prevalent in the Analysis Area and provides a continuous supply of Douglasfir and grand fir snags which are suitable nesting and foraging trees. Fire suppression would 

continue. Fuels in the Analysis Area would continue increasing, making the area susceptible 

to a stand-replacing fire event. A stand replacing event would create snag habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers. Snags are currently lacking on 22% of the Analysis Area where regeneration 

harvest has occurred. Habitat quality would improve in these areas as forests mature over 

time. Overall, suitable habitat would remain available across the area as forest succession 

continues. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Under Alternative B, C, and D, pileated woodpecker populations would be expected to 

continue to display population stability across the Nez Perce National Forest. No activities 

would occur within MA 20 old growth and RHCAs (35%) of the analysis area) which would 

provide suitable and connected nesting habitat across the Project area. 

Regeneration and improvement harvest occurs on 476 acres (6%) of suitable nesting habitat 

under Alternatives B and C and 373 acres (5%) under Alternative D. Regeneration harvest

would reduce habitat quality by simplify habitats by reducing canopy cover and layering, 

large down wood and standing snags in treated areas. Implementing snag and green tree 

retention would help limit these effects. Nesting habitat would be available in these areas 

once canopy closure reaches preferred levels (about 100 years). Commercial thinning would 

occur on 399 acres (5%) of suitable nesting habitat and would leave 40%–60% of the tree 

canopy and about 120 overstory trees per acre. Thinning promotes large tree growth and may 

retain enough structure and canopy to be used by pileated woodpeckers. Removal of some 

nesting habitat would occur; however snags tend to be limited in these younger stands. The 

retention of legacy trees, as well as green trees and snags where possible would provide 

future nesting habitat through time. No landscape burning or improvement harvest occurs in 

suitable nesting habitat.

3.7.5.13.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect area is the 43,700-acre Project area, which includes seven old growth 

analysis areas. The cumulative effects timeframe is 150 years because it would take this long 

for regeneration harvest areas to develop old-growth habitat. Cumulative effects were also 

assessed using old-growth forest because pileated woodpecker are an old growth MIS.

3-119

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 177 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative A–No Action

The potential cumulative effects of this alternative are the same as those described under the 

direct and indirect effects of the No Action alternative. There is a potential for cumulative 

effects; however levels cannot be determined because estimating the size and severity of 

potential future fires resulting from fire suppression is not possible. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Proposed treatments under all alternatives would slightly reduce pileated nesting habitat. Fire 

suppression would maintain closed canopies in untreated areas potentially improving nesting 

habitat over time. Suppression also increases the risk of stand replacing fire which could 

remove nesting habitat. Treatments would reduce the crown fire (stand replacement) 

potential by 7% across the project area. Snags would continue to be available across the 

landscape in untreated areas especially where insect and disease events occur.

The OGAAs contain 6% to 22% verified old growth (see Old Growth section) which would 

provide nesting habitat for pileated woodpeckers over time. RHCAs cover 24% of the Project 

area and would be managed for old growth habitat which would also provide habitat for 

pileated woodpeckers. 

No measurable cumulative effects to pileated woodpecker populations at the local or regional 

scale, or alteration of current population trend, are expected. This is based on increasing 

populations and the availability of unaffected suitable nesting habitats in the Analysis Area 

and across the Forest and region. 

3.7.5.14 Rocky Mountain Elk

Elk is a MIS for commonly hunted big game species on the Forest. Elk are habitat generalists 

and use a diversity of forest types and structures that provide forage and hiding cover. They

forage in meadows and early seral communities from spring through early summer, use more 

closed canopies from late summer through fall and rely upon low elevation, warm aspect, and 

snow-free or snow-limited areas for foraging in the winter. Adult bulls often winter at much 

higher elevations than cows and immature elk. Elk also require forest cover for security. 

Preferred calving sites are generally large meadows, shrub fields, and early seral forest 

openings in close proximity to water. 

Population Trends: Elk populations in the Analysis Area were relatively insignificant until a 

series of major fire events occurred in 1919, 1928, and 1934. These significantly increased 

forage availability and population levels. Elk also benefited from predator control efforts. 

The Analysis Area falls in the Idaho Department of Fish and game Elk City Elk Management 

Zone and is in Management Unit 16. Recent (2008) elk population surveys in the unit 

showed stable cow and slightly elevated bull elk numbers which are slightly up from the 

2000 survey. Cow elk numbers currently meet, and bull numbers exceed State population 

objectives (Table 3-30). However, calf recruitment decreased from 19 calves per 100 cows 

(from 1990 to 2000) down to 17 in 2008. The calf:cow ratio is an important indicator of 

population recruitment and long-term herd viability. A ratio of at least 25 calves to 100 cows 

is needed to offset natural mortality. Reasons for the decline are unclear but may be related to 

reductions in forage quality (poor condition of cows and low calf weights), high predation 

rates, less security area, and greater human disturbance and/or hunting pressure. 

3-120

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 178 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-30. Elk winter population status and objectives for Management Unit 16 based on the 

most recent survey (IDFG 2008) 

Management 

Unit

Survey 

Year

Current Status Population Objectives

Cows Bulls Adults Cows Bulls Adults

16 2008 897 275 238 800–1,200 175–250 100–150

3.7.5.14.1 Elk Winter Range

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987b; III-46) designated MA 16 as big game winter 

range. The goal for MA 16 is to improve the quality of the winter range habitat for deer and 

elk through timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and other management practices. Winter 

range is primarily below 4,500 feet in elevation and has southern-to-western exposures. The 

vegetative types included are non-forest grasslands, seral brushfields, and timbered lands. 

High quality forage is an important component of elk winter range. Elk eat grasses, forbs, 

and the tips of twigs from some woody vegetation. Shrub fields and conifer forests provide a 

higher proportion of winter forage than grassland sites. Species such as redstem ceanothus, 

serviceberry, mountain maple, choke and bitter cherry, and syringa provide much of the 

winter forage available to elk. 

The Analysis Area has 15,600 acres of MA 16 winter range (35% of the Analysis Area). Elk 

also use non-MA 16 areas. Additional winter range is interspersed in the summer range 

EAAs. A collaborative effort with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to map elk winter 

range in Idaho identified approximately 28,798 acres of winter habitat in the Analysis Area 

(66% of area). Fifty-nine percent of it occurs on the western redcedar/grand fir and Douglasfir/grand fir breakland settings. Winter habitat occurs on 39% of the western redcedar/grand 

fir upland setting during more mild winter conditions. Most of the MA 16 winter range is 

closed to motorized use or part of the Clear Creek Roadless Area, providing high levels of 

secure habitat during the winter months. Most of the wintering elk in Clear Creek are found 

in Solo Creek and upper Clear Creek where low open road densities provide security areas 

from winter recreation disturbances.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct effects to elk winter range under Alternative A because no 

activities would occur. Winter range forage quality and quantity would decline as tree canopy 

cover continues to increase due to vegetative succession continues. Insects and disease would 

continue to create canopy gaps which provide openings for a continuous supply of shrubs, 

forbs, and grasses, although it is very limited when compared to the forage produced from 

wildfire. Fire suppression would increase the susceptibility to wildfire due to increased fuel 

loading. A large fire could significantly increase the amount of winter forage and would 

decrease cover; however predicting the time and size is not possible. Forage quantity would 

again decline and hiding cover restored about 20 years after a fire as trees regenerate. 

About 2,400 acres of regeneration harvest has occurred in MA 16 with 842 acres occurring 

since 1990. Sixty-five percent of these areas are too old (>20 years) to provide high quantity 

3-121

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 179 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and quality forage. Those occurred since 1990 are moving into the hiding cover stage and 

only provide low quantities of forage. Alternative A does nothing to create early seral 

habitats that would provide high quantities of quality forage. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Regeneration and improvement harvest would be conducted on 1,497 acres (10%), 1,925 

acres (12%), and 1,104 acres (7%) of MA 16 winter range under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

respectively. Harvest would reduce elk hiding cover habitat by 10%, 12%, and 7% for the 

Action Alternatives.

All alternatives use landscape burning on 1,370 acres (9%) of MA 16. Burning in late 

summer or early fall would increase coverage of shrub species and mimic natural fire 

seasons. Burning would reduce hiding cover by up to 9% but could be less depending on fire 

severity. 

The proposed treatments would reduce tree canopy cover and allow sunlight, water and 

nutrients to be more available to shrubs, forbs, and grasses which would increase forage 

production on winter range. Forage quality may increase as a result of burning. Post-harvest 

burning in the fall would stimulate resprouting of important shrubs such as redstem and 

Schouler willow. These two species are often absent from new openings after harvest and 

may not re-establish in the absence of fire. Orme and Leege (1976) showed that fall burning 

produced over three times the seedlings than did spring burning. Higher quality forage would 

benefit cow elk during winter months. Forage quantity would increase for 20–30 years or 

until tree canopy cover closes and forage plants begin declining. Alternative C (21%) 

provides the greatest benefit to elk winter forage, followed by Alternative B (19%) and D 

(16%). 

Commercial thinning occurs on 953 acres (6%), 647 acres (4%), and 775 acres (5%) of the 

winter range under Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. Thinning would have short term 

(<10 years) benefits on elk winter range forage. Thinning retains 40-60% of the canopy cover 

which limits shrub growth. Hiding cover would be slightly reduced under all alternatives. 

Precommercial thinning occurs on 560 acres (4%) of the winter range and would have 

minimal effects on elk winter forage as much of the canopy cover is retained which limits 

shrub growth. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis is the 43,700 acre Project area. The timeframe is 20 years 

because this is the time when tree canopy cover would begin to close and reduce the quality 

of elk winter forage. 

Alternative A—No Action

The cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as described under the direct and 

indirect effects of the alternative. There would be a continued decline in elk winter forage 

quantity and quality if no wildfires occur. Forage could increase in the event of a wildfire 

however it is not possible to predict the amount or location. 

3-122

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 180 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The Action Alternatives would conduct regeneration or improvement harvest and landscape 

burning on up to 30% of MA 16 winter range. These treatments would create early seral 

habitats that provide high quantities of quality forage for about 20 years. 

Insects and disease would continue to create openings for the limited growth of shrubs, forbs, 

and grasses. Fire suppression would continue and fuels would continue to increase in 

untreated areas. A large fire could significantly increase the amount of winter forage and 

would decrease hiding cover for elk; however predicting the time and size is not possible. 

Habitats would be less susceptible to wildfire because proposed treatments reduce crown fire 

potential on 7% of the Analysis area. 

3.7.5.14.2 Elk Summer Range Existing Conditions

The majority of the Analysis Area is considered summer range for elk. Important habitat 

components for elk include foraging sites, hiding cover, calving areas, rutting, and security 

areas. Forage availability and abundance has declined throughout the area due to a lack of 

disturbance (fire, timber harvest) and subsequent increases in tree copy cover. Hiding cover 

is available in forested stands that are 20 years or older. “Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Managing Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho” (Leege 1984) was used to evaluate 

summer elk range and considers road open road density, livestock grazing, and cover-forage 

ratios. The Forest Plan objective for summer range EHE is to achieve a minimum of 50% 

effectiveness in each EAA. There are seven EAA and all units currently meet the objective 

(Table 3-31). 

Table 3-31. Elk summer range habitat effectiveness by alternative in the Clear Creek Analysis 

Area. The Forest Plan objective is 50% for each Elk Analysis Area (EAA). 

Elk Analysis 

Area (EAA) 

EAA 

Acres

Summer Habitat Effectiveness (%)

Alternative A 

Existing Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

S. Fork Clear Creek 8,117 56 56 56 56

Clear Creek 1 5,060 66 60 60 60

Clear Creek 2 6,371 69 63 62 63

Clear Creek 3 4,702 58 56 53 56

Brown Springs 7,214 80 72 72 73

Solo Creek 5,305 58 52 52 53

Pine Knob 5,301 70 63 62 63

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct effects to summer EHE under Alternative A because no activities 

would occur. Summer range would be more susceptible to wildfire when compared to the 

Action Alternatives due to increasing fuel loads resulting from fire suppression. A large 

wildfire would reduce hiding cover in the short-term (10–20 years) but would increase 

forage. All EAAs would continue to meet the Forest Plan objective of 50% (Table 3-31). 

3-123

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 181 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Regeneration and improvement harvest and prescribed fire would remove hiding cover while 

increasing summer forage in the Project area. Alternative B treats 4, 311 acres (10%), 

Alternative C treats 5,858 acres (13%), and Alternative C treats 3,760 acres (9%) of the 

Project area. Forage quantity would increase for 20–30 years and then decline as tree canopy 

cover closes. Improvements in the quantity and quality of forage would improve the 

condition of cow elk going into winter and ultimately improve calf survival. Reductions in 

elk habitat effectiveness occur in all but one EAA under all Action Alternatives (Table 3-31). 

These result from shifts in the distribution from hiding cover to forage. Reductions occur 

because some created openings are greater than 800 feet from hiding cover. Elk use in forage 

areas is reduced when distances to hiding cover exceeds 800 feet (Leege 1984). Although the 

proposed treatments would reduce EHE, all EAAs remain within the minimum Forest Plan 

objective (Table 3-31). Elk populations are expected to respond favorably to proposed 

treatments due to increased foraging opportunities.

Commercial and precommercial thinning has no effect on the calculations for elk habitat 

effectiveness (Leege 1984). 

Cumulative Effects

The geographic boundary for assessing cumulative effects on elk summer habitat 

effectiveness is the combined seven EAAs within the 43,700 acre Project area. The time 

frame for cumulative effects is 20 years, which is the time it takes for new plantations to 

restore elk hiding cover in the harvested areas.

Alternative A- No Action

There would be no direct or indirect, and therefore no cumulative effects to modeled EHE 

since fire suppression is not considered in the model. 

Alternatives B, C, and D- Action Alternatives

There would be no direct or indirect, and therefore no cumulative effects to modeled EHE 

since fire suppression is not considered in the model. All activities maintain EHE above 

Forest Plan minimum levels.

3.7.5.14.3 Elk Security Existing Conditions

Security areas are places where wildlife can retreat for safety when affected by disturbance.

In general, security areas are over 250 acres in size and >0.5 miles from an open road or trail. 

The Hillis et al. (1991) guidelines for elk security area recommend that an elk analysis unit 

have at least 30% secure habitat. All but one EAA meets the recommended guideline 

(Table 3-32). Unauthorized motorized use is occurring in the Analysis Area but the level is 

low and seasonally isolated to a few roads. 

3-124

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 182 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Table 3-32. Security areas in Clear Creek Elk analysis areas

Elk Analysis Area (EAA) 

Name

Existing 

(%)

South Fork Clear Creek 71

Clear Creek 1 51

Clear Creek 2 62

Clear Creek 3 16

Pine Knob* 34

Brown Springs 45

Solo Creek 49

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct or indirect effects to elk security since no changes to motorized 

access would occur.

Alternatives B, C, and D 

There would be no direct effect to security areas because none of the alternatives construct 

permanent roads or change access restrictions on existing roads or trails. Roads proposed for 

decommissioning are currently closed or are impassable to motorized vehicles due to fallen 

trees or thick vegetation. Decommissioning would have minimal effects on current elk 

security. Decommissioning would permanently prevent any future motorized access which 

would maintain elk security areas indefinitely. Indirectly, regeneration harvest in security 

areas would create openings and potentially increase vulnerability to hunters. The risk is 

considered low and with security being reduced from 1% to 11% of security areas. All but 

one EAA maintains security areas above the recommended 30%. The Clear Creek 3 EAA 

currently does not meet the recommendation and would be further reduced by 3%. This EAA 

occurs within the upper West Fork Clear Creek/Hoodoo Creek area and is not likely to ever 

meet security recommendations due to the number and location of open roads that occur 

throughout it. Disturbance to individual animals would occur during project implementation 

but would only last while units are being harvested. The design feature of harvesting units at 

the far of a road first would reduce disturbance to elk by limiting continuous logging traffic 

in these areas. Regeneration harvest effects on security would last 20 years until hiding cover 

is re-established in these areas. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct or indirect, and therefore no cumulative effects to modeled elk 

security since fire suppression is not considered in the model. 

3-125

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 183 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives B, C, and D 

There would be no direct or indirect, and therefore no cumulative effects to modeled elk 

security since fire suppression is not considered in the model. Road decommissioning from 

the South Fork/West Fork EA was already considered in the existing condition. 

3.7.5.15 Shiras Moose

Moose are a Forest MIS representing hunted big game species and old-growth/Pacific yew 

habitats. Moose in north-central Idaho select dense Pacific yew stands in old-growth grand fir 

communities during winter (Pierce and Peek 1984). Suitable habitats are characterized by an 

overstory of old growth grand fir and an understory of Pacific yew (a primary winter forage 

species for moose). An increase in the frequency and extent of yew has likely resulted from 

fire suppression; however timber harvest has likely reduced it in these same areas. Pacific 

yew was typically slashed and burned during regeneration timber harvest practices prior to 

1987 (Crawford 1983 and Stickney 1980). From 1987 to 1991, harvest and burning were 

constrained in areas allocated to moose winter range. Since 1992, timber harvest and burning 

in Pacific yew stands have been reduced considerably based on the Conservation Guidelines 

for Pacific Yew (USDA 1992). Past harvest has reduced patch size and interior conditions, 

and isolated Pacific yew stands.

The Forest Plan designated MA 21 as grand fir/Pacific yew communities to be managed for 

moose winter range. The goal in MA 21 is to provide for the continuing presence of Pacific 

yew suitable for moose winter habitat. The Forest Plan contains Management standards and 

practices for timber harvest and fire management can be found in the Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 1987b, pg. III-59). 

There are 3,686 acres (8%) of MA 21 in the Analysis Area and of it all occurs in the southern 

third of the area. There are 2,700 acres (77%) of currently suitable moose winter range 

habitat in MA 21. The other 23% is not suitable due to past harvest, most of which occurred 

in, or prior to, the 1980s. Harvest resulted in the creation of patchy areas of suitable habitat. 

There are 8 patches ranging in size from 8 to 2,658 acres (mean=599). The two largest 

patches are over 1,400 acres. Past timber harvest and postharvest site preparation (hand, 

mechanical, and burning) reduced the winter habitat suitability for moose through the 

removal of the conifer overstory and the Pacific yew understory. 

The Forest Plan limits the amount of MA 21 regeneration harvest to 5% per decade and 

prescribes the retention of 50% of the live yew component scattered throughout the harvest 

unit in one-quarter to one-half acre patches. The preferred harvest type is patch clearcuts 

(preferably 5-10 acres and no more than 20 acres), individual tree selection, group selection 

or shelterwood. Leave strips between yew stands should also be retained to provide travel 

corridors for moose. 

There is additional moose winter range totaling 8,156 acres outside of MA 21 in areas of 

subalpine fir (VRUs 1 and 10) and in smaller patches of grand fir/ yew in the headwater of 

the Project area (VRU 7). These are included in the effects analysis below but do not require 

the same Forest Plan guidelines as MA 21. Desired conditions for these areas are to retain a 

variety of conifer species including grand fir, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, western red 

cedar, Douglas-fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, and Pacific yew. These areas help to 

3-126

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 184 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

support moose populations in the project area. Suitable and potential summer range for 

moose is available throughout the mid- and upper elevations of the Analysis Area. 

Peek et al. (1987) recommended no more than about 45% of MA 21 should be in an age class 

younger than 90 years, and no more than 14% should be logged in any 30-year period.

Roughly 835 acres (23%) of MA 21 is currently younger than 90 years old and 388 acres 

(11%) was harvested between 1982 and 2012. The area currently meets these 

recommendations. 

Population Trends: The Analysis Area is in IDFG Management Unit 16. Moose are managed 

where populations are large enough to support controlled hunts. Management Unit 16 

currently has 4 antlered moose harvest permits which is down from 14 to 17 permits issued 

since 2000. Population levels of moose have fluctuated noticeably over time. Several sets of 

moose tracks were observed both within MA 21 and outside of it during field surveys. 

3.7.5.15.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A—No Action

There would be no direct or indirect effects under this alternative since no activities would 

occur. MA 21 habitats would continue to provide moose winter habitat. Old grand fir trees 

would die of insects and disease, creating canopy gaps where small patches of regenerating 

trees would develop. This process would perpetuate the multistory conditions characteristic 

of grand fir/Pacific yew winter range. Outside of MA 21, in VRUs 1, 7, and 10, this process 

would also occur. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Regeneration harvest would occur on 130 acres (3%), 161 acres (4%), and 49 acres (1%) of 

MA 21 for Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. This harvest type would reduce mature 

grand fir levels within treatment units, limiting the development of future old growth grand 

fir. Design features would limit patch size and retain overstory trees and existing Pacific yew 

in order to maintain a presence and perpetuate moose winter range. Regeneration harvest in 

MA 21 may slightly fragment moose winter habitat, but silvicultural prescriptions consistent 

with the Forest Plan would be applied to minimize effects. All grand fir and Pacific yew 

would be retained within PACFISH buffers which would provide a future seed source for 

grand fir and yew and also provide travel corridors for moose. None of the Action 

Alternatives would exceed the 5% per decade harvest requirement for MA 21.

Regeneration harvest would occur on 329 acres and 345 acres (4%) under Alternatives B and 

C, and 255 acres (3%) for Alternative D, outside of MA 21 on moose winter range. Mature 

grand fir trees would be removed within treatment units, limiting the development of old 

growth grand fir. All trees, including grand fir and yew (in VRU 7) would be retained within 

PACFISH buffers which would provide a future seed source for grand fir and also provide 

moose travel corridors. Moose summer and winter habitat would continue to be available. 

Precommercial thinning would occur on 283 acres (8%) of MA 21 under all alternatives. 

Commercial thinning would occur on 363 acres (10%), 332 acres (9%), and 298 acres (8%) 

of MA 21 under Alternative B, C and D respectively. 

3-127

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 185 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Precommercial thinning would occur on 248 acres (3%) outside of MA 21 on moose winter 

range. Commercial thinning activities would occur outside of MA 21 on moose winter range 

on 625 acres (8%) for Alternative B and 581 acres and 607 acres (7%) for Alternatives C and 

D. Thinning would not affect suitable moose winter habitat as little to no Pacific yew remains 

in the stands due to past harvest and site preparation. Thinning would favor early seral 

species and Douglas-fir limiting the availability of grand-fir in the future. Some grand fir is 

present and would be retained in the stands due to tree spacing requirements and natural 

regeneration as stands age. Grand fir would also be retained in PACFISH buffers which 

would provide a future seed source for the species and suitable habitat for moose. 

The Alternatives B and D would meet both recommendations as described by Peek et al. 

(1987). Alternative C would exceed the amount of regeneration harvest over a 30 year period 

by 1%. Alternative B, C, and D would increase harvested areas to 14%, 15%, and 12%, 

respectively. The amount of stands under the age of 90 years would be increased to 26%, 27, 

and 24% for each of the alternatives, respectively and would remain well below 45%. 

3.7.5.15.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area is the 43,700 acre project area. This area contains all MA 21, all 

grand fir/yew habitats, and provides general moose habitat. The time frame for cumulative 

effects is 30 years as that is the time it takes for a closed canopy to develop over understory 

yew trees in harvest units with Forest Plan MA 21 retention requirements. 

Alternative A- No Action

There could be minor cumulative effects under this alternative from fire suppression which 

would increase the risk of stand replacing fire in the Project Area. This type of fire could kill 

existing yew and create large canopy openings where yew would have low survival. 

Predicting the size and severity of wildfire is not possible so the level of potential cumulative 

effects cannot be determined.

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The Action Alternatives would reduce grand fir habitat slightly (<4%) but would be within 

Forest Plan guidelines for MA 21. Project activities would reduce the risk of stand replacing 

fire on 7% of the Project area which would reduce the potential impacts to MA 21 and other 

moose habitat. Fire suppression would continue but the risk of fire would be lessened under 

these alternatives when compared to the No Action Alternative. Predicting the size and 

severity of wildfire is not possible so the level of potential cumulative effects cannot be 

determined.

3.8 WATERSHED

This section summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the watershed resources. This 

section was summarized from the “Clear Creek Restoration Project Watershed Report,” 

located in the project record. 

3-128

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 186 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.8.1 Analysis Area

The Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project encompasses 43,730 acres within the Clear 

Creek watershed (5th field HUC #1706030401). Clear Creek is a tributary to the Middle Fork 

Clearwater River.

The direct and indirect effect areas for the sediment yield and road density indicators are the 

10 Forest Plan prescription watersheds. The effect areas for the water yield indicator are the 

3 subwatersheds (6th field HUC) within the project area: Upper Clear Creek, South Fork 

Clear Creek, and Lower Clear Creek. The cumulative effects area for all indicators is the 

Clear Creek watershed (5th field HUC). 

3.8.2 Regulatory Framework

Nez Perce Forest Plan direction and all federal and State laws and regulations applicable to 

watershed resources would be applied to the Clear Creek project, including the Clean Water 

Act, Idaho Water Quality Standards, Idaho Forest Practices Act, Idaho Stream Channel 

Protection Act, and EOs 11988 and 11990. 

The Clear Creek project was designed to comply with the Clean Water Act, Idaho Water 

Quality Standards, Idaho Forest Practices Act, Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act, and 

EOs 11988 and 11990. All major streams in the project area would have improved or 

maintained water quality conditions and would continue to support beneficial uses. 

3.8.2.1 Nez Perce National Forest Plan

Forest standards for water resources are found in the Nez Perce National Forest Plan on 

pages II-21 through II-22 (USDA Forest Service 1987b) and include the following: 

• Apply BMPs to project activities to ensure water quality standards are met or 

improved. 

• Use R1/R4 sediment and water yield guidelines. 

• Evaluate site-specific water quality effects and complete cumulative watershed 

effects analysis. 

• Meet fish/water quality objectives as outlined in Forest Plan Appendix A 

(including Forest Plan amendments 5, 11, and 26). Guidelines for percent 

sediment yield over base and for entry level frequency per decade are established 

to approximate the maximum sediment yield allowable to meet fish/water quality 

objectives.

The Forest Plan was amended in 1995, following a joint decision (commonly called 

PACFISH) by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM for managing anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds on federal lands (Forest Plan Amendment 20). This amendment also includes 

direction for restoration opportunities and cooperation with other agencies and individuals. 

PACFISH buffer widths exceed State BMP standards. 

Forest Plan standards for water quality (USDA Forest Service 1987b, pp. II-21 to II-22 and 

Appendix A) apply to this project, and compliance would be achieved via project design 

features, BMPs, effects analyses, and field reviews (Table 3-33).

3-129

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 187 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-33. Compliance with Nez Perce National Forest Plan water standards

Standard 

Numbera

Subject Summary Compliance Method

Nez Perce Forest Plan Standards

1 Apply Idaho Water Quality Standards and BMPs. Project design features and BMPs 

listed in Chapter 2

2 Utilize R1/R4 sediment yield and R1 water yield guidelines. Effects analysis

3 Evaluate site-specific water quality effects. Field reviews (conducted in 2011 

and 2012)

4 Complete watershed cumulative effects analysis. A cumulative watershed effects 

analysis for the Middle Fork 

Clearwater River was completed 

for this project. 

8 Meet fish and water quality objectives in Forest Plan 

Appendix A (includes Forest Plan amendments 5, 11, and 

26). Eight of 10 prescription watersheds have an upward 

trend requirement.

Project design features and BMPs 

listed in Chapter 2

Forest Plan Amendment 20 (PACFISH)

WR-1 Promote ecological integrity through watershed restoration 

projects. Project design features

WR-2 Cooperate with agencies, tribes, and private individuals. Ongoing cooperation

WR-3 Prevent degradation (restoration is not a substitute for 

preventing degradation). Project design features

a Standards 5, 6, and 7 do not apply within the context of this project. 

3.8.2.2 Clean Water Act

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 nonpoint 

sources of pollution. EO 12088 also requires the Forest Service to meet the requirements of 

the Clean Water Act.

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, 

state, interstate, and local requirements with respect to control and abatement of water 

pollution, and to cooperate with relevant processes and sanctions and administrative 

authority. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act stipulates that states must identify and prioritize water 

bodies that are water quality limited (i.e., water bodies that do not meet water quality 

standards). For waters identified on this list, states must develop a total maximum daily load

(TMDL) for the pollutants, set at a level to achieve water quality standards. No streams in the 

project area are listed for pollutants in the EPA-approved 303(d)/305(b) 2010 Integrated 

Report (IDEQ 2011). 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires permits to dredge or fill within waters of the 

United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers these provisions. Culvert 

removal and replacement activities proposed under the Clear Creek project would require 

authorization under section 404, through application of either nationwide or site-specific 

permits.

3-130

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 188 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act discusses permitting under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Clear Creek project may require an NPDES 

permit. A recent court case, Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 

1063 (9th Cir. 2011), held that stormwater runoff associated with logging roads that flows 

into systems of ditches, culverts, and channels before being discharged into forest streams 

and rivers is a point source discharge requiring an NPDES permit. Because the Forest 

Service was not a party to the case, the Ninth Circuit’s decision did not impose any 

affirmative duties on the Forest Service. 

Permanent legislation is pending in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives 

that would amend section 402 of the Clean Water Act to exempt stormwater discharges 

resulting from silvicultural activities from NPDES permit requirements. 

Due to these factors, potential NPDES permitting requirements for stormwater discharges 

from logging roads in the Clear Creek project area are still uncertain. If legislation should 

determine that an NPDES permit is required for this project, the Forest Service will comply 

with any applicable NPDES permitting requirements.

3.8.2.3 Idaho Water Quality Standards

EPA regulations require each state to adopt an antidegradation policy as one component of its 

water quality standards. The objective of the Idaho Anti-degradation Policy is, at a minimum, 

to maintain and protect existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary 

to protect those uses (IDAPA 16.012501.01). Beneficial uses and water quality criteria and 

standards are identified in the Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment 

Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.02, IDAPA 37.03.02).

3.8.2.3.1 Idaho Forest Practices Act

This legislation regulates forest practices on all land ownership in Idaho. Forest practices on 

NFS lands must adhere to the rules pertaining to water quality (IDAPA 20.02.01). These 

rules are also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. 

3.8.2.3.2 Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act

This legislation regulates stream channel alterations between mean high water marks on 

perennial streams in Idaho. Instream activities on NFS lands must adhere to the rules 

pertaining to the Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act (IDAPA 37.03.07). These rules are 

also incorporated as BMPs in the Idaho Water Quality Standards. 

3.8.2.3.3 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990

These orders provide for protection and management of floodplains and wetlands. 

3.8.3 Resource Indicators

Water Quality and Quantity: All Clear Creek project activities should maintain or improve 

water quality. The Clear Creek project would therefore be designed to produce no 

measurable increase in bacteria, nutrients, oil and grease, inorganics, sediment, or 

temperature. 

The balance of water yield and sediment yield in a watershed influences the water 

quality/quantity of a stream system. Water yield refers to stream flow quantity and timing 

3-131

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 189 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and is a function of water, soil, and vegetation interactions. Changes in amount or 

distribution of vegetation can affect water yield and ultimately alter stream channel 

conditions. A measurement of 25%–30% equivalent clear-cut area (ECA) is generally 

recognized as an indication that water yield has increased beyond acceptable limits (Gerhardt 

2000). 

Active erosion of the landscape yields sediment to streams and occurs naturally. When an 

excess of sediment—that is, over the natural (balanced) amount—is delivered to a stream, the 

stream’s ability to route the sediment out of the system is diminished, and water quality is 

reduced. Harvest and road-related activities have the potential to increase erosion production 

and sediment delivery into streams. 

Roads influence both water quantity and quality. Roads concentrate surface water and are a 

source of sediment entering streams. Watershed road densities >3 miles per square mile 

(mi/mi2

) are categorized as low condition (i.e., poor conditions for watershed resources) 

(NOAA 1998).

Resource Indicators:

• Percent increase in ECA

• Percent sediment yield increased over base (natural), as modeled by NEZSED

• Reduction in watershed road miles 

3.8.4 Analysis Methodology

GIS-generated reports and maps, aerial photos, and field reviews were used to analyze effects 

to water quality and quantity from the Clear Creek proposed activities. Resource condition 

observations were conducted in the field during 2011 and 2012. Headwater channels, 

ephemeral swales, and springs/seeps in the proposed treatment units and downstream of them 

were examined and recorded on a map. Forest stand database (FSVeg) queries were 

conducted to identify past harvest activities and the time frame during which they occurred 

(see project file). Information from the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2001) and from the Clear Creek Watershed NFMA 

Assessment (2012) was used to develop the existing condition and cumulative effects 

evaluation. 

Models were used to provide estimates, not absolutes, for comparison of alternatives. An

ECA analysis using treatment and recovery coefficients from Ager and Clifton (2005) was 

conducted to determine existing and percent increase in ECA. 

The NEZSED model was used to estimate the predicted percent increase in sediment yield 

over base (natural) conditions to determine if thresholds from Forest Plan Appendix A would 

be exceeded. The methodology for using the NEZSED model is described in detail in the 

Forest’s guidance document, Implementation Guide to Appendix A of the Nez Perce 

National Forest Plan (Conroy and Thompson 2011). Sediment yield is calculated in tons per 

year and reported as “percent increase over base” conditions. Sediment yield is calculated for 

base conditions (without management activities), current conditions (cumulative of past and 

existing management activities combined with base conditions), and predicted conditions 

(cumulative of past, existing, and proposed activities combined with base conditions) for 

each of the proposed project alternatives. These percentages of sediment yield over base 

3-132

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 190 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

conditions are then compared to the sediment yield guidelines for prescription watersheds 

listed in Appendix A of the Forest Plan. Disturbance entries or the numbers of large activities 

in a decade are also calculated to compare with guidelines established in Appendix A of the 

Forest Plan.

Additional information about the models used in this analysis can be found in the project file.

3.8.5 Affected Environment

3.8.5.1 Watershed Descriptions

The Clear Creek project area (43,730 acres) is encompassed by the Clear Creek watershed, 

which flows into the Middle Fork Clearwater River. The 58,990-acre Clear Creek watershed 

contains 3 subwatersheds: Upper Clear Creek, South Fork Clear Creek, and Lower Clear 

Creek. These subwatersheds are divided into 10 Forest Plan prescription watersheds. The 

existing conditions of the watersheds are shown in Table 3-34. Watershed boundaries and 

stream locations are displayed in Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9. No municipal water supplies or 

source waters are within, adjacent to, or downstream of the project area. The entire Clear 

Creek drainage is 65,000 acres; however, the Leitch Creek and Little Cedar Creek 

subwatersheds were not considered in the analysis, as they have no Forest Service ownership 

within them.

A search of water rights applications, permits, decrees, licenses, claims, and transfers was 

made for the areas located in the Clear Creek project area. Twenty water rights were 

identified: 19 for the U.S. Forest Service and 1 for the State of Idaho. Uses include minimum 

stream flow, stock water, and federal reserved use. Further details of each water right are 

located in the project file.

The proposed action alternatives analyzed for this project would not alter any existing water 

rights claims or decrease the available water relative to these claims.

3-133

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 191 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-34. Existing condition information for Clear Creek watersheds

Drainage

Watershed Acres

(100% Forest 

Service [FS] land 

unless indicated)

Percent of Forest 

Service Land 

with Past Harvest

(1956–2012)

(%)

Road 

Density 

(miles/mile2)

a

Percent 

Equivalent 

Clearcut Area 

(ECA)

(%)

Clear Creek

5th field HUC 

58,990

(72% FS) 26 2.7 4 

Upper Clear Creek 

6th field HUC 

19,166

(97% FS) 36 3.1 3 

Pine Knob Creek

Forest Plan 2,622 50 4.8 — 

Browns Spring 

Creek 

Forest Plan 

3,057 40 4.1 — 

Clear Creekb 

Forest Plan 

7,234

(91% FS) 31 2.3 — 

Solo Creek

Forest Plan 2,226 51 3.5 — 

Middle Fork Clear 

Creek 

Forest Plan 

4,025 26 2.4 — 

South Fork Clear 

Creek 

6th field HUC 

16,478 14 1.8 2 

Kay Creek

Forest Plan 

3,537 13 2.5 — 

South Fork Clear 

Creek

Forest Plan 

12,941 14 1.6 — 

Lower Clear Creek

6th field HUC 

23,346

(33% FS) 40 3.0 7 

Hoodoo Creek

Forest Plan 6,446 38 3.8 — 

Big Cedar Creekb

Forest Plan 

5,542

(13% FS) 70 4.6 — 

Lower Clear Creek 

Faceb

Forest Plan 

11,358

(5% FS) 5 1.8 — 

a Includes the 10 miles of decommissioning under decision of 2011 South Fork/West Fork Clear Creek Road 

Decommissioning EA; total watershed. b ECA and road density calculations include privately owned land portions of the watershed.

3-134

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 192 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Figure 3-8. Forest Plan prescription watersheds and major streams in the Clear Creek 

watershed

3-135

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 193 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-9. Clear Creek subwatersheds (6th level HUC)

Forested seeps and springs are found throughout the project area and often mark the upper 

extent of perennial flow. Stream channels range from headwater channels that are relatively 

steep and confined (Rosgen A) to lower-gradient Rosgen B and C channels (Rosgen and 

Silvey 1996). 

During the summers of 2011 and 2012, resource specialists evaluated conditions of 

headwater perennial and intermittent channels, ephemeral draws, and springs and seeps 

within and downstream of the proposed project area. In addition, temperature data and 

instream channel conditions of major streams were gathered (see fisheries report). Channels 

are primarily stable, not entrenched, and are fully accessible to their floodplains (which are 

generally less than 30 feet wide). Banks are stable, and channel substrate consists of silts and 

sands, gravels, and cobbles. Ephemeral draws show no evidence of downcutting. In many of 

the larger stream channels, bank cutting and deposition from 2011 runoff events were noted. 

Runoff data obtained from Streamstats (USGS) show that runoff in the Clear Creek 

3-136

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 194 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

watershed was in the >90 percentile range for 2011, indicating flows higher than usual for the 

area. These streams are in a stable condition, with balanced cutting and deposition. Stream 

bank damage was noted in locations where livestock cross streams or drink. The amount of 

disturbance was minimal and mostly near closed-road stream crossings. 

Beneficial uses and water quality criteria and standards are identified in the Idaho Water 

Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.02). Designated 

Beneficial Uses (IDAPA 58.01.02, Section 120) for the Middle Fork Clearwater River 

Subbasin are cold water biota, salmonid spawning, domestic water supply, and primary 

contact recreation. Designated Beneficial Uses for Pine Knob Creek, Browns Spring Creek, 

and Clear Creek (mainstem) are cold water biota, secondary contact recreation, and salmonid 

spawning. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) has determined that the 

streams are fully supporting those beneficial uses (IDEQ 2010 Integrated Report 2011). For 

those streams not individually listed (undesignated surface waters), beneficial uses include 

cold water biota and secondary contact recreation. Solo Creek and Middle Fork Clear Creek 

were found to be fully supporting these beneficial uses, while Kay Creek, South Fork Clear 

Creek, Hoodoo Creek, and Big Cedar Creek have not been assessed. 

The IDEQ direction is to improve or maintain water quality conditions in order to support 

beneficial uses. No streams within the Clear Creek drainage are listed for impairment by 

pollutants in the EPA-approved 2010 IDEQ 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report (IDEQ 2011). 

Conditions in the Clear Creek project area are a result of both natural processes and human 

activities. Past human-related activities include recreation, fire suppression, road building 

and maintenance, and harvest activities (1950s–2000s). Past harvest and associated road 

construction have had the most impact, with some increases in water yield and sediment 

yield. Harvest activities (Forest Service lands only) have occurred on 5%–70% of each

watershed in the Clear Creek project area Table 3-34. 

Water Yield: Compaction, disturbance, or removal of the ground surface and disturbance or 

removal of vegetation can alter water yield. Water yield refers to stream flow quantity and 

timing; water yield measurements are important because stream flow is a key determinant of 

the energy available for erosion, transport, and deposition of sediment within channels. 

Increased water yields may be associated with channel scour, bedload movement, or 

redistribution of sediment in depositional areas. 

Water yield generally increases after vegetative treatments, due to a reduction in transpiration 

and precipitation interception losses. Removal of forest canopy can increase snowpack

accumulation and melt rates, thereby increasing runoff rate and volume. The presence of 

roads and skid trails typically increases overland flow due to soil compaction; these impacts 

are similar to those of canopy removal from timber harvest. 

No federal, State, or Nez Perce Forest Plan standards govern peak flow increases in Idaho. 

The Forest Plan calls for maintaining the stability, equilibrium, and function of all streams on 

the Forest. ECA is often used as an indicator of potential changes in water yield and 

represents the amount of forest canopy openings in the watershed. Existing roads are 

considered permanent openings in ECA estimates. The ECA method should only be applied 

to relatively large vegetation management projects where proposed timber harvest or fuel 

treatments (or both) would affect large proportions of 6th code hydrologic units. Analysis of 

water yield is probably not necessary for treatments that remove 20% or less of basal area, 

3-137

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 195 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

because the effects are not likely measurable (Troendle et al. 2009). Effects of thinning, fuel 

treatments, and partial cuts on water yield are likely to be short-lived and may not even be 

measurable (Troendle et al. 2009). 

An ECA analysis using treatment and recovery coefficients from Ager and Clifton (2005) 

was conducted to determine the existing ECA condition. Past harvest, wildfire, and roads 

were included in the analysis. Existing ECAs at the 6th field HUC scale range from 2% to 7% 

(Table 3-34). Each of the subwatersheds is considered in high (good) condition of <15% 

ECA (NOAA 1998).

Sediment Yield: Active erosion of the landscape yields sediment to streams and occurs 

naturally or as the result of management activities. When an excess of sediment—that is, 

over the natural (balanced) amount—is delivered to a stream, the stream’s ability to route the 

sediment out of the system is diminished, and water quality is reduced. 

Prescription watersheds were assigned fish/water quality objectives in Appendix A of the 

Forest Plan. These objectives provide management direction in terms of the maximum 

estimated increase in sediment over baseline conditions that can be approached or equaled 

for a specific number of years per decade. In 1987, eight of the Forest Plan prescription 

watersheds did not meet their fish/water quality objectives, and sediment was the primary 

limiting factor. These same watersheds have an Upward Trend Requirement, which allows 

timber management to occur, concurrent with improvement efforts, as long as a positive, 

upward trend in habitat carrying capacity is indicated. Objectives for Big Cedar Creek and 

Lower Clear Creek Face were not designated, nor were sediment yield guidelines assigned.

The sediment yield guidelines (the maximum sediment yield allowable to meet fish/water 

quality objectives) for each watershed are shown in Table 3-37. Appendix A of the Forest 

Plan also assigned entry frequency guidelines for each of the watersheds. Few activities have 

occurred in any of the watersheds in the past 10 years to qualify as an entry, when 

considering sediment production. The most recent harvest was the Middle Fork timber sale in 

the Pine Knob Creek drainage in 2005. 

Roads are a source of sediment to streams, particularly at culvert inlets where cutslope 

slumping occurs and on roads in need of more drainage structures. Road densities within the 

prescription watersheds range from 1.6 to 4.8 mi/mi2

. A watershed in high (good) condition 

generally has a road density of <1 mi/mi2

. Watersheds with 1–3 mi/mi2 are rated as moderate, 

and those with >3 mi/mi2

 are rated as low (poor) condition (NOAA 1998). Of the 10 Forest 

Plan prescription watersheds, 5 are rated as moderate condition, and 5 are rated as low 

condition Table 3-34. The baseline road miles for this project include the 10 miles of road 

decommissioning that occurred under the South Fork/West Fork Clear Creek Road 

Decommissioning 2011 decision. 

3.8.6 Environmental Consequences

3.8.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects areas are the 10 Forest Plan prescription watersheds that contain 

Clear Creek project activities; these areas represent the lowest level at which effects would 

be seen.

3-138

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 196 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

3.8.6.1.1 Alternative A—No Action

Under this alternative, no proposed management actions would occur. Actions occurring on 

state and private lands would continue. Because no vegetation removal or ground-disturbing 

activities would occur, no direct effects would result from this alternative. Under Alternative 

A, road density and road-related erosion (indirect effects) would remain unchanged. Benefits 

from the reconditioning, reconstruction, and decommissioning of roads, proposed as part of

the action alternatives, would not be attained. These roads would continue to be a potential 

source of sediment and would continue to intercept water and reroute it to stream systems.

Alternative A does not propose any new activities that would directly or indirectly affect 

wetlands or floodplains or increase water temperatures.

3.8.6.1.2 Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

Regeneration, Improvement, and Commercial Thinning

The effects of vegetative manipulation on water yield are complex, highly variable, and 

dependent on many independent factors such as elevation, climate, aspect, and especially 

precipitation. Removal of vegetation has the potential to increase stream flow in the short 

term (0–10 years) due to changes in evaporation, precipitation, wind patterns, and soil 

infiltration and percolation (Fowler et al. 1987; Dunne and Leopold 1978). 

Alternative B proposes 2,609 acres of regeneration, 5,606 acres of commercial thinning, and 

331 acres of improvement. Alternative C proposes 4,156 acres of regeneration, 4,220 acres of 

commercial thinning, and 331 acres of improvement. Alternative D proposes 2,178 acres of 

regeneration, 5,141 acres of commercial thinning, and 211 acres of improvement. Table 3-35

displays vegetation removal activities by alternative for the three 6th field HUC 

subwatersheds. The most harvest occurs under Alternative C, followed by Alternative B, then 

D. Harvest activities were assessed using ECA and the NEZSED model.

Table 3-35. Vegetation removal activities, by subwatershed (6th field HUC)

Subwatershed 

(6th field HUC)

Upper Clear Creek South Fork Clear Creek Lower Clear Creek

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Regeneration 1,209 1,486 993 698 868 518 700 1,798 667

Commercial thin 2,774 2,625 2,699 883 714 719 1,946 880 1,720

Improvement 227 227 140 0 0 0 97 98 65

Temporary roads outside 

units 9.1 9.1 5.2 3.5 3.5 2.9 5.7 5.7 1.9

Prescribed burn 601 601 601 326 326 326 445 445 445

Note: Does not include precommercial thinning

ECA is used as an indicator of change in water yield or peak flows resulting from reductions 

in forest canopy (thinning and harvest-related activities). The ECA analysis takes into 

account the initial percentage of crown removal and the recovery through vegetative 

regrowth since the initial disturbance. Existing roads are considered permanent openings in

ECA estimates. The analysis takes a simple snapshot in time, with the assumption that all 

Clear Creek project activities would be implemented in 1 year. ECA predictions are used to 

compare alternatives and are not viewed as absolutes. This water yield indicator serves only 

3-139

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 197 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

as a red flag that suggests a potential for decreased stability due to sustained increased energy 

in the stream channel.

The ECA method was developed to address concerns about water yield increases and 

potential effects on channel morphology. In the early 1970s, channel impacts (primarily 

scouring) were often observed, and these impacts were thought to be caused by water yield 

increases. During that period, clear-cutting was common, timber harvest levels were 

substantially higher, and impacts to streams were common. Forest management practices 

have changed dramatically since that time. Streams have buffers of 100–300 feet on both 

sides of the watercourse, and BMPs are implemented on all projects. All of these changes 

have greatly reduced the impacts of forest management on stream channels and aquatic

habitat.

The estimated percent increase in ECA from harvest activities, temporary road construction, 

and prescribed burning ranges from 6% to 15%, depending on watershed and alternative 

(Table 3-36). When these increases are added to the existing ECAs, they produce ECA

estimates that predict what watershed conditions will be like after the Clear Creek project.

These ECA estimates range from 9% to 18% for Alternatives B and C, and from 7% to 16% 

for Alternative D. The highest increases in ECA occur under Alternative C, followed by 

Alternative B, then D. 

Table 3-36. Estimated percent increase in Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) from project

activities (6th field HUC)

Subwatershed Existing 

ECAa

Estimated Increase in 

Percent ECA from Project

Activities

Final Percent ECA (Existing

plus Project) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Upper Clear Creek 3 15 15 13 18 18 16

South Fork Clear Creek 2 7 7 6 9 9 7 

Lower Clear Creek 7 8 9 7 14 16 14

Note: Vegetation removal activities include prescribed burning, regeneration, commercial thinning (but not precommercial 

thinning), improvement, and construction of temporary roads. a

ECA calculations include privately owned land portions of the watershed. 

A lower ECA indicates a higher (better) watershed condition. At the 6th field HUC level, 

ECAs of <15% indicate high (good) condition. ECAs of 15%–30% indicate moderate 

condition, and ECAs of >30% are considered low (poor) condition (NOAA 1998). Watershed 

condition for the ECA indicator would move from high condition to moderate condition for 

the Upper Clear Creek subwatershed for all action alternatives and for Lower Clear Creek 

subwatershed for Alternative C. These numbers are at the low end of the moderate category. 

As stated above, these ECA estimates are based on the assumption that all project activities 

would occur in 1 year. In reality, these activities would be staggered over several years. 

Much research has been conducted on harvest activities and the potential for increased peak 

flows and water yield. Most of these studies looked at clear-cut activities in areas with 

openings of >2–5 tree heights and no riparian buffers. Regeneration harvest accounts for 

<8% of any of the subwatersheds. Proposed variable tree retention levels of 14–22 tpa would 

result in openings of 50–100 feet (1 tree height), on average. Field assessments confirmed 

3-140

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 198 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

that streams in the project area are in stable condition, and changes in channel conditions are 

not expected to occur. 

Ground-disturbing harvest activities can also increase sediment loads in the intermittent and 

small perennial channels within and adjacent to treatment units (0–2 years). Topography, 

retained woody material, and PACFISH buffers would capture and store most of the material. 

As ground cover is reestablished, hillslope erosion would diminish (0–3 years). 

The NEZSED model was used to estimate the predicted percent increase in sediment yield 

from the proposed activities under Alternatives B, C, and D. The predicted increases in 

sediment production by the NEZSED model are for relative comparison to existing 

conditions and do not reflect actual instream sediment yields expected from the project. The 

NEZSED model results have their primary utility in comparing differences between each

proposed alternative and the existing condition; model results are also useful for comparing 

the proposed alternative to the guidelines of Appendix A of the Forest Plan. A more detailed 

discussion of the NEZSED model is in the Forest Plan Appendix A guidance document 

(Conroy and Thompson 2011). 

As shown in Table 3-37, each of the prescription watersheds would remain below the 

sediment yield guidelines allowable under Forest Plan Appendix A (USDA Forest 

Service 1987b), under all alternatives. The highest increases were found in Alternative C, 

followed by Alternative B, then D. 

Table 3-37. NEZSED estimated sediment yield

Forest Plan 

Prescription 

Watersheda

Percent over base

Existing Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Appendix A 

Allowed

Pine Knob Creek 1.2 16 16 16 45%

Browns Spring Creek 2.0 23 24 21 45%

Clear Creek 0.8 7 7 5 30%

Solo Creek 1.5 16 16 14 45%

Middle Fork Clear Creek 1.0 8 8 5 30%

Kay Creek 1.5 3 3 2 45%

South Fork Clear Creek 0.6 5 6 4 45%

Hoodoo Creek 2.4 20 21 17 60%

a Big Cedar Creek and Lower Clear Creek Face watersheds were not assigned fish/water quality objectives or sediment yield 

guidelines, primarily because most of the area is on private lands.

At the levels planned, harvest and burning activities would be considered an entry when 

compared to the Forest Plan standard. With no activities qualifying as entries in 9 of the 

prescription watersheds in the last decade, all alternatives are within Forest Plan Appendix A 

guidelines for sediment yield. For Pine Knob Creek, an entry was made in 2005 for the 

Middle Fork timber sale. This watershed is allowed 2 entries per decade, so it also meets the 

Forest Plan guideline. 

Implementation of project design measures, adherence to BMPs, and maintenance of 

PACFISH buffers would reduce potential erosion and further limit the risk of sediment 

reaching streams. Any sediment yield increases would be short-term (0–6 years), and 

beneficial uses in Clear Creek and the Middle Fork Clearwater River would be maintained.

3-141

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 199 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Prescribed Burning

Low- and mixed-severity prescribed fire is proposed on 1,370 acres in 15 units (701 – 715) 

for all action alternatives. This activity is assessed using ECA and the NEZSED model. 

Precommercial Thinning

Although precommercial thinning would cause some opening of the canopy, ECA would not 

increase; therefore, water yield would not increase either. Ground vegetation would be left 

undisturbed. Thinning would be completed with chainsaws, so no ground-disturbing 

activities would take place; therefore, neither soil erosion nor sediment input to streams

would increase. 

Temporary Road Construction 

Approximately 36 miles of temporary roads would be constructed to access harvest units for 

Alternatives B and C, 8.7 miles of which occur on existing templates. Alternative D proposes 

17.5 miles of temporary roads, including 8.7 miles located on existing templates. Temporary 

roads generate the most erosion when they are first constructed, and lesser erosion would 

occur during the 1–2 years the proposed roads would be open. Erosion would stabilize 2 

years after decommissioning occurs. Temporary roads were included in the ECA and 

NEZSED analyses. Increase in ECA from temporary road construction is <1% for all 

watersheds. Increase in peak flow from this activity is unlikely. 

The erosion potential from temporary roads would be short-term (0–5 years), since the roads

would be built, used, and decommissioned over a period of 1–3 years and located on lowgradient, dry ridges or upper slopes, away from water, with no stream crossings. 

Project design measures for temporary roads would minimize the erosion produced over the 

short life of these roads. For example, temporary roads would be closed to public motorized 

use during project activities, reducing the chance of increased erosion from vehicles driving 

on wet roads and rutted surfaces. 

Road Maintenance and Reconstruction 

Approximately 120 miles of roadwork is proposed and would include spot surface gravel 

placement and possible culvert repairs, replacements, or additional installations to improve 

drainage. Road maintenance and improvements are considered a beneficial effect to water 

quality (Burroughs 1990; Grace and Clinton 2006; Switalski et al. 2004; Swift and Burns 

1999). Surface graveling has been shown to be effective at reducing erosion from road 

surfaces, especially at road/stream crossings. Studies have found gravel reduces sediment by 

70%–79% (Burroughs and King 1989). Although this activity is designed to reduce sediment 

input over the long term, a minor increase in sediment is expected to occur in the short term 

(1 year).

Road Decommissioning 

Road erosion and sediment yield usually decline over time but continue at a chronic level 

indefinitely (USDA 1981). Approximately 13.2 miles of road are proposed for 

decommissioning with this project. Road removal would reduce road density (Table 3-38) 

and provide an improvement in the overall watershed condition. However, even with the 

3-142

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 200 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

proposed road decommissioning, the current (existing) watershed condition ratings would 

remain the same for each of the watersheds. For Big Cedar Creek, road miles on the Forest 

Service portion of the watershed were reduced by 20%. Road miles on LSP areas were 

reduced by 15%. 

At the 6th field HUC level, road density in Upper Clear Creek went from 3.1 mi/mi2 

(high/poor condition) to 2.8 mi/mi2 (moderate condition). In Lower Clear Creek, road density 

went from 3.0 mi/mi2 to 2.9 mi/mi2. South Fork Clear Creek road density remained moderate 

at 1.8 mi/mi2

. 

Table 3-38. Estimated reduction in road density from Clear Creek project activities

Forest Plan 

Prescription 

Watershed

Road Density 

Before EAa

(2011)

Existing 

Road 

Densityb 

(miles/miles2) 

Proposed road 

decommissioning

(miles)

Road density 

after Clear 

Creek activitiesb

Pine Knob Creek 4.8 4.8 1.81 4.3

Browns Spring Creek 4.1 4.1 4.52 3.2

Clear Creek 2.3 2.3 0.52 2.3

Solo Creek 3.5 3.5 1.34 3.1

Middle Fork Clear Creek 2.4 2.4 1.29 2.2

Kay Creek 2.6 2.5 0.94 2.4

South Fork Clear Creek 1.6 1.6 0 1.6

Hoodoo Creek 4.6 3.8 0.78 3.8

Big Cedar Creek 4.6 4.6 1.72 4.4

Lower Clear Creek Face 1.8 1.8 0 1.8

a South Fork/West Fork Clear Creek Road Decommissioning 2011 decision. b Includes private and Forest Service roads

Road decommissioning activities would benefit water resources by reducing flow energy on 

roadbeds and within ditches, while reducing road-related sediment. The proposed road 

decommissioning projects include the removal of culverts, which would improve stream 

bank stability, width-to-depth ratio, and floodplain connectivity at localized sites. 

Some short-term sediment delivery is expected in the smaller tributaries that bisect the 

decommissioned roads. Sediment would be delivered during project implementation and 

during the stream channel stabilization period of 2–3 years. Road decommissioning activities 

would produce some short-term sediment, both temporally and spatially (Foltz et al. 2007). 

Past monitoring of obliteration showed only minor amounts of sediment delivered to 

headwater streams, mostly in the form of suspended sediment, as indicated by increases in 

turbidity. 

Design criteria and BMPs would be applied to each of these activities to minimize increases 

of sediment delivery to stream channels. Road decommissioning may produce short-term (0–

3 years) and localized sediment increases, but it would produce both immediate and longterm recovery benefits. 

3-143

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 201 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Water Temperature

The Clear Creek project is not expected to increase stream water temperatures, due to 

implementation of PACFISH buffers (see “Aquatics” section).

Floodplains and Wetlands 

No activities, other than roadwork, are proposed in floodplains or wetlands. PACFISH 

buffers would be implemented along streams and seeps/springs in the commercial and 

precommercial thin units. The protection of health, safety, and welfare, the prevention of loss 

of property values, and the maintenance of natural systems would be retained under all of the

action alternatives.

3.8.7 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects arise when the incremental impact of an action is added to impacts from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past harvest activities and associated road 

construction have had the most impact, with increases in water yield and sediment yield in 

the Clear Creek drainage and its tributaries. 

The cumulative effects area is the Clear Creek watershed (5th field HUC), which 

encompasses the entire Clear Creek project area. 

The temporal scope for watershed effects extends from the 1950s to 2037. The beginning 

date is based on the time frame of the first harvest and road construction activities in the 

watershed. Evidence from those events is still noticeable on the landscape in the form of old 

skid trails and landings and the current road system. The scope continues to year 2037, which 

is approximately 24 years after project implementation, the estimated amount of time 

required for ECA levels from this project to be no longer perceptible. 

3.8.7.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Several timber sales have occurred in the 3 subwatersheds evaluated in this analysis (see 

project file and ECA analysis). Timber sales conducted between the early 1950s and late 

1990s involved many miles of new road construction, little to no tree retention in 

regeneration harvest areas, and dozer piling of slash. These activities resulted in widespread 

and persistent impacts on the subwatersheds and caused increased sedimentation and 

increased water yields. The Forest Service owns 72% of the Clear Creek watershed, and past 

harvest activities have occurred on approximately 28% of that Forest Service land. 

Forest practices have changed over the last few decades. Project design measures, BMPs, and 

Forest Plan guidelines have been developed in order to reduce ground-disturbing activities 

and subsequent sediment delivery. Operating under dry conditions, implementing PACFISH 

buffers, retaining trees in regeneration harvest units, and limiting ground-based yarding to 

slopes <35% have become common practices. 

Over 30 miles of Forest Service system roads have been decommissioned in the Clear Creek 

watershed since 1996. This activity produced localized short-term sediment during 

implementation but created long-term sediment reductions and benefits to overall channel 

conditions. 

3-144

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 202 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

Present actions include permitted grazing, recreation, fire suppression, road maintenance, and 

control of noxious weeds using chemical, mechanical, and biological methods. Recreational 

activities produce little to no impact to water quality or quantity or to floodplain/wetland 

functions. Most effects from recreation are primarily due to associated road use, especially 

during wet conditions. Effects from grazing include stream bank instability and reduced 

water infiltration rates in areas with soil compaction (localized areas). Fire suppression 

activities are infrequent and limited in size, and road maintenance has minimal short-term 

effects and long-term benefits (Burroughs and King 1989). 

The following foreseeable future or concurrent actions may occur in the Clear Creek 

watershed:

• Browns Spring culvert replacements (decision 2012): This activity involves the 

replacement and upsizing of 2 culverts in the Upper Clear Creek subwatershed. 

• Eastside Allotment project (decision 2013): This project includes an adaptive 

management plan to improve pasture and water quality conditions while keeping 

livestock numbers the same. 

• Clear Ridge Road Decommissioning (decision 2012): This project proposes 65 

miles of nonsystem roads for decommissioning, which will improve water 

infiltration and reduce soil erosion potential.

• Harvest of state of Idaho lands: The Bruin Storm project would seedtree harvest 

approximately 160 acres in the Lower Clear Creek subwatershed in the next 5 

years. 

• Private land harvest: This project includes undetermined amount and prescription 

of harvest of private lands in the Crane Hill area (Upper Clear Creek 

subwatershed) in the next 5 years. 

The first 3 projects are considered watershed improvement projects and will help to improve 

water quality and quantity. Any increases in erosion and subsequent sediment yield would be 

short-term and in isolated locations.

The last 2 projects are harvest activities that could increase ECA and soil erosion. The small 

amount of acreage involved would increase ECA by <1% in the Clear Creek watershed. 

These projects would follow water and soil quality protection practices regulated through the 

Idaho Forest Practices Act.

3.8.7.2 Alternative A—No Action

Cumulative effects arise when the incremental impact of an action is added to impacts from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Alternative A would create no direct or 

indirect effects; therefore, no cumulative effects to water yield or sediment yield would occur 

under this alternative. 

3.8.7.3 Alternatives B, C, and D—Action Alternatives

3.8.7.3.1 Water Yield

Even though NFS lands comprise 72% of the Clear Creek watershed, they contribute 84% of 

the average annual flow of Clear Creek. Percent increase in ECA is used as an indicator of 

change in water yield resulting from reductions in forest canopy. Vegetation removal 

3-145

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 203 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

activities include prescribed burning, regeneration harvest, improvement harvest, commercial 

thinning (but not precommercial thinning), and construction of temporary roads. A lower 

ECA indicates a higher (better) watershed condition. ECAs of <15% indicate high (good) 

condition (NOAA 1998). 

The estimated existing ECA for the Clear Creek watershed is 4% and includes past activities 

on Forest Service, state, and private lands. Estimated increases in ECA from the Clear Creek 

project are 10% for Alternatives B and C and 9% for Alternative D. When these increases are 

added to the existing ECAs, they produce ECA estimates that predict what watershed 

conditions will be like after the Clear Creek project. Final ECA estimates are 14% for 

Alternatives B and C and 13% for Alternative D. ECA estimates predict that watershed 

conditions would remain high (good) under all 3 action alternatives. Therefore, no stream 

channel alteration from increased water yield is expected from the Clear Creek project. 

As shown in Figure 3-10, ECA would decrease to its pre-project level (4%) after 12 years for 

Alternatives B and D and after 15 years for Alternative C. ECA from Clear Creek activities 

would no longer be discernible after 24 years. 

Figure 3-10. Percent Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) over time for Clear Creek watershed (5th 

field HUC) 

New research indicates that water yield increases (and associated effects on streams) may not 

be as important as previously thought, especially in the context of contemporary forest 

management. The primary concern about changes in water yield is how they may directly or 

indirectly affect stream channels, aquatic habitat, and water quality. Numerous studies have 

documented the effects of forest canopy removal on water yield, but surprisingly, very few 

have demonstrated a direct link between water yield changes and channel impacts in a 

0

5

10

15

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036

Percent ECA

Year

Clear Creek Watershed

Percent ECA over time

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

3-146

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 204 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences

forested environment. For example, Grant et al. (2008) conducted a comprehensive literature 

review and determined no field studies have made a direct link between peak flow increases 

and channel impacts. Schnakenberg and MacDonald (1998) found no correlation between 

ECA and stream channel characteristics in forested catchments in Colorado. MacDonald et 

al. (1995) studied the relationship between WATSED-predicted water yield/peak flow 

increases and channel characteristics on the Kootenai National Forest. None of the channel 

types (pool riffle or colluvial step-pool) showed any increase in bankfull width or width-todepth ratio with more intensive management. However, correlations were found between 

management indices and sediment characteristics; these correlations suggest that sediment 

delivery is a more important consideration than water yield. Analysis of reference and 

managed streams on the Flathead National Forest suggests no relationship between bankfull 

width and the degree of management (Kendall 2011), a finding that is consistent with the 

results of MacDonald et al. (1995). Grant et al. (2008) concluded that the effects of peak flow 

increases are relatively minor in comparison to other anthropogenic changes to streams and 

watersheds. In general, channel impacts associated with peak flow increases alone are likely 

to be much less significant than other impacts associated with forest management activities.

In general, management-induced increases in peak flow diminish with the percentage of 

watershed impacted and increasing recurrence interval. Management effects on peak flow 

events over a 6-year recurrence interval are highly speculative (Grant et al. 2008). 

3.8.7.3.2 Sediment Yield

Although the NEZSED model did predict an increase in sediment yield, the increase was 

well below that allowable under Forest Plan Appendix A. In addition, road density in the 

Clear Creek watershed was reduced from 2.7 mi/mi2

 to 2.6 mi/mi2. 

Figure 3-11 shows the predicted sediment yield generated by the Clear Creek project and

routed to the mouth of Clear Creek, for each alternative. This includes the existing sediment 

yield over base from past project activities, plus the additional sediment yield generated from 

the Clear Creek project. 

3-147

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 205 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-11. Sediment yield over base (natural) routed to mouth of Clear Creek

The total routed sediment yield would range from 10 to 118 tons per year, depending on 

alternative (Table 3-39). This number was added to the base (natural) sediment yield of Clear 

Creek (2,762 tons/year) to determine the combined effects to the watershed. This is the 

amount of routed sediment yield delivered to the mouth of Clear Creek for the peak activity 

year of 2013. This number does not include private land activities on the downstream portion 

of the Clear Creek watershed. For the year 2013, Alternative C produces the highest increase 

in sediment yield over base, at 118 tons/year. At this highest level, the amount of sediment 

yield is only 4% over base (natural). The differences in the total sediment yields produced by 

the action alternatives are relatively inconsequential (<1%). 

Table 3-39. Tons of annual routed sediment yield over base (natural) to mouth of Clear Creek

Year 2011 2012 2013

Percent over 

base for Peak 

Activity Year 

2013

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Alt. A 10 10 10 0% 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Alt. B 10 10 114 4% 48 33 24 16 13 10 10

Alt. C 10 10 118 4% 51 36 26 17 13 10 10

Alt. D 10 10 97 3% 42 29 21 15 12 10 10

Implementation of project design measures, adherence to BMPs, and maintenance of 

PACFISH buffers would reduce potential erosion and further limit the risk of sediment 

reaching streams. Any sediment yield increases would be short-term (0–6 years), and 

beneficial uses in Clear Creek and the Middle Fork Clearwater River would be maintained.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Routed Sediment Yield Over Base

(Tons/Year)

Year

Sediment Yield Over Base (Natural) Routed to Mouth of 

Clear Creek 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

3-148

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 206 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Consultation and Coordination

Chapter 4–Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, State, and local 

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement:

4.1.1.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members

Matt Bienkowski,—Silviculture

Missy Dressen —Wildlife

Doug Graves—Fire/Fuels/Air Quality/Roadless

Clay Hayes—Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Lois Hill—Team Leader

Joe Hudson—District Ranger

Margaret Kirkeminde—GIS/Maps

Megan Lucas—Watershed/Soils

Steve Lucas—Heritage Resources

Lynelle Morelan—Roads 

Karen Smith—Fisheries/Aquatics

Michael Ward—CFLRA Coordinator

John Warofka—Botany

Tam White—Logging Systems/Economics/Layout 

4.1.1.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

City of Cottonwood, Idaho 

Idaho County Sheriff 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Department of Lands 

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office

Kamiah Chamber of Commerce, Kamiah, Idaho

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Resource Conservation Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

4.1.1.3 Tribes

Nez Perce Tribe

4-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 207 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Consultation and Coordination Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4.1.1.4 Others

Alliance for the Wild Rockies

The Clearwater Basin Collaborative

The Friends of the Clearwater

The Nature Conservancy

4-2 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 208 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Glossary and Acronyms

A 

Activity A measure, course of action, or treatment that is undertaken to 

directly or indirectly produce, enhance, or maintain forest and 

range land outputs or achieve administrative or environmental 

quality objectives.

Affected Environment The biological and physical environment that will or may be 

changed by actions proposed and the relationship of people to 

that environment.

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.

Alternative One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for 

decisionmaking. 

Anadromous Fish Fish which spend much of their adult life in the ocean, returning 

to inland waters to spawn; eg., salmon, steelhead.

Aquatic Ecosystem A stream channel, lake, or estuary bed, the water itself, and the 

biotic communities that occur therein.

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle. A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on 

three or more low-pressure tires; has handle-bar steering; is less 

than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat designed to be 

straddled by the operator.

4-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 209 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B 

Best Management 

Practices, BMP, BMPs

The set of standards in the Forest Plan which, when applied 

during implementation of a project, ensures that water related 

beneficial uses are protected and that State water quality 

standards are met. BMPs can take several forms. Some are 

defined by State regulation or memoranda of understanding 

between the Forest Service and the States. Others are defined by 

the Forest interdisciplinary planning team for application 

Forestwide. Both of these kinds of BMPs are included in the 

Forest Plan as forestwide standards. A third kind is identified by 

the interdisciplinary team for application to specific management 

areas. A fourth kind, project level BMPs, is based on site specific 

evaluation, and represents the most effective and practicable 

means of accomplishing the water quality and other goals of the 

specific evaluation, and represents the most effective and 

practicable means of accomplishing the water quality and other 

goals of the specific area involved in the project. These project 

level BMPs can either supplement or replace the Forest Plan 

standards for specific projects.

Big Game Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport 

hunting resource.

Big Game Summer 

Range

Land used by big game during the summer months.

Big Game Winter Range The area available to and used by big game through the winter 

season.

Biological Evaluation An assessment required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

to identify any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species which 

is likely to be affected by a proposed management action, and to 

evaluate the potential effects of the proposed action on the 

species or their habitats.

Biological Potential The maximum possible output of a given resource, limited only 

by its inherent physical and biological characteristics.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BO Biological Opinion

Browse Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs on which 

animals feed; in particular, those shrubs which are utilized by big 

game animals for food.

4-2 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 210 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

C 

Capability The potential of an area of land and/or water to produce 

resources, supply goods and services, and allow resource uses 

under a specified 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, 

practices such as silviculture, or protection from fires, insects, 

and disease.

Cavity A hollow in a tree which is used by birds or mammals for 

roosting and reproduction.

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Channel Morphology The study of the channel pattern and the channel geometry at 

several points along a river channel, including the network of 

tributaries within the drainage basin. Also known as 

fluviomorphology; stream morphology. 

Channel Type A system developed by hydrologist Dave Rosgen To classify and 

characterize similar stream channels. Water surface gradient and 

substrate particle size are the primary stream features used. Other 

features include bankfull width, width to depth ratio, 

entrenchment ratio, and floodprone width. 

Closed Roads Roads developed and operated for limited use. Public vehicular 

traffic is restricted except when they are operating under a permit 

or contract or in an emergency.

Closure The administrative order that does not allow specified uses in 

designated areas or on Forest development roads or trails.

Commodities Resources with commercial value; all resource products which 

are articles of commerce, such as timber, range, forage, and 

minerals.

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. 

4-3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 211 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cover Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators, or to 

protect themselves from weather conditions, or in which to 

reproduce.

CRB Columbia River Basin

Critical Habitat Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species 

on which are found those physical and biological features (1) 

essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may 

require special management considerations or protection. Critical 

habitat does not include the entire geographic area which may be 

occupied by a Threatened or Endangered species.

Cultural Resources The physical remains of human activities, such as artifacts, ruins, 

burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc., and the conceptual content or 

context, such as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric 

events as a sacred area of native peoples, etc., of an area.

Cumulative Effect The impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other actions.

Cumulative impacts can also result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

CWA Clean Water Act

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Areas

D 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

Desired Future 

Condition; DFC

Desired Future Condition; a desired condition of the land to be 

achieved sometime in the future.

Developed Recreation Recreation that occurs where improvements enhance recreation 

opportunities and accommodate intensive recreation activities in 

a defined area.

Direct Effects Effects on the environment which occur at the same time and 

place as the initial cause or action.

4-4 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 212 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Dispersed Recreation That portion of outdoor recreation use which occurs outside of 

developed sites in the unroaded and roaded Forest environment; 

i.e., hunting, backpacking, and berry picking.

Disturbance Any management activity that has the potential to accelerate 

erosion or mass movement; also any other activity that may tend 

to disrupt the normal movement or habits of a particular wildlife 

species. At the landscape scale, a disturbance would be a force, 

such as wildfire, disease, or large scale vegetation management, 

which can significantly alter existing ecosystem conditions. 

Diversity The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal 

communities and species within an area.

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement; Draft 

EIS; DEIS

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed written 

statement as required by Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act.

DRAMVU Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use

DSD Detrimental Soil Disturbance

E 

EAU Elk Analysis Unit

Economic Efficiency The usefulness of inputs (costs) to produce outputs (benefits) and 

effects when all costs and benefits that can be identified and 

valued are included in the computations. Economic efficiency is 

usually measured using present net value, though use of benefit 

cost ratios and rates of return may sometimes be appropriate.

Ecosystem A complete, interacting system of organisms considered together 

with their environment; a marsh, watershed, or lake, for example.

Effects (or Impacts) Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or 

experienced) resulting from natural events or management 

activities. Effects can be direct, indirect, and/or cumulative.

EHE Elk Habitat Effectiveness

Endemic Term applied to populations of potentially injurious plants, 

animals, or viruses that are at their normal, balanced, level, in an 

ecosystem in contrast to epidemic levels. Plant and animal 

diseases which are prevalent in or peculiar to a certain locality. 

4-5 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 213 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Elk Hiding Cover Vegetation, primarily trees, capable of hiding 90 percent of an elk 

seen from a distance of 200 feet or less.

Elk Security Area An area elk retreat to for safety when disturbance in their usual 

range is intensified, such as by logging activities or during the 

hunting season. To qualify as a security area, there must be at 

least 250 contiguous acres that are more than 1/2 mile from open 

roads.

Endangered Species Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and listed as such by the Secretary 

of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 

1973.

Energy Limited Streams An energy limited stream is generally a low energy, meandering 

type system with a large source of sediment in the bed and banks.

They tend to be more sensitive than supply limited systems to 

excess sediment deposition. They recovery slowly if at all from 

sediment depositing events.

Environment The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social 

factors affecting organisms in an area.

Environmental Analysis An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short and 

long term environmental effects which include physical, 

biological, economic, social, and environmental design factors 

and their interactions.

Environmental 

Assessment; EA

A concise public document for which a Federal agency is 

responsible that serves to: (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence 

and analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant 

Impact; (2) aid an agency's compliance with the National 

Environmental policy Act when no Environmental Impact 

Statement is necessary; and 93) facilitate preparation of an 

environmental impact statement when one is necessary.

Environmental Impact 

Statement; EIS

A concise public document for which a Federal agency is 

responsible that serves to (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence 

and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental 

impact statement or a finding of no significant impact; (2) aid an 

agency's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

when no environmental impact statement is necessary; and (3) 

facilitate preparation of an environmental impact statement when 

one is necessary. Also see DEIS, FEIS.

EO Executive Order

4-6 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 214 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Ephemeral A depression in the topography that carries surface water during 

peak rainfall events.

Epidemic Plant and animal diseases which rapidly build up to highly 

abnormal and generally injurious levels.

Erosion The wearing away of the lands's surface by water, wind, ice, or 

other physical processes. It includes detachment, transport, and 

deposition of soil or rock fragments.

ESA Endangered Species Act

Essential Habitat Areas with essentially the same characteristics as critical habitat 

but not declared as such. These habitats are necessary to meet 

recovery objectives for endangered, threatened, and proposed 

species.

F 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement; Final 

EIS; FEIS

Final Environmental Impact Statement. The final version of the 

public document required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (see Draft Environmental Impact Statement).

Floodplain Low land and relatively flat areas joining streams, rivers, and 

lakes which are periodically inundated by overbank flows of 

water.

Forage All browse and nonwoody plants available to livestock or wildlife 

for feed.

Forest Plan Nez Perce National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

September, 1987.

Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974

An act of Congress which requires the assessment of the nation's 

renewable resources and the periodic development of a national 

renewable resources program. It also requires the development, 

maintenance and, as appropriate, revision of land and resource 

management plans for National Forests.

Forest Type A classification of forest land based on the live tree species 

present.

FP Forest Plan

FR Federal Register

4-7 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 215 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FS Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

Fuels Includes both living plants and dead, woody vegetation that are 

capable of burning.

Fuels Management Manipulation or reduction of fuels to meet Forest protection and 

management objectives while preserving and enhancing 

environmental quality.

FWS, USFWS Fish and Wildlife Service

G 

Geographic Information 

System; GIS

Geographic Information System. A computer program for 

manipulating landscape configuration data.

Geomorphic Threshold The percent increase of sediment over normal or natural 

conditions which may result in unstable channel conditions in a 

stream system. 

H 

Habitat A place where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and 

grows.

Habitat Effectiveness The measure of how open roads affect utilization of habitat by 

elk.

Habitat Type An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing 

similar plant communities at climax.

Hiding Cover Trees of sufficient size and density to conceal animals from view 

at 200 feet. See Cover.

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

Hydrologic Recovery The process of revegetation of a disturbed area which returns the 

site to predisturbance levels of water runoff and timing of flow.

4-8 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 216 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

I 

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedures Act

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game

IDL Idaho Department of Lands

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Indicator Species Species identified in a planning process that are used to monitor 

the effects of planned management activities on viable 

populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially 

or economically important. See Management Indicator Species. 

Indigenous Having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or 

occurring naturally in a particular region or environment.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or 

further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy (July 28, 1995)

INFRA Infrastructure Database (the database of record for Forest Service 

roads and trails)

Interdisciplinary Team; 

ID Team; IDT

Interdisciplinary Team. A group of individuals with different 

training assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The 

team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific 

discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem.

Through interaction, participants bring different points of view to 

bear on the problem.

Invasive Species Any non-native plant, such as spotted knapweed or yellow star 

thistle, which when established may become destructive and 

difficult to control by ordinary means of cultivation or other 

control practices. 

4-9 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 217 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Inventory Data Recorded measurements, facts, evidence, or observations of 

forest resources such as soil, water, timber, wildlife, range, 

geology, minerals, and recreation, which is used to determine the 

capability and opportunity of the forest to be managed for those 

resources.

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

Irretrievable Foregone or lost production, harvest, or use of renewable natural 

resources. For example, when fire destroys a tree plantation, the 

effect is irretrievable but the loss of site productivity as measured 

by the presence of trees is not irreversible.

Irreversible The removal of resources such that they cannot be produced gain.

This applies most commonly to nonrenewable resources such as 

minerals or cultural resources, or to resources such as soil 

productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time.

Loss of renewable resources can also be irreversible as in the 

replacement of a forest with a road.

Issue A subject or question of widespread public discussion or interest 

regarding management of National Forest System lands.

K 

Key Wildlife Habitat 

Components

Areas or features of the forest which are of particular importance 

for maintaining overall wildlife habitat. These areas and features 

include moist areas, wallows, meadows, parks, critical hiding 

cover, thermal cover, migration routes, and staging areas.

L 

Land Allocation The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land 

areas to achieve the goals of the issues, concerns, and 

opportunities identified during the planning process.

4-10

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 218 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Landtype; Landtype 

Association; LTA

Landtype Association. An area of land classified on the basis of 

geomorphic attributes. An understanding of geologic processes, 

as reflected in land surface form and features, individual kinds of 

soil, and the factors which determine the behavior of ecosystems 

(i.e., climate, vegetation, relief, parent materials, and time) is 

used as the basis for this classification system.

LAU Lynx Analysis Unit

M 

MA Management Area

MA 1 Provide the minimum management necessary to provide for 

resource protection and to ensure public safety. Additional road 

construction will be allowed to manage adjacent areas.

MA 2 Provide and maintain sites for facilities necessary for the 

administration of Nez Perce National Forest lands.

MA 3 Manage to ensure that prehistorical, historical, archaeological, 

and/or paleontological sites are studied, preserved, or protected. 

MA 4 Encourage valid exploration and development of mineral 

resources while minimizing surface impacts from mineral 

activities.

MA 6 Manage areas for nonmanipulative research, observation, and 

study of undisturbed ecosystems.

MA 7 Manage for developed recreation opportunities, providing 

interpretation and enhancement of cultural and natural resources. 

Maintain or enhance existing developed recreation sites.

MA 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 Manage for outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing 

river conditions as specified in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 

1968, as amended.

MA 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 Manage the wilderness values as specified by the Wilderness 

Preservation Act of 1964. 

MA 10 Manage to protect or enhance riparian-dependent resources.

MA 11 Manage for high fishery/water quality objectives, wildlife 

security, and high quality dispersed recreation with no additional 

roads.

4-11

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 219 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

MA 12 Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis.

MA 13 Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis while meeting visual quality objectives of 

retention or partial retention on those areas of medium to high 

visual sensitivity. This management area consists of intermingled 

acreages of lands similar to those found in management areas 12 

and 17. The heterogeneous spatial mix of these lands is the 

primary reason for identifying them as unique management areas.

MA 14 Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis while meeting visual quality objectives of 

retention or partial retention and improving the quality of winter 

range habitat for deer and elk. This management area consists of 

intermingled acreages of lands similar to those found in

management areas 12, 16, and 17. The heterogeneous spatial mix 

of these lands is the primary reason for identifying them as 

unique management areas.. 

MA 15 Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis while improving the quality of deer and elk 

winter range. This management area consists of intermingled 

acreages of lands similar to those found in management areas 12 

and 16. The heterogeneous spatial mix of these lands is the 

primary reason for identifying them as unique management areas.

MA 16 Manage to increase usable forage for elk and deer on potential 

winter range.

MA 17 Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis while meeting visual quality objectives of 

retention or partial retention. 

MA 18 Manage to improve the quality of winter range habitat for deer 

and elk through timber harvesting or prescribed burning while 

meeting visual quality objectives of retention or partial retention 

on appropriate areas. This management area consists of 

intermingled acreages of lands similar to those found in 

management areas 16 and 17. The heterogeneous spatial mix of 

these lands is the primary reason for identifying them as unique 

management areas.

MA 19 Manage for livestock forage production and other multiple uses 

on a sustained yield basis.

MA 20 Manage for old-growth habitat for dependent species.

4-12

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 220 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

MA 21 Manage grand fir-Pacific yew communities for moose winter 

range and other multiple uses.

MA 22, 23 Manage to ensure that the Idaho water quality standards for 

community public supply water uses are met.

Management Area An aggregation of capability areas which have common 

management direction and may be noncontiguous in the forest.

Consists of a grouping of capability areas selected through 

evaluation procedures and used to locate decisions and resolve 

issues and concerns.

Management Practice A technique or procedure commonly applied to forest resources, 

resulting in measurable outputs or activities.

Management 

Prescription

Management practices and intensities selected and scheduled for 

application on a specific area to attain multiple use and other 

goals and objectives.

Mine A mining claim on which the claimant has gained title to all 

property rights; the land is no longer public domain, and is 

private property.

Mining Claims A geographic area of the public lands held under the general 

mining laws in which the right of exclusive possession is vested 

in the locator of a valuable mineral deposit. Includes lode claims, 

placer claims, mill sites and tunnel sites.

Mitigation Avoiding or minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the 

impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; reducing or eliminating the impact by preservation 

and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Management Direction A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, the 

associated management prescriptions and the associated standards 

and guidelines for attaining them.

Management Indicator 

Species

A plant or animal which, by its presence in a certain location or 

situation, is believed to indicate the habitat conditions for many 

other species.

MIS Management Indicator Species

4-13

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 221 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Model A theoretical projection in detail of a possible system of natural 

resource relationships. A simulation based on an empirical 

calculation to set potential or outputs of a proposed action or 

actions.

Monitoring An examination, on a sample basis of Forest Plan management 

practices, to determine how well objectives have been met and a 

determination of the effects of those management practices on the 

land and environment.

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map

N 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

National Environmental 

Policy Act; NEPA 

Process

National Environmental Policy Act. An act to declare a national 

policy that will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony 

between man and his environment, to promote efforts that will 

prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, 

and stimulate the health and welfare of man, to enrich the 

understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources 

important to the nation, and to establish a Council on 

Environmental Quality. An interdisciplinary process, mandated 

by the National Environmental Policy Act, which concentrates 

decisionmaking around issues, concerns, alternatives, and the 

affects of alternatives on the environment

National Forest 

Management Act

A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that require the 

preparation of Regional and Forest plans and the preparation of 

regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System All National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public 

domains of the United States; all National Forest lands acquired 

through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the 

National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered 

under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 

525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and other lands, waters, or interests 

therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are 

designated for administration through the Forest Service as part 

of the system.

4-14

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 222 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

National Recreation 

Trails

Trails designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary 

of Agriculture as part of the national system of trails authorized 

by the National Trails System Act. National recreation trails 

provide a variety of outdoor recreation uses in or reasonably 

accessible to urban areas.

National Register of 

Historic Places

A listing maintained by the National Park Service of areas which 

have been designated as being of historical value. The Register 

includes place of local and State significance as well as those of 

value to the nation as a whole.

Natural Sediment 

Production

The amount of sediment produced in a watershed prior to any 

management activities such as roads or harvest. Natural, or 

baseline, sediment is a function of parent material, soil type, 

degree of weathering, glacial influences, etc.

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NEZSED A computer model that analyzes and predicts effects of activities 

on water quality and quantity.

NF NF National Forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest system

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

No Action Alternative An alternative where no management activities would occur 

beyond those currently under way. The development of a No 

Action Alternative is requested by regulations implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The No 

Action Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects 

of other alternatives.

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPT Nez Perce Tribe

NRLMD Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

4-15

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 223 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

O 

Objective A specified statement of measurable results to be achieved within 

a stated time period. Objectives reflect alternative mixes of all 

outputs of achievements which can be attained at a given budget 

level. Objectives may be expressed as a range of outputs.

Off-Highway Vehicle; 

OHV

Off Highway Vehicle. Vehicles such as four and three wheelers, 

motorcycles, and bicycles which are designed to operate on 

primitive roads and trails, or to navigate cross country where 

there are no constructed travelways.

ORV Off-Road Vehicle. Please see “Off-Highway Vehicle.”

P 

PACFISH The Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant 

Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the interim strategies 

for managing anadromous fish producing watersheds in eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California.

Published by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management in 1995.

Patented Mining Claim A patent is a document which conveys title to land. When 

patented, a mining claim becomes private property and is land 

over which the United States has no property rights, except as 

may be reserved in the patent. After a mining claim is patented, 

the owner does not have to comply with requirements of the 

General Mining Law or implementing regulations.

Perennial Stream A stream which normally flows throughout the year. 

PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes

PL Public Law

Preferred Alternative The agency's preferred alternative, one or more, that is identified 

in the impact statement.

Prescription Management practices selected and scheduled for application on 

a designated area to attain specific goals and objectives.

Productivity See Site Productivity

4-16

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 224 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Proposed Action In terms of the 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. 

Public Access Usually refers to a road or trail route over which a public agency 

claims a right-of-way available for public use.

Public Involvement A Forest Service process designed to broaden the information 

based upon which agency decisions are made by (1) informing 

the public about Forest Service activities, plans, and decisions, 

and (2) encouraging public understanding about and participation 

in the planning processes which lead to final decision making.

Public Issue A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to 

management of the National Forest System.

R 

Range Allotment A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon 

which a specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed 

under a range allotment management plan. It is the basic land unit 

used to facilitate management of the range resource on National 

Forest System and associated lands administered by the Forest 

Service.

Ranger District Administrative subdivision of the Forest supervised by a District 

Ranger.

RARE II Roadless Area Review and Evaluation

Record of Decision A document separate from but associated with an environmental 

impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the 

responsible official's decision about an alternative assessed in the 

environmental impact statement chosen for implementation.

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

The framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor 

recreation environments, activities, and experiences which are 

arranged along a continuum or spectrum that is divided into seven 

classes: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive 

motorized, roaded modified, roaded natural, rural, and urban.

4-17

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 225 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation Visitor Day Recreational use of National Forest developed sites or general 

forest areas which equals 12 visitor hours. A Recreation Visitor 

Day (RVD) may consist of 1 person for 12 hours, 12 persons for 

1 hour, or any equivalent combination of continuous or 

intermittent recreation use by individuals or groups. 1 person in a 

campground for 24 hours equals 2 RVD’s. 

Regional Guide A document developed to meet the requirements of the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as 

amended, that guides all natural resource management activities 

and established management standards and guidelines for 

National Forest System lands of a given Region to the national 

forest within a given Region. It also disaggregates the RPA 

objectives assigned to the Region to the Forests within that 

Region.

Revegetation The reestablishment and development of plant cover. This may 

take place naturally through the reproductive processes of the 

existing flora or artificially through the direct action of man; eg., 

reforestation, range reseeding.

Right-Of-Way Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction 

operation, maintenance, and termination of a project facility 

passing over, upon, under, or through such land.

Riparian Areas Areas with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are 

comprised of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 100-year 

floodplains and wetlands. They also include all upland areas 

within a horizontal distance of approximately 100 feet from the 

edge of perennial streams or other perennial water bodies.

RMO Resource Management Objective

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

ROW Right-of-Way

RNA Research Natural Area

Road Management The combination of both traffic and maintenance management 

operations. Traffic management is the continuous process of 

analyzing, controlling, and regulating uses to accomplish 

National Forest objectives. Maintenance management is the 

perpetuation of the transportation facility to serve intended 

management objectives.

4-18

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 226 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Roadless Area An area of National Forest which (1) is larger than 5,000 acres or, 

if smaller, is contiguous to a designated wilderness area or 

primitive area, 92) contains no roads, and (3) has been 

inventoried by the Forest Service for possible inclusion in the 

wilderness preservation system.

Roadless Area Review 

and Evaluation 

A comprehensive process instituted in June 1977 to identify 

roadless and undeveloped land areas in the National Forest 

System and to develop alternatives for both wilderness and other 

resource management. The second roadless area review and 

evaluation was conducted on public lands in 1977. This inventory 

has been updated for this analysis to exclude any area affected by 

recent development and no longer considered roadless.

Rotation The planned number of years between the formation of 

generation of trees and their harvest at a specified stage of 

maturity.

Rural These areas are characterized by recreation sites that can be used 

by large numbers of people at one time.

S 

SBW Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Scoping The procedures by which the Forest Service determines the extent 

of analysis necessary for a proposed action; i.e., the range of 

actions, alternatives and impacts to be addressed, identification of 

significant issues related to a proposed action, and establishing 

the depth of environmental analysis, data, and task assignments 

needed.

Security Area Any area which, because of its geography, topography, and/or 

vegetation, will hold elk during periods of stress. For this project, 

a security area is defined as a block of dense forested cover at 

least 250 acres in size and located at least 1/2 mile from any 

roads open to motorized traffic during the general hunting season.

Sediment Any material, carried in suspension by water, which will 

ultimately settle to the bottom of streams.

Sediment Delivery 

Efficiency

A term describing how efficiently sediment is transported within 

a given portion of a stream.

4-19

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 227 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Sediment Yield The amount of material eroded from the land surface by runoff 

and delivered to a stream system.

Semi-Primitive NonMotorizedThere is a high quality of experiencing solitude, closeness to 

nature, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk. 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized

There is a moderate opportunity for solitude, tranquility, and 

closeness to nature. 

Sensitive Species Species (plants or animals) with special habitat needs that may be 

influenced by management programs.

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

Site Productivity The production capability of specific areas of land.

Skid Trails A travelway through the woods formed by loggers dragging 

(skidding) logs from the stump to a log landing without dropped a 

blade and without purposefully changing the geometric 

configuration of the ground over which they travel.

Slash The residue left on the ground after felling and other silvicultural 

operations and/or accumulating there as a result of storm, fire, 

girdling, or poisoning.

Snag A standing dead tree used by birds for nesting, roosting, perching, 

courting, or foraging for food and by some mammals for escape 

cover, denning, and reproduction.

Snowmobile Any self-propelled vehicle under one thousand pounds unladened 

gross weight, designed primarily for travel on snow or ice or over 

natural terrain, which may be steered by tracks, skis, or runners.

Also see “over-snow vehicle.”

Soil Productivity The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop such as fiber and 

forage, under defined levels of management. It is generally 

dependent on available soil moisture and nutrients and length of 

growing season.

Stand A plant community of trees which possess uniformity in 

vegetation type, age class, vigor, size class, and stocking class 

and one which is distinguishable from adjacent forest 

communities.

Standard An objective requiring a specific level of attainment; a rule to 

measure against; a guiding principle.

4-20

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 228 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

Stream Order A measure of the position of a perennial stream in the hierarchy 

of tributaries. First order streams are unbranched streams; they 

have no tributaries. Second order streams are formed by the 

confluence of two or more first order streams. Third order 

streams are formed by the confluence of two or more second 

order streams; they are considered third order until they join 

another third order or larger stream.

Subnivean A zone that is in or under the snow layer. It can form when latent 

heat from the ground melts a thin layer of snow above it, leaving 

a layer of air between the ground and the snow. Subnivean 

animals include small mammals such as mice, voles, shrews, and 

lemmings that must rely on winter snow cover for survival. These 

mammals move under the snow for protection from heat loss and 

predators

Successional Stage A phase in the gradual supplanting of one community of plants 

by another.

Suitable Forest Land Forest land (as defined in CFR 219.13) for which technology is 

available that will ensure timber production without irreversible 

resource damage to soils, productivity or watershed conditions; 

for which there is reasonable assurance that such lands can be 

adequately restocked (as provided in CFR 219.14), and for which 

there is management direction that indicates that timber 

production is an appropriate use of that area.

Supply Limited Stream A supply (sediment) limited stream has more energy available 

during a typical year than there is sediment in the stream channel 

available to be moved. The excess energy leads to a resilience 

that enables the system to recover and cleanse itself if extreme 

sediment loads are not delivered in a short period of time.

System Road; Forest 

System Road

A road that is part of the Forest development transportation 

system, which includes all existing and planned roads, as well as 

other special and terminal facilities designated as Forest 

development transportation facilities.

T 

Temporary Roads Roads which are constructed for a one time or short term use 

which are not expected to be utilized in the future. These roads 

will be obliterated after the need is past.

Terrestrial Living or growing on land; not aquatic.

4-21

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 229 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Glossary and Acronyms Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Thermal Cover Cover used by animals to ameliorate effects of weather; for elk, a 

stand of coniferous trees 40 feet or taller with an average crown 

closure of 70 percent or more.

Threatened Species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of a significant portion of its 

range and one that has been designated as a threatened species in 

the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior.

Timber A general term for the major woody growth of vegetation in a 

forest area.

Timber Base The lands within the Forest that are suitable for timber production.

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

Topography The configuration of land surface including its relief, elevation, 

and the position of its natural and man-made figures.

Trailhead The parking, signing, and other facilities available at terminus of a 

trail.

Turbidity Sediment or foreign particles stirred up or suspended in water.

U 

Understory Vegetation (trees or shrubs) growing under the canopy formed by 

taller trees.

Unsuitable Timber Land Lands not selected for timber production are Step II and Step III 

of the suitability analysis during the development of the Forest 

Plan due to (1) the multiple use objectives for the alternative 

preclude timber production, (2) other management objectives for 

the alternative limit timber production activities to the point 

where management requirements set for thin 36 CFR 219.27 

cannot be met, and (3) the lands are not cost efficient over the 

planning production. Land not appropriate for timber production 

shall be designated as unsuitable in the Forest Plan. 

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

4-22

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 230 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary and Acronyms

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

V 

Viewshed A total landscape as seen from a particular viewpoint.

Visual Quality 

Objectives; VQOs

The degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic 

landscape.

Visual 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 the unit may have for visitors.

W 

Wallow A depression, pool of water, or wet area produced or utilized by 

elk or moose during the breeding season.

WATBAL A computer model that analyzes and predicts effects of activities 

on water quality and quantity.

Watershed The total area above a given point on a stream that contributes 

water to the flow at that point.

Wilderness Character Wilderness character attributes are: Natural Integrity, Apparent 

Naturalness, Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude, and 

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation. These 

features were evaluated using capability analyses as conducted in 

1978 using the Wilderness Attribute Rating (WAR) System and 

in 2005 using the Area Capability Assessment (ACA) Process. 

These analysis techniques rate wilderness character attributes as 

identified by the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

4-23

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 231 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 232 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

References 

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island 

Press.

Ager, A.A. and C. Clifton. 2005. Software for calculating vegetation distur¬bance and 

recovery by using the equivalent clearcut area model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-637. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 11 p. 

Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1983. Sand sediments in a Michigan trout stream. 

Part II. Effects of reducing sand bedload on a trout population. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 3:365-372. 

Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:9-23. 

Andersen, D. E., S. E. DeStefano, M. I. Goldstein, K. Titus, C. Crocker-Bedford, J. J. 

Keane, R. G. Anthony, and R. N. Rosenfield. 2005. Technical review of the 

status of northern goshawks in the western United States. Journal of Raptor 

Research 39:192-209. 

Archer, V. 2008. Clearwater Soil Monitoring: Soils Report. Orofino, ID: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest.

Arnett, E. B and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Presence, Relative Abundance, and resource 

selection of bats in managed forest landscapes in western Oregon. Dissertation 

for Doctor of Philosophy in Forest Science. Oregon State University. 245 pp. 

Arno, S. F.; D.J. Parsons, and R.E. Keane. 2002. Mixed-severity fire regimes in the 

northern Rocky Mountains: consequences of fire exclusion and options for the 

future., In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, 

Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conferenceVolume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; 

Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 225-232 

Bartelt, P.E., C.R. Peterson, and R.W. Klaver. 2004. Sexual difference in the postbreeding movements and habitats selected by western toads (Bufo boreas) in 

southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica 60(4): 455-467. 

Berglund, D. R. Bush, and R. Lundberg. 2008 Region One Vegetation Council Existing 

Forested Vegetation Classification System and Application to Inventory and 

Mapping. USDA FS, Region 1, Report 08-02 version 4.0. February 8, 2008. 

Bjornn, T.C., M.A. Brusven, M.P. Molnau, J.H. Milligan, R.A. Klampt, E. Chacho, and 

C. Shaye. 1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and its effects on 

insects and fish. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife, and Range 

Experiment Station. Water Resource Institute, Proj. B-036-IDA.

Bollenbacher, B, R. Bush, and R. Lundberg. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for 

northern Idaho forests in the Northern Region. US Forest Service, Northern 

4-25

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 233 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Region. Missoula, MT. Available: 

http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/forest/inv/fia_data/nid_snag_esti_12_09.pdf 

Brackebusch, A. P. 1973. Fuel Management – A prerequisite, not an alternative to fire 

control. Journal of Forestry. 

Bull, E. L. 2006. Sexual differences in the ecology and habitat selection of western toads 

(Bufo boreas) in northeastern Oregon. Pacific Northwest Research Station La 

Grande, OR. Herpetologicial Conservation and Biology 1(1):27-38. Available: 

http://www.herpconbio.org/volume_1/issue_1/Bull_2006.pdf 

Bull, E. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). No. 148. 

A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA. 

Bull, E. L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated 

woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 335-

345. 

Burroughs, E. R. Jr. 1990. Predicting onsite sediment yield from forest roads. 

Proceedings of Conference XXI, International Erosion Control Association, 

Erosion Control: Technology in Transition. Washington DC, February 14-17, 

1990. Pages 223-232. 

Burroughs, E.R., Jr. and J. G. King. 1985. Surface erosion control on roads in granitic 

soils. Proceedings of Symposium Sponsored by Committee on Watershed 

Management, Irrigation & Drainage Div., ASCE, ASCE Convention, Denver, 

CO, April 30-May 1, 1985. 183-190. 

Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station, Odgen, UT. July 1989. 21 p. 

Bush, R. and R. Lundberg. 2008. Wildlife habitat estimates updates for the Region One 

Conservation Assessment: Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, 

Inventory and Analysis Report 08-04 v1.0. 

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American 

martens, martens, sables, and fishers. S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. 

Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 

USA. 

Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. The American marten. Pages 7-38 in 

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. 

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, 

editors. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, USA. 

Byler, J.W. and Hagle, S.K. USDA, Forest Service. 2000, Successional Functions of 

Pathogens and Insects for Ecoregion Sections M332a and M333d in Northern 

Idaho and Western Montana- Volume 2-Results and Conclusions. Forest Service, 

State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Northern Region, FHP 

Report No. 00-11, July 2000. 

4-26

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 234 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Byler, James W. and Sara Zimmer-Gorve. 1990. A Forest Health Perspective on Interior 

Douglas-fir Management. In Interior Douglas-fir: The Species and Its 

Management. Washington State University, Dept. of Natural Resource Sciences, 

Cooperative Extension. Page 103. 

Clayton, J. L. 1981. Soil disturbance caused by clearcutting and helicopter yarding in the 

Idaho batholith. Ogden, UT: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research note INT-305. 

Clayton, J. L. 1990. Soil disturbance resulting from skidding logs on granitic soils in 

central Idaho. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research note INT-436. 

Cleland, D. T., P. E. Avers, W. H. McNab, M. E. Jensen, R. G. Bailey, T. King, And W. 

E. Russell. et al. 1997. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. 

Published in: Boyce, M.S. Hanley, A., eds. 1997. Ecosystem management 

applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press.

Cooper, S.V., K. E. Neiman, D. W. Roberts, 1991. Forest Habitat Types of Northern 

Idaho: A Second Approximation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station, General Technical Report INT-236. 

Crawford, R. C. 1983. Pacific yew community ecology with implications to forest land 

man-agement in north central Idaho. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 109pp. 

Crookston, N. L., 1999. Percent canopy Cover and Stand Structure from the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator. RMRS-GTR-24, USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Curran, M.P., R.L. Heninger, D.G, Maynard, and R.F. Powers. 2005a. Harvesting effects 

on soils, tree growth, and long-term productivity. In: C.A. Harrington and S.H. 

Schoenholtz eds. Productivity of western forests: A forest products focus. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-642. 

Curran, M.P., R.E. Miller, S.W. Howes , D.G. Maynard, T.A. Terry, R.L. Heninger, T. 

Niemann, K. van Rees, R.F. Powers, S.H. Schoenholtz. 2005b. Progress towards 

more uniform assessment and reporting of soil disturbance for operations, 

research, and sustainability protocols. Forest Ecology and Management 220 

(2005):17–30. 

Dixon, G. E., 2002. Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

USDA, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 

Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: 

W. H. Freeman. 

Engle, J.C., and C.E. Harris. 2001. Idaho Species of Special Concern Element State 

Ranking Reviews. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Conservation 

Data Center, Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. 104 p. 

4-27

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 235 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Espinosa, A. 1992. DFC fisheries model and analysis procedures, A training module. 

Orofino, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Clearwater 

National Forest.

FEMAT, 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social 

assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U. 

S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Interior, and EPA. 

Finney, M.A., and J.D. Cohen. 2003. Expectation and evaluation of fuel management 

objectives. In: P.N. Omi (ed.) Proceedings of fire, fuel treatments, and ecological 

restoration, April 14-17 Fort. Collins CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29, PP 353-366. PF DOC. FF-31 

Fleming R.L., R.F. Powers, N.W. Foster, J.M. Kranabetter, D.A. Scott, F. Ponder Jr., S. 

Berch, W.K Chapman, R.D. Kabzems, K.H. Ludovici, D.M. Morris, D.S. PageDumroese, P.T. Sandborn, F.G. Sanchez, D.M. Stone, and A.E. Tiarks. 2006. 

Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on 5-

year seedling performance: A regional comparison of long-term soil productivity 

sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:529–550. 

Foltz, R. B., K. A. Yanosek, and T. M. Brown. 2007. Sediment concentration and 

turbidity changes during culvert removals. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 12 pgs. 

Foltz, R. B., K A. Yanosek, and T. M. Brown. 2008. Sediment concentration and 

turbidity changes during culvert removals. Journal of Environmental 

Management 87 (2008) 329-240. 

Fowler, W.B., J.D. Helvey, and E.N. Felix. 1987. Hydrologic and climatic changes in 

three small watersheds after timber harvest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Res. Paper PNW-RP-379. Portland Oregon. 

Frankel, S.J, 1998. Technical Coordinator, User’s Guide to the Western Root Disease 

Model, Version 3.0. PSW-GTR-165, USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 

Franklin, J.F., D.R. Berg, D.A. Thornburg, J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Alternative 

silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. 

In: Kohm, K.A. and 

Franklin, J.F. and K. N. Johnson. 2011. Moist Forest Principles and Prescriptions 

(Emphasizing the creation of diverse early successional ecosystems through 

variable retention regeneration harvest). Unpublished 

Froehlich, H., A.; McNabb, D.H. 1983. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific 

Northwest forests. In: E. L. Stone (ed). Forest soils and treatment impacts. 

Proceedings of Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference. Knoxville, TN: 

University of Tennessee.

Froehlich, H.A., D.W. R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1983. Soil bulk density recovery on 

compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Science Society of America Journal 

49:1015 1017. 

4-28

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 236 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Froehlich, H.A. and P.W. Adams. 1984. Compaction of forest soils. Pacific Northwest 

Extension. PNW-217. 

Gerhardt, N. 2000. A brief history of water yield and ECA guidelines on the Nez Perce 

National Forest. Unpublished report available at the Nez Perce National Forest , 

Grangeville, ID. 4p. 

Grace, J.M. III and B. D. Clinton. 2006. Forest Road Management to Protect Soil and 

Water. ASABE Paper No. 068010. Presented at ASABE Annual International 

Meeting, Portland, OR, July 9-12, 2006. 

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. PageDumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky 

Mountains. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper INT-RP-477. 

Graham, R.T., T.B. Jain, and A.E. Harvey. 1999. Fuel: Logs, sticks, needles, duff and 

much more. In Proceedings, Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop. 

Crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological 

principles for a new age in fire management. L.F. Neunschwander, K.C. Ryan, 

G.E. Gollberg, and J.D. Greer (editors). Boise, ID. 

Graham, R. T.; T. B.Jain. 2005. Ponderosa pine ecosystems In: Ritchie, Martin W.; 

Maguire, DouglasA.; Youngblood, Andrew, tech. coordinators. Proceedings of 

the Symposium on Ponderosa Pine: Issues, Trends, and Management, 2004 

October 18-21, Klamath Falls, OR. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-198. 

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture: 1-32 

Grant, G E.; S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of 

forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-ofscience report for western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR760. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 76 p. 

Green, P, J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-growth 

forest types of the Northern Region (errata corrected 2/2005). USDA Forest 

Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT 59807. Available: 

http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/forest/inv/project/old_growth.htm 

Groves, C., T. Fredrick, G. Frederick, E. Atkinson, M. Atkinson, J. Shepard, and G. 

Servheen. 1997. Density, distribution, and habitat of flammulated owls in Idaho. 

Great Basin Naturalist 57: 116-123. 

Guscio, C. G., B.R. Hossack, L.A. Eby, and P.S. Corn. 2007. Post-breeding habitat use 

by fboreal toads (Bufo Boreas) after wildire in Glacier National Park, USA. 

Herpetological conservation and Biology 3 (1): 55-62. 

Hagle, S. K. 2006. Armillaria Root Disease and Management. USDA Forest Service, 

Forest Health Protection. Report 11.1. 

4-29

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 237 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Hann, W. J., and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and 

implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

10:389-403. 

Hardy, C. C., K. M. Schmidt, J. M. Menakis, and N. R. Samson. 2001. Spatial data for 

national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire 10:353-372. 

Harvey, A. E., J. W. Byler, G.I McDonald, L.F. Neuenschwander, J.R. Tonn. 2008. 

Death of an Ecosystem: Perspectives on Western White Pine Ecosystems of 

North America at the End of the Twentieth Century. Gen. Tech. Report. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

RMRS-GTR-208. 

Heekin, P.E. and C.A. Vogel. 1995. Mountain quail: High jumpers. Idaho Wildlife, 

IDFG, Boise, ID.

Hillis, J.M., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, and 

D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm. In 

Proceedings of elk vulnerability symposium. Edited by Christiansen, A.G., L.J. 

Lyon, and T.N. Lonner. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana (Pages 

38-43). 

Howie, R. R. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Distribution, habitat selection, and densities of 

Flammulated Owls in British Columbia. Pages 249-254 in Biology and 

conservation of northern forest owls. (Nero, R. W., R. J. Clark, R. J. Knapton, 

and R. H. Hamre, Eds.) U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142. 

Hudack, A., I. Rickert, P. Morgan, E. Strand, S. A. Lewis, P. R. Robichaud, C. Hoffman, 

Z. A. Holden. 2011. Review of fuel treatment effectiveness in forests and 

rangelands and a case study from the 2007 megafires in central Idaho USA. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-252. 

Hutto, R .L. 1995a. Composition of bird communities following stand replacement fires 

in Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9: 

1041-1058. 

Hutto, R.L. 1995b. Black-backed Woodpecker. 

Hutto, R.L. 2007. Black-backed Woodpecker. 

Idaho County. 2009. Idaho County Revised Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire 

Mitigation Plan Committee in cooperation with Northwest Management, Inc. 

2009. Idaho County, Idaho, Wildfire Mitigation Plan. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2011. Idaho 2010 Integrated 

Report (303d/305b list). IDEQ, Boise, Idaho. Available at: 

http://www.deq.state.id.us/water-quality/surface-water/monitoringassessment/integrated-report.aspx#2010-IR

4-30

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 238 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2010. Idaho’s 2010 Integrated 

Report. Found at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surfacewater/monitoring-assessment/integrated-report.aspx. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2008. Elk surveys and inventories progress 

report: Big game population status, trends, use and associated habitat studies. W170-R-32. Boise, Idaho. 24-29. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2010. Idaho Conservation Data Center. 

Lynx. 

Idaho Digital Atlas. 2010. Available: 

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/amph/main/amphmnfr.htm. Accessed 9/17/12. 

Ring-necked snake 

Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 1998. Economic and 

social conditions of communities: economic and social characteristics of interior 

Columbia basin communities and an estimation of effects on communities from 

the alternatives of the eastside and upper Columbia River Basin Draft 

Environmental Impact Statements. USDA-FS, USDI-BLM.

Idaho Partners In Flight. 2000. Mountain Quail. 

Jain, T. B., R. T. Graham. 2007. The Relation Between Tree Burn Severity and Forest 

Structure in the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-203. 2007. 

Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in northcentral Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, Idaho, USA. 

Kapler-Smith, J.; W.C. Fischer. 1997, Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of 

Northern Idaho. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-363. 

Keane, R. E., S.F. Arno. 1996. Whitebark pine ecosystem restoration in western 

Montana., 1996., In: Hardy, Coliln C.; Arno, Stephen F., eds. The use of fire in 

restoration. General Technical Report. INT-GTR-341. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. P. 

51-53. 

Keinath, D.A. 2004. The fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation 

assessment. Prepared for the Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service, 

Species Conservation Project. 100pp. 

Kendall, C. N. 2011. Comparison of stream channel and aquatic habitat conditions in 

reference and managed watersheds. Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, MT.

Kennedy, P. L. 1997. The northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis atricapillus): is there 

evidence of a population decline. Raptor Research 31:95-106. 

4-31

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 239 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Kennedy, P. L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical 

conservation assessment. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project, Denver, Colorado, USA. 

Kirk and Naylor. 1996. Pileated Woodpecker. 

Knight. 1994. Bats. 

Korb, J. E., Johnson N. C., Covington W.W. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil 

biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendation for 

Amelioration. Restoration Ecology 12(1):52-62. 

Leege, T.A. (1984). Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer elk habitat in 

northern Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Wildlife bulletin Number 

11, 37pp. 

Lloyd, Rebecca A.; K. A. Lohse, and T.P.A. Ferré. 2010. Influence of road reclamation 

prescription on ecosystem recovery trajectory. Draft. 

MacDondald, L.H., E.E. Wohl, S.W. Madsen. 1995. Validation of water yield thresholds 

on the Kootenai National Forest. Department of Earth Resources, Colorado State 

University. Fort Collins, CO. 

Main, W. A., D. M. Paananen, and R. E. Burgan. 1990. FIREFAMILY 1988. St. Paul 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. General Technical Report NC-138. 

Mannan, A. L, E. H. Taliaferro and M. K. Little. 1996. Annual and diel harvest rates of 

leaf‐cutter ants. Dartmouth Studies in Tropical Ecology p. 78 ‐ 9. 

McGaughey, R. J. 2002. Creating Visual Simulations of Fuel Conditions Predicted by 

the Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest 

Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-P-25. 

McNab and Avers. 1994. Bailey’s ecosections were used to summarize historic 

vegetation information. USDA. Forest Service

McNeel, J.F. and T.M. Ballard. 1992. Analysis of site stand impacts from thinning with 

a harvester-forwarder system. Journal of Forest Engineering (1992):23–29. 

Meehan, W. (editor). 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on 

Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Road Construction and Maintenance 

Chapter 8 (pp. 297- 323). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Megahan, W.F. 1980. Nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities in the western 

United States: Results of recent research and research needs. In US. Forestry and 

Water Quality: What Course in the 80s? An Analysis of Environmental and 

Economic Issues. Proceedings, 92-151. June 19-20, 1980, Richmond, VA. 

Washington, DC: Water Pollution Control Federation. 

Millar, C. I., N. L Stephenson and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forest of 

the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8), 

2007, pp. 2145-2151, Ecological Society of America. 

4-32

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 240 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

NatureServce 2012. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. 

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on soils and water. Revised. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-

Vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 250p. 

Nesser and others, 1997. Ecological Units of the Northern Region: Subsections 

(Veg)cover types to the settings, a map of potential vegetation types was used 

(Northern Region Cohesive Strategy Team, 2002 (veg) 

Orme, M.L. and T.A. Leege. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem (Ceanothus 

sanguineus) following prescribed burning. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf. 14: 

391-420. 

Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), 1984. A Biological and Physical Inventory of Clear Creek, 

Orofino Creek, and the Potlatch River, Tributary Stream of the Clearwater River, 

Idaho. Funded by Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 82-1. 

NOAA. 1998. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators of Watershed Condition for Chinook, 

Steelhead, and Bull Trout, Local Adaptation for the Clearwater Basin and Lower 

Salmon. (Local adaptation of Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of 

Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale, 1996). 

Page-Dumroese D., Jurgensen M., Elliot W., Rice T., Nesser J., Collins T., and Meurisse 

R. 2000. Soil quality standards and guidelines for forest sustainability in 

northwestern North America. Forest Ecology Management 138(2000):445–462. 

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. Abbot, T. Rice, J, Tirocke, S. Farley, and S. 

DeHart. 2006a. Monitoring changes in soil quality from post-fire logging in the 

Inland Northwest. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 

Page-Dumroese, D. S., M. F. Jurgensen, A.E. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F.G. Sanchez, R.L. 

Fleming, J.M Kranabetter, R.F. Powers, D.M. Stone, J.D. Elioff, and D.A. Scott. 

2006b. Soil physical property changes at the North American Long-Term Soil 

Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research 36:551-564. 

Page-Dumroese, D.S.; A.M. Abbott, T.M. Rice. 2009. USDA Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. FS-WO-82a,82b. 

Peek, J.M., D.J. Pierce, D.C. Graham, and D.L. Davis. (1987). Moose Habitat Use and 

Implications for Forest Management in North-central Idaho. Proceedings – 

Second International Moose Symposium. Swedish Wildlife Research, Viltrevy, 

supplement 1, part one, 1987. pp. 195-199. 

Pierce, D.J. and J.M. Peek. 1984. Moose habitat use and selection patterns in northcentral Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(4): 1335-1343. 

4-33

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 241 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Powers, R.F. 1990. Are we maintaining the productivity of forest lands? Establishing 

guidelines through a network of long-term studies. In Proceedings: Management 

and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils, 10–12 April 1990, Boise, 

Idaho. Compiled by A.E. Harvey, L.F. Neuenschwander, and I.D. Boise.USDA 

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-280. pp. 70–89. 

Powers, R.P., D. A. Scott, F.G. Sanchez, R.A. Voldseth, Page-Dumroese, D.S., J.D. 

Elioff, and D.M. Stone. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity 

experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and 

Management 220:31-50. 

Reeves, D., D. Page-Dumroese, and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance 

associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern 

Region. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. Research Paper RMRS-RP-89 

Reinhardt, E., and N. L. Crookston. (Technical Editors). 2003. The fire and fuels 

extension to the forest vegetation simulator. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-116. 

Rippy, R. C.; J.E.Stewart,P.J. Zambino, N.B. Klopfenstein, J.M. Tirocke, M. Kim, and 

W. G. Thies. 2005. Root diseases in coniferous forests of the Inland West: 

potential implications of fuels treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-141. 

Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Romin, S.J. and W.R. Bosworth. 2010. Northern region bat species occurrences in 

Idaho. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 65p.

Rosenberg, K.V. 2004. Partners in flight continental priroities and objectives defined at 

the state and bird conservation region levels, Idaho. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Ithaca, NY. 30p. 

Rosgen, D. and H. L. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, 

Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 

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. General Technical 

Report RM-GTR-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp. 

Saab, V.A., J.Dudley, and W.L. Thompson. 2004. Factors influencing occupancy of nest 

cavities in recently burned forests. The Condor 106:20-36. 

Samson, F. B. 2005 (as amended, March 5, 2006). Conservation Assessment for the 

northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated 

woodpecker. Unpublished mimeo, USDA Forest Service Northern Region, 

Missoula, Montana, USA. 

Samson, F.B. 2006. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern 

goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, 

4-34

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 242 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

American marten and fisher. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 

Sanchez, F.G., A.E. Tiarks, J.M. Kranabetter, D.S. Page-Dumroese, R.F. Powers, P.T. 

Sanborn, and W.K. Chapman. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal and soil 

compaction on fifth-year mineral soil carbon and nitrogen contents for sites 

across the United States and Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:565–576. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. 

Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 

1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Laurel, MD

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. 

Development of coarse scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. 

Fort Collins Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87. 

Schnackenberg, E.S., MacDonald, L.H. 1998. Detecting cumulative effects on headwater 

streams in the Routt National Forest, Colorado. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. Vol. 34. No. 5. 

Scott, J. H., and R. E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A 

comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Fort 

Collins CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. 

Smith, K (District Fisheries Biologist). Personal observations of PACFISH buffers postharvest and post-site preparation (slash burning) on Clearwater National Forest 

timber sales from 2000 through 2011. Also conducted culvert monitoring effort 

on Fan Creek on the Lochsa District. 

Squires, J. R., and P. L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of 

current knowledge and information needs for conservation management. Studies 

in Avian Biology 31: 8-62. 

Stickney, P. F. 1980. Data base for post-fire succession, first 6 to 9 years, in Montana 

larch-fir forests. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- 62. 133pp. 

Stowell, F., A.Espinosa, T.C. Bjornn, W.S. Platts, D.C. Burns, and J.S. Irving. 1983. 

Guide for Predicting Salmonid Response to Sediment Yields in Idaho Batholith 

Streams. USDA Forest Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions. 

Stowell R.,1986. Forest Plan Resource Documentation Report. Nez Perce National 

Forest, Grangeville, ID.

Swift, L.W. Jr. and R.G. Burns. 1999. The three R’s of roads: redesign, reconstruction, 

and restoration. Journal of Forestry 97(8):41-44. 

Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. 

Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 

2(1):21-28. 

4-35

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 243 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Tepp, J. S. 2002. assessing visual soil disturbance on eight commercially thinned sites in 

northeastern Washington. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Note PNW-RN-535. 

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, C.H. Luce, I.J. Larsen. 2009. Cumulative Watershed 

Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service 

RMRS-GTR-231. 

USDA Forest Service. 1981. R1/R4 Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested 

Watersheds. Northern and Intermountain Regions. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987a. Nez Perce National Forest Plan final environmental 

impact statement and record of decision. Grangeville, ID: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1987b. Nez Perce National Forest Plan, as amended. Grangeville, 

ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Moose/Pacific Yew Conservation Guidelines. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement: Volume 1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

USDA Forest Service, 1998a, Northern Region Overview- Detailed Report.

USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Fisher. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Forest Service Manual. FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air 

Management. R-1 Supplement No. 2500-99-1. Missoula, Montana. 

USDA Forest Service, 2000. Successional Functions of Pathogens and Insects for 

Ecoregion Sections M332a and M333d in Northern Idaho and Western MontanaVolume 2-Results and Conclusions. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, 

Forest Health Protection, Northern Region, FHP Report No. 00-11, July 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater River Sub Basin 

Assessment. Volumes 1 and 2. Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville ID. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003 FY 2003 Monitoring and evaluation report. Clearwater 

National Forest, Orofino, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest plan evaluation and monitoring report. Fiscal year 

2006. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bitterroot 

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Proposed Land Management Plan Nez Perce National 

Forest. Grangeville, ID. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Final Environmental Impact Statement Northern Rockies 

lynx management direction. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Northern Rockies lynx management direction Record of 

Decision.

USDA Forest Service 2007d. Black-backed Woodpecker. 

4-36

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 244 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement References

USDA Forest Service, 2009a. PACFISH INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program for Streams and Riparian Areas, 2009 Summary Report. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/feu/pibo/2009_pibo_em_annual_rep

ort_final.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Clearwater National Forest annual monitoring & 

evaluation report: Fiscal year 2009. Orofino, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, 2011. An Implementation Guide to the Fish/Water Quality 

Objectives of the Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Nez Perce National Forest. 

Grangeville, Idaho.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Soil survey of the Nez 

Perce National Forest area, Idaho. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, NRCS. 

USDI and USDA 2001. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Available 

online at www.fireplan.gov. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. 

Denver, CO. 119pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Goshawk. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological opinion on the Northern Rocky 

Mountains Lynx Amendment. 

Vonhof and Barclay. 1997. Bats 

Warren, N (editor). 1990. Old-growth habitat and associated wildlife species in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains. Northern Region Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

Program. R1-90-42. 47 pp. 

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment In Streams. Sources, Biological Effects and Control. 

American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

MD.

Western Bat Working Group. 1998. Online Access. 

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, D. C. Lee, B. C. Wales, W. J. Murphy, M. R. Eames, 

C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, F. B. Samson, D. A. Newhouse and N. 

Warren. (2000). Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior 

Columbia Basin: Broadscale trends and management implications. U.S. 

Department Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Res. Stat. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-485, Portland. 

Wright, V., S. Hejl, and R.L. Hutto. 1997. Conservation implications of a multi-scale 

study of flammulated owl (OTUS FLAMMEOLUS) habitat use in the northern 

Rocky Mountains, USA. Pages 506-516 in J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. 

H. Nicholls, editors. Biology and conservation of owls in the Northern 

Hemisphere. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, GTR NC-190, St. 

Paul, MN 

4-37

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 245 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

References Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Zack, A. C.; P. Morgan; 1994. Fire History on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 

Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho. 55 pages. Review Draft. 

4-38

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 246 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Index

Index

2

2008 Idaho Roadless Rule ........................... 3-29

5

5th field HUC.............................................. 3-147

6

6th field HUC................................... 3-132, 3-146

A

actions common to all alternatives............. 2-11

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.. 1-18

age class...................................................... 3-51

age class distribution .................................. 3-63

age classes .................................................. 3-75

alternatives............................................ 1-9, 2-1 

Amended Lynx Conservation Agreement ... 3-94

appraised value........................................... 3-19

ash cap ............................................... 3-38, 3-52

B

Backcountry Restoration............................. 3-29

Bailey’s ecosections.................................... 3-52

beneficial uses........................................... 3-133

big game winter range .............................. 3-124

BMPs.................................................. 3-9, 3-134

Breaklands .................................................. 3-53

Browns Spring Creek Culvert Replacement 3-14

browse ........................................................ 3-81

bull trout....................................................... 3-4 

C

Clear Creek NFMA document ..................... 3-52

Clear Creek Roadless Area 2-2, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 

3-81, 3-93

Clear Ridge Non-system Road Decommissioning

............................................................... 3-14

Clearwater................................................... 3-15

Clearwater Basin Collaborative....................... vii

Clearwater County ............................. 3-17, 3-18

climate change............................................ 3-59

coarse wood................................................ 3-39

cobble embeddedness......................... 3-3, 3-13

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Plan

............................................................... 1-13

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program...............................................vii, 1-1 

Columbia River Basin Assessment .............. 3-17

Comments.........................................................ii

commercial thinning .............. 1-9, 2-2, 2-3, 3-77

Commercial thinning..................................3-125

culvert............................................................3-8 

culverts .............................................. 3-11, 3-13

cumulative effects ........................... 3-14, 3-148

cutthroat trout...............................................3-4 

D

Decompaction..............................................3-46

design criteria ...................................... 2-5, 2-10

design features .................................... 1-12, 3-9 

desired condition.......................... 1-5, 1-6, 1-11

desired conditions ........................ 1-2, 1-3, 3-51

Desired conditions.......................................... vii

detrimental soil conditions.................. 1-8, 1-15

Detrimental Soil Disturbance.........................2-6 

detrimental soil impacts..............................3-42

disturbance patterns ...................................3-72

diversity .........................................................1-5 

Draft Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy.............................3-85

E

early seral...................................... 2-2, 2-3, 3-70

Early seral.....................................................1-11

early seral species........................................3-48

ECA method ...............................................3-143

Elk City .........................................................3-15

environmental justice ..................................3-16

Environmental Justice........................ 1-16, 1-19

erosion hazard assessment..........................3-41

even-aged management..............................3-50

even-aged regeneration harvest .................3-50

F

FACTS ...........................................................3-52

Field Sampled Vegetation............................3-22

Fire and Fuels Extension ..............................3-22

Fire Regime Condition Class.........................3-22

FISHSED................................................ 3-3, 3-13

floodplains...................................................1-16

Focus areas..................................................3-72

Focus Areas................................... 1-3, 1-10, 2-2 

forest composition.......................................3-74

forest cover type .........................................3-51

forest cover types........................................3-62

forest health ................................................3-73

Forest Plan ........................................... 1-14, 3-1 

Forest Plan amendment ...... 1-7, 1-13, 1-15, 2-1 

Forest Plan Soil Quality Standard #2............3-34

4-39

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 247 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Index Draft Environmental Impact Statement

forest succession ......................................... 3-99

Forest Vegetation Simulator...............3-22, 3-52

fragmentation............................... 1-9, 1-10, 2-3 

Fragstats ...................................................... 3-52

FRCC.......................................... 3-22, 3-23, 3-26

FSVeg ..................................................3-52, 3-60

G

Grangeville................................ 3-15, 3-17, 3-18

grass restoration............................................ 2-1 

grassland restoration................................... 3-39

ground based skidding................................... 2-6 

Guidelines for Evaluating and Managing 

Summer Elk Habitat in Northern Idaho 3-126

H

habitat connectivity................................... 3-100

Harpster....................................................... 3-15

hazardous fuel reduction............................... 2-8 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act.................. 1-15

helicopter logging ........................................ 2-12

historic properties ....................................... 1-18

home range.................................................. 3-80

I

Idaho County ......................................3-15, 3-18

Idaho County Wildfire Mitigation Plan ........ 3-22

Idaho Forest Practices Act .......... 2-10, 3-9, 3-34

Idaho Partners in Flight................................ 3-92

Idaho Roadless Areas................................... 3-29

Idaho Roadless Rule..................................... 1-17

Idaho State Conservation Data Center........ 3-87

Idaho State Wildlife Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy............................. 3-88

Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater 

Treatment Requirements...................... 3-135

IMPLAN ..................................... 3-16, 3-17, 3-18

improvement harvest.............................2-7, 2-8 

income ......................................................... 3-16

INFISH ............................................................ 3-2 

insects and diseases..................................... 3-60

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Ecosystem 

Management Project .............................. 3-51

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project .............................. 3-17

invasive plants ............................................... 2-9 

invasive species ........................................... 1-16

issues ............................................................. 1-9 

J

Jobs.............................................................. 3-16

K

Kamiah......................................................... 3-15

Kooskia ............................................... 3-15, 3-17

Kooskia National Fish Hatchery ..................... 3-4 

L

ladder fuels.................................................. 3-78

landslide prone areas .................................... 2-5 

landtypes..................................................... 3-41

legacy trees.................................................... 2-8 

Lewiston ............................................. 3-15, 3-18

local communities ....................................... 2-11

local economy.............................................. 1-11

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy .. 3-

101

M

management indicator species ................... 3-86

mixed-severity fire regime .......................... 3-47

moisture gradient........................................ 3-24

moose winter range ...................................... 2-9 

Most Similar Neighbor................................. 3-52

N

National Fire Plan ........................................ 1-15

Nest areas.................................................. 3-118

Nez Perce County ........................................ 3-18

Nez Perce Tribe............................................ 1-19

NEZSED ....................................3-3, 3-136, 3-144

Nonsignificant issues..................................... 1-9 

North American Long-Term Soil Productivity 

Study....................................................... 3-37

Northern Region Overview.......................... 3-62

Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act 3-33

Notice of Intent ...................................... viii, 1-8 

noxious weeds.. vii, viii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-7, 2-9, 3-148

NPDES permit ............................................ 3-135

NRLMD......................................................... 3-94

O

old growth ......................... 1-13, 2-7, 2-11, 3-67

old-growth................................................... 3-68

old-growth habitat ...................................... 3-91

Orofino ......................................3-15, 3-17, 3-18

P

PACFISH . 2-9, 3-1, 3-6, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-130, 3-

147

PACFISH buffer .............................................. 2-5 

Pacific lamprey .............................................. 3-4 

patch analysis.............................................. 3-52

patch size............................................ 3-26, 3-65

4-40

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 248 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Index

Patch size ............................................. 2-3, 3-22

patch sizes................................... 1-9, 3-51, 3-76

patches........................................................ 1-10

Patches.......................................................... 1-5 

pearlshell mussels......................................... 3-4 

Pierce ........................................ 3-15, 3-17, 3-18

planning record............................................. xvii

precommercial thinning................................ 2-1 

Precommercial thinning................... 3-39, 3-125

prescribed burning............................. 1-14, 2-11

prescribed fire............................................... 2-1 

Present Net Value .............................. 3-16, 3-19

project area..................................................... vii

Proposed Action................................... 1-9, 1-10

Protection Standard 3................................. 3-49

public scoping ................................................ viii

purpose and need....................................... 2-12

purpose and need for action....................... 2-11

Q

Quicksilver................................................... 3-17

R

regeneration ................................................. 2-2 

regeneration harvest .................................. 1-10

Region 1 Integrated Restoration and Protection 

Strategy .................................................. 3-48

Region 1 soil quality standards..................... 1-7 

Region 1 Soil Quality Standards.................. 3-34

resource indicators .............................. 2-13, 3-3 

Responsible Official....................................... 1-8 

Restocking................................................... 3-49

riparian habitat ........................................... 3-91

road decommissioning................ 2-1, 2-10, 2-11

road densities..................................... 1-12, 2-12

Road densities............................................... 2-4 

road reconstruction ...................................... 2-1 

roadless area............................................... 3-30

root diseases............................................... 3-60

Rosgen....................................................... 3-139

S

Salmon-Clearwater WUI ............................. 3-24

Schedule of Proposed Actions ...................... 1-8 

scoping ..................................... 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 2-2 

scoping comments................................. 2-3, 2-4 

sediment ....................................................... 3-8 

Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers 

Subbasin Assessment............................... 1-5 

Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment................................... 3-51

Selway–Middle Fork CFLRP........................... 1-1 

Selway-Middle Fork CFLRP proposal.............. viii

Selway–Middle Fork Clearwater project........1-1 

Sensitive and Management Indicator Species .3-

81

Sensitive and Management Indicators Species3-

82

sensitive species ..........................................3-86

Significant issues............................................1-9 

skid trails........................................................2-5 

Smoke Management....................................3-21

snags............................................................3-39

Snags..............................................................2-7 

soil productivity ................................... 2-7, 3-37

South Fork–West Fork Clear Creek 1-12, 2-11, 2-

12

species composition .......................... 3-77, 3-89

species diversity...........................................3-78

spring chinook................................................3-4 

stand-replacing fire....................................3-106

steelhead trout ..............................................3-4 

stem exclusion .............................................3-65

stewardship .................................................3-21

Stites............................................................3-15

Streamstats................................................3-139

stumpage value............................................3-19

suitability .....................................................3-50

T

temporary road construction ........................2-4 

temporary roads......................... 2-7, 2-12, 3-42

total maximum daily load ..........................3-134

transient lynx habitat.................................3-101

tribal governments ......................................1-19

tribes............................................................1-19

TSMRS ..........................................................3-52

TSPIRS ..........................................................3-17

U

upward trend.................................................3-5 

V

Vegetative Response Unit............................1-10

vertical structure................................ 3-71, 3-76

Vertical structure ........................................3-51

viability.........................................................3-85

Vmap............................................................3-60

VRUs.............................................................3-53

W

water rights................................................3-137

WATSED .....................................................3-150

Weippe...................................... 3-15, 3-17, 3-18

West Fork-South Fork Clear Creek.................1-6 

wetlands ......................................................1-16

4-41

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 249 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Index Draft Environmental Impact Statement

white pine blister rust.................................. 3-48

White pine blister rust................................. 3-61

wildfire suppression .................................... 3-23

Wildland-Urban Interface............................ 1-15

WUI.............................................................. 3-22

4-42

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 250 of 280
Appendix A

Maps

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 251 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 252 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix A

Map 1. Alternative B Units 

A-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 253 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 254 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix A 

Map 2. Alternative C Units

A-3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 255 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 256 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix A

Map 3. Alternative D Units 

A-5 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 257 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 258 of 280
Appendix B

Clear Creek Road Work

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 259 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 260 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix B

Road decommissioning practices vary depending on the road location and the risk of road 

failure. Roads that have moderate to high risk of failure, that are near fish bearing streams or 

are being used by unauthorized vehicles will require full decompaction and natural slope 

recontour. All roads with stream crossings or other watershed concerns will be recontoured 

including stream grade channel restoration. Roads identified in this project not meeting the 

above criteria may be abandoned. Abandoned roads have no stream crossings, are well 

vegetated, are resistant to surface erosion and are not prone to mass failure. 

Each road used for timber haul in accordance with this project will be either reconditioned or 

reconstructed based on the existing condition of the roadway. 

Reconditioning roads consists of standard maintenance, such as road blading, brushing, 

removal of small cutslope failures, applying rock in wet areas and removal of obstructions 

such as rocks and trees. Reconditioning also includes maintenance of existing culverts. 

Road reconstruction improves the roadway. This includes replacing and installing new 

culverts for cross drains and live water culverts, placement of rock surfacing, placement of 

roadway fill and installation of new signs or gates. Other activities include installation of 

drainage dips, road blading, brushing and removal of obstructions. 

The definitions for road reconstruction and road reconditioning above do not include all 

activities that can be completed under each classification; these definitions are for 

informational purposes only. 

Reconditioning and reconstruction is based on the current condition of the roadway. As the 

project continues, road failures or different access may require the type of work and roads 

requiring work to change. This is an approximation of road work for the Clear Creek project. 

Table 1 lists the road work for this project. 

B-1 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 261 of 280
Appendix B Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Table 1. List of road work for the Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Road # Road Name Miles Proposed Road Work Reason For Work

Decommission—13.2 Miles

1106H Stinking Water 0.78 Decommission end of road Watershed

1114 Upper Clear Creek 1.70 Decommission from Junction 1114-C to Junction of the 

77774 Watershed

1114C Upper Clear Spur 2 0.17 Decommission end of road Watershed

9705B Kay Ridge South 0.94 Decommission Watershed

9706B Solo Ridge 0.78 Decommission Watershed

9730J Cougar Spur J 0.36 Decommission end of road after use in sale Watershed

9734A Upper Middle Fk Spur A 0.12 Decommission from ridge point to end of draw Watershed

9735A Upper Solo Spur A 0.23 Decommission after use in sale Watershed

77742 0.32 Decommission Watershed

77742A 0.57 Decommission Watershed

77742B 0.11 Decommission Watershed

77756 0.82 Decommission end of road Watershed

77770 0.73 Decommission Watershed

77773 0.86 Decommission Watershed

77773A 0.11 Decommission Watershed

77774B 0.46 Decommission Watershed

77777A 0.30 Decommission Watershed

77779 0.17 Decommission Watershed

77780 0.15 Decommission Watershed

77781 1.11 Decommission Watershed

77783 0.66 Leave landing at beginning of road Watershed

77786 0.12 Decommission end of road Watershed

77789A 0.61 Decommission Watershed

77799 1.00 Leave landing at beginning of road Watershed

B-2 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 262 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix B

Road # Road Name Miles Proposed Road Work Reason For Work

Recondition—48.8 Miles

284 Elk City Wagon Road 5.00 Recondition Sale Haul Route

284-M Tenmile Cabin 0.72 Recondition Sale Haul Route

284-N Horse Corral 0.50 Recondition Sale Haul Route

286-B Lookout Tree Pit 0.20 Recondition Sale Haul Route

286-H Lonesome Pine 0.30 Recondition Sale Haul Route

286-I Pine Knob Ridge 1.15 Recondition Sale Haul Route

286-M Upper Kay Cr 1.30 Recondition Sale Haul Route

464 Boundary Ridge Rd 1.00 Recondition Sale Haul Route

470 Swiftwater 1.00 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-A Mule Point 1.09 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-B Little Mule 0.39 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-G Soaring Falcon 1.00 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-H Hoodoo Falls 1.60 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-H1 Hoodoo Jump 1.05 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-I Tiny Tim 0.30 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-I1 Raven Pit 0.22 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-L Peg Leg Jim 0.22 Recondition Sale Haul Route

650-M Mad Mike 0.47 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1106-A West Branch 0.30 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1106-F1 High West Fork 0.75 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1106-I Happy Hoodoo 1.07 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1106-L Flying Falcon 0.75 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1106-M Howdy doody 0.20 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1129 Hamby Loop 1.43 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1160 Rabbit Cr 2.82 Recondition Sale Haul Route

B-3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 263 of 280
Appendix B Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Road # Road Name Miles Proposed Road Work Reason For Work

1160-F Little Rabbit 0.34 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1160-F1 Short Rabbit 0.10 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1855-A S. Fk. Clear Cr Rd A 0.77 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1855-B S. Fk. Clear Cr Rd B 0.15 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1855-C S. Fk. Clear Cr Rd C 0.09 Recondition Sale Haul Route

1855-E S. Fk. Clear Cr Rd E 0.59 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9409-B Kay Creek West Spur B 0.50 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9441 Wall Creek 0.50 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9441-A Bald Eagle 1.21 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9441-A1 Red Hawk 0.20 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9441-A2 Stage Pit 0.35 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9482 South Fk Clear Creek 1.12 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9482-B No Muddy Water 0.65 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9483 China Point 1.56 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9700 Trail 183 Ridge 1.10 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9700-A Trail 183 Spur A 0.27 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9700-B Trail 183 Spur B 0.43 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9700-B1 Trail 183 Spur B1 0.27 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9707 Webers Finale 0.56 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9712 Pine Knob 0.82 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9712-A Pine Knob Spur 0.31 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9730-A Cougar Spur A 0.24 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9730-B Cougar Spur B 0.70 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9730-E Cougar Spur E 0.50 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9730-H Cougar Spur H 0.41 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9730-K Cougar Knob 0.35 Recondition Sale Haul Route

B-4 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 264 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix B

Road # Road Name Miles Proposed Road Work Reason For Work

9734 Upper Middle Fork 1.12 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9734-A Upper Middle Fk Spur A 0.29 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9735-A Upper Solo Spur A 0.22 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9737 Tall Center 0.68 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9737-A Tall Center Spur A 0.44 Recondition Sale Haul Route

9740 Middle Fk Clear Cr Spur 0.84 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77742 0.32 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77744 0.62 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77745 0.71 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77748 0.17 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77755 0.40 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77755-A 0.35 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77755-B 0.37 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77755-B2 0.25 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77757 0.40 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77784 0.59 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77784-A 0.29 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77786 0.60 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77789 0.60 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77789-A1 0.20 Recondition Sale Haul Route

77790 0.40 Recondition Sale Haul Route

Reconstruction—119.8 Miles

286 Tahoe 24.10 Reconstruction - includes culvert replacement Sale Haul Route/Watershed/Traffic

286N Kay Creek East 0.60 Reconstruction - includes culvert replacement Sale Haul Route

650 West Fork Clear Creek 15.45 Reconstruction - includes culvert replacement Sale Haul Route/Watershed/Traffic

650A1 Black Mule 0.59 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

B-5 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 265 of 280
Appendix B Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Road # Road Name Miles Proposed Road Work Reason For Work

650C Lost Mule 1.28 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

650C1 Red Mule 0.55 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

650F Nesting Falcon 0.90 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1106 Sears Creek 20.22 Reconstruction - includes culvert replacement Sale Haul Route/Watershed

1106F Pole Corral 2.76 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1106H Stinking Water 1.10 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1106I1 Sad Sack 0.52 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1106J West West Branch 1.47 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1114 Upper Clear Creek 4.50 Reconstruction - includes culvert replacement Sale Haul Route

1114C Upper Clear Spur 2 0.48 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1129D Brown Springs 1.20 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1160D (Sec. 1) Pack Mule 1.50 Reconstruction - from sale unit to Road 1160, install and 

remove culvert at West Fork Clear Creek Sale Haul Route

1160D (Sec. 2) Pack Mule 0.80 Reconstruction - from 1160-D1 to end of road Sale Haul Route

1855 Lytle Cow Camp 9.91 Reconstruction - includes culvert replacement Sale Haul Route/Watershed

1855D S. Fk. Clear Cr. Rd D 0.69 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1855F Cowboy Joe 1.01 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

1899A Pine Cone 1.75 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9409 Kay Creek West 1.86 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9442 Voodoo Bill 2.38 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9442A Chicken Hawk 0.80 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9703 Middle Fork Spur 0.43 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9705 Kay Ridge Spur 2.20 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9730 Cougar Ridge 6.40 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9730D Cougar Spur D 0.75 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9730J Cougar Spur J 1.28 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9731 Lost Ridge 2.50 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

B-6 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 266 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project Appendix B

Road # Road Name Miles Proposed Road Work Reason For Work

9732 Upper Clear Ck Spur 1.97 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9732-A Spur West 2.43 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

9735 Upper Solo 1.62 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

77755B1 0.29 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

77758 0.35 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

77772 0.43 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

77774 1.80 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

77774A 0.46 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

77785 0.47 Reconstruction Sale Haul Route

Note: Total mileage of road is included even if only a section is proposed for reconstruction

B-7 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 267 of 280
This page intentionally left blank

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 268 of 280
Appendix C

Proposed Site-Specific Forest Plan 

Amendment—Soils

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 269 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 270 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Soils, 10/25/12 Appendix C

Proposed Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Soils

NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

AMENDMENT NO. 41 (PROPOSED) 

SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO SOIL QUALITY STANDARD #2 

FOR THE CLEAR CREEK PROJECT AREA

The purpose of this amendment is to allow vegetation activities in areas that currently exceed Forest Plan 

soil quality standard #2. 

The Nez Perce National Forest soil quality standards (Forest Plan II-22) apply to lands in the Clear Creek 

project area. Soil quality standard #2 currently reads as follows: 

“A minimum of 80 percent of any activity area shall not be detrimentally compacted, displaced, 

or puddled upon completion of activities. This direction does not apply to permanent recreation 

facilities and other permanent facilities such as system roads.” 

The following amendment is proposed, specific to the Clear Creek project area: 

“Where detrimental soil conditions from past activities affect 15 percent or less of the activity 

area, a cumulative minimum of 85 percent of the activity area shall not be detrimentally 

compacted, displaced, or puddle upon completion of activities. 

Where detrimental soil conditions from past activities affect more than 15 percent o the activity 

area, the cumulative detrimental soil disturbance from project implementation and past activities 

shall not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and shall provide a net improvement 

in soil quality.” 

This guidance is taken from R1 soil quality guidelines found in R1 Supplement No. 2500-99-1 of Forest 

Service Manual 2500 - Watershed and Air Management.

Analysis of Factors 

Soil Standard #2 (Forest Plan II-22) would be amended with a site specific Forest Plan Amendment for 

the Clear Creek project area on the Moose Creek Ranger District. The amendment would allow vegetation 

treatments and soil improvement activities to proceed in areas with extensive pre-existing detrimental soil 

conditions. The amendment takes into account the amount of existing detrimental soil disturbance, and 

allows the flexibility to achieve multiple resource objectives while showing an upward trend in net soil 

conditions. 

Timing: the amended Soil Standard #2 would be effective until the Forest Plan is revised or amended. 

The Nez Perce National Forest Plan is scheduled for revision in 2013. The temporal scope of the 

amendment is therefore limited. 

Location and Size: the propose Forest Plan amendment would affect implementation of activities only in 

the Clear Creek project area. The project area is about 43,730 acres, and is located in Township 30, 31, 32 

North, Ranges 5 and 6 East, Boise Principle Meridian. The project area represents less than 2 percent of 

the total 2,274,146 acres of National Forest System land in the Nez Perce National Forest. The size of 

area affected is therefore limited. 

Page 1 of 4

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 271 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Appendix C DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Soils, 10/25/12

Proposed activities in the Clear Creek project include soil remediation to achieve a net improvement in 

proposed treatment units with past soil disturbance. Soil improvement actions can increase water 

infiltration, increase soil productivity, reduce potential for weed invasion, and stabilize bare slopes. 

Actions include decompacting soils, recontouring to slope, and adding organic matter, including large 

woody material. These activities would establish a quicker improving trend for soil conditions; 

advancing tree growth and vegetation establishment. 

Goals, Objectives, and Outputs: The Forest Plan goal for soils is to maintain soil productivity and 

minimize any irreversible impacts to soil resource. The Forest Plan objective for soils is to maintain soil 

productivity and minimize soil erosion through the application of best management practices, careful 

riparian area management, use of fish/water quality drainage objectives, and soil and water resource 

improvement projects. 

This amendment is fully consistent with the goals and objectives of the Nez Perce Forest Plan. Because 

the amendment would: impose a standard to maintain soil productivity and allow activities to restore 

areas with considerable pre-existing detrimental soil disturbance. These activities would respond directly 

and indirectly to the Forest Plan goal and objective for soils. The activities would not inhibit 

achievement of the Forest Plan goal/objective. This amendment would allow a net improvement in soil 

condition in the units treated with prior impacts. 

This is a site-specific amendment to the Forest Plan soil quality standard #2 for lands in the Clear Creek 

project area. This site-specific amendment would allow the Clear Creek project to proceed despite the fact 

that several proposed units currently exceed the 20% compacted, displaced or puddle soils standard.

The soils analysis in the Clear Creek project area found that some units harvested in the 1960 to 1980s 

using ground based and jammer logging systems, have compacted or displaced soils over more than 20% 

of the harvested area. Proposed activities for the Clear Creek project include soil remediation activities to 

achieve a net improvement in proposed vegetation management units. In order to enter these units under 

the Clear Creek project, an amendment to soil quality standard #2 is needed. 

Management Perspective: Amendment of Forest Plan Soil Standard #2 is specific or applicable only to 

the Clear Creek activity area. This amendment does not apply to activities occurring outside the Clear 

Creek project area. The proposed change would occur on less than 2 percent of the Forest, therefore there 

would be no measurable change to goods and service produced in the total forest panning unit (2,274,146 

acres, Forest) prior to completion of the Forest Plan revision. 

This direction does not apply to permanent recreation facilities and other permanent facilities such as 

system roads. This amendment would make the Forest Plan standard consistent with Regional soil quality 

guidelines (USDA 1999). 

Page 2of 4

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 272 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Soils, 10/25/12 Appendix C

Purpose and Need of Amendment

Purpose

The purpose of this amendment is to allow activities to occur on areas with greater than 20 percent 

detrimental soil disturbance.

Need 

Past harvest activities have altered soils conditions in the Clear Creek project area. The current Forest 

Plan standards and the Forest Service Region1 soil quality guidelines provide direction to maintain soil 

productivity. The proposed amendment would change Forest Plan standard #2, allowing for activities to 

occur on areas with greater than 20% soil detrimental disturbance, as long as soil improvement activities 

are implemented. 

Based on the current condition a project specific Forest Plan amendment is needed for Alternatives B, C 

and D to allow for harvest activities to occur on three units of the Clear Creek project.

Direct, indirect and cumulative impact of amendment 

Direct and indirect effects 

No Action Alternative

Alternative A would not amend the Forest Plan. Soil conditions in three units of the Clear Creek project 

area would remain detrimentally disturbed. No soil improvement activities would occur. 

Action Alternatives

Alternatives B, C and D are evaluated in this analysis, and would require a Forest Plan amendment for 

soil standard #2. These alternatives would not adjust the goals, objectives or outputs as described in the 

Forest Plan. This amendment would allow the Clear Creek project to proceed despite the fact that three

of the proposed units currently exceed the 20% compacted, displaced or puddle soils standard.

The amendment would allow vegetation treatments and soil improvement activities to proceed in areas 

with extensive pre-existing detrimental soil conditions. The amendment takes into account the amount of 

existing detrimental soil disturbance, and allows the flexibility to achieve multiple resource objectives 

while showing an upward trend in net soil conditions. 

Proposed activities in the Clear Creek project include soil remediation to achieve a net improvement in 

proposed treatment units with past soil disturbance. Soil improvement objectives are to increase water 

infiltration, increase soil productivity, reduce potential for weed invasion, and stabilize bare slopes. 

Actions include decompacting soils, recontouring to slope, and adding organic matter, including large 

woody material. These activities would establish a quicker improving trend for soil conditions; 

advancing tree growth and vegetation establishment. 

This site specific amendment applies to the Clear Creek project area. The amended Soil Standard #2 

would be effective until the Forest Plan is revised or amended. The Nez Perce National Forest Plan is 

scheduled for revision in 2013. The temporal scope of the amendment is therefore limited. 

This amendment would make the Forest Plan standard consistent with Regional soil quality guidelines 

(USDA 1999). 

Page 3 of 4

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 273 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project

Appendix C DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Soils, 10/25/12

Cumulative effects 

There are no cumulative effects with the proposed amendment to the Forest Plan. The amendment is 

project specific and limited in time. 

Application of FSM 1926.51 Directives Not Significant Criteria 

The determination of whether this proposed amendment is significant was done using the process in the 

Forest Service Planning Handbook, 1926.51 (http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index5.html). The handbook 

states changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from four specific 

situations. This forest-wide amendment is compared to those situations below: 

Table 6. Soils Amendment Criteria Considered

Changes to the land management plan that 

are not significant

Alternative B, C, and D

Forest Plan Soil standard #2 - Amendment

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the 

multiple use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management. 

The objectives set forth in the Forest Plan for soils would not be 

altered. The goal to maintain soil productivity and minimize any 

reversible impacts to the soil resource would still be met.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries 

or management prescriptions resulting from 

further onsite analysis when the adjustments do 

not cause significant changes in the multiple-use 

goals and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management. 

The proposed amendment does not alter the multiple-use goals 

and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

The amendment only affects the analysis for this project. It is a 

project specific amendment that would have no effect to Forest 

Plan objectives or outputs.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. This amendment would only apply to the Clear Creek project. 

All other soil goals and standards would apply to this project. 

This amendment alters soil standard #2 to be consistent with 

regional soil guidelines.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or 

activities that will contribute to achievement of 

the management prescription. 

Future projects would follow the current Forest Plan standard. 

This amendment would not adjust management area boundaries 

or management prescriptions in future analyses.

Conclusion – Significance/Non-Significance

The preliminary determination is that the adoption of this amendment to the Nez Perce National Forest 

Plan, soil standard #2, is not significant. This conclusion is based on consideration of the four factors 

identified in the Forest Service Planning handbook, 1926.51 and review of the Forest Plan. This 

amendment is fully consistent with the current Forest Plan goals and standards and Region 1 soil quality 

guidance. 

Page 4of 4

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 274 of 280
Appendix D 

Proposed Site-Specific Forest Plan 

Amendment—Old Growth 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 275 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 276 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Old Growth Appendix D 

Page 1 of 3 

Proposed Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Old Growth 

NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

AMENDMENT NO. 42 (PROPOSED)

SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX N 

FOR THE CLEAR CREEK PROJECT AREA

The purpose of this amendment is to replace the Forest Plan Appendix N definitions of old 

growth with the definitions found in Old Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region (Green, et 

al., 1992, errata corrected 02/05, 12/07, 10/08, 12/11). The Green et al. definitions are regarded 

as the “best available science” for the classification of old growth at the site-specific level. 

This nonsignificant amendment is site-specific, and would apply only to the Clear Creek 

Integrated Restoration Project action alternatives. This amendment would not apply to any 

activities or projects outside the project area. 

This amendment would not change the Forest Plan objective for MA 20, which is to maintain 

viable populations of old-growth-dependent wildlife species. “At least 10 percent of the forested 

acres across the Forest that are suitable old-growth habitat will be managed as old-growth 

habitat. This acreage will be distributed across the Forest in a way which assures that at least 5 

percent of the forested acres within major prescription watersheds of 6,000 to 10,000 acres will 

be managed as old-growth habitat.” (USDA-FS 1987, page II-6). 

Adopting the definitions for old growth found in Green et al. that define successional stages, 

stratification by habitat types, and other site conditions would help refine our interpretation of 

the old growth characteristics described in Appendix N of the Forest Plan. 

Additionally, adoption of this amendment would ensure consistent terminology and analysis. 

Old growth determination is done through data collection in accordance with Region One stand 

exam protocols that correlate to the definitions found in Green et al. 

Literature cited: 

Green, Pat; Joy, John; Sirucek, Dean; Hann, Wendell; Zack, Art; Naumann, Bob. 1992. OldGrowth Types of the Northern Region. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Region. (errata corrected 02/05, 12/07, 10/08, 12/11). 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 277 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

Appendix D DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Old Growth 

Page 2 of 3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 278 of 280
Clear Creek Integrated Restoration Project 

DRAFT Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendment—Old Growth Appendix D 

Page 3 of 3 

Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 279 of 280
Volume 7 

Document 117 

Page 280 of 280