BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF SOUTH TOWNSHIP HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT

(NATIONAL FIRE PLAN PROJECT) FOR

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)-LISTED AND FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE SPECIES

ESA-Listed Fish Steelhead Trout - Oncorhynchus mykiss

Bull Trout - Salve linus confluentus

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Westslope Cutthroat Trout - Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi Redband Trout - Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri

Pacific Lamprey - Lampetra tridentata

U.S. Forest Service Nez Perce National Forest Red River Ranger District

Elk City, Idaho

Bureau of Land Management Coeur d' Alene District

Cottonwood Field Office Cottonwood, Idaho

May 2010

Prepared and Approved By:

Date: 5 IJ6/;0/0 Craig Johns , sheries/Wildlife Biologist ~ 7

BLM, Cotton ood Field Office

II

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

I. Description of Area ................................................................................................................ 1 Description of Species, Biology, and Status ........................................................................... 2 A. Listed and Sensitive Aquatic Species ............................................................................. 2 B. Listed and Candidate Wildlife Species ...........................................................................6 C. Listed Plant Species ........................................................................................................ 6

III. Watershed and Analysis Area Description .............................................................................6 A. Physical Characteristics ..................................................................................................7 B. Biological Characteristics - Fisheries ............................................................................. 7 C. Biological Characteristics - Vegetation ..........................................................................9 D. Human Caused Characteristics ....................................................................................... 8

IV. Project Description ................................................................................................................. 9 A. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 9 B. Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 10

V. Effects Analysis .................................................................................................................... 11 A. Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 11 B. Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects by Activity .................................................... l1 C. Watershed and Aquatic Conditions and Effects of the Actions ................................... 14

VI. Key Mitigation and Monitoring ............................................................................................ 19 VII. Interrelated and Interdependent Effects ................................................................................ 19 IIX. Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 19 IX. Determination .......................................................................................................................20

References ..............................................................................................................................22

Appendix A (Project Maps) ..........................................................................................................24 Appendix B (Project Design Criteria) ..........................................................................................27 Appendix C (Effects Tables) ........................................................................................................ 30

INTRODUCTION

The Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest and the Cottonwood Field Office, Coeur d'Alene District, are cooperating in the proposed South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (South Township Project). The project area is located on National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands, approximately two air miles south of Elk City, Idaho.

The purpose of the South Township Project is to reduce the threat of wildfire to private property and resources at risk within the Wildland Urban Interface areas of Elk City on a total of 556 acres. This would be accomplished by reducing fuel loadings on approximately 177 acres through a combination of commercial and non-commercial thinning, and subsequent prescribed fire. An additional 379 acres would be treated with prescribed fire only. Reduced fuel loadings would reduce the threat of high intensity fire crossing public land boundaries and provide opportunities for fire managers to more successfully manage naturally occurring fires. The project area is located in "interface" and "rural" Wildland Urban Interface areas as mapped by the Idaho County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Additionally, BLM roads 2586 and 2586A (Forgotten 400 Road) would be repaired and upgraded to allow access for management activities and address watershed resource concerns.

The Upper South Fork of the Clearwater River, Red River, and American River provide habitat for ESA-listed steelhead trout and bull trout. ESA-listed fall Chinook salmon utilize the lower reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive species which occur within the analysis area include spring/summer Chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Pacific lamprey.

This Biological Assessment (BA) was completed under the Section 7 counterpart regulations of the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register, December 8, 2003), and is in compliance with those regulations and the March 3,2004 Alternative Consultation Agreement (ACA) between the Bureau of Land Management, USFWS and NMFS; and March 3,2004 ACA between Forest Service (FS), USFWS, and NMFS. The South Township Project meets criteria for a National Fire Plan action. The purpose of the South Township Project is to reduce the threat of wildfire to resource values at risk and private property within the Wildland Urban Interface areas of Elk City.

I. DESCRIPTION OF AREA

The project area occurs in the Upper South Fork Clearwater River subbasin and straddles the ridgeline between Red River and American River in the lower reaches of these drainages (see Appendix A, project maps) (T. 29 N., R. 8 E., Sections 33, 34, and 35; T. 28 N., R. 8 E., Sections 1,2, 3, and 4; T. 28 N., R. 9 E., Section 6). Red River and American River flow together to form the South Fork Clearwater River. For additional aquatic, fisheries, and area information refer to various Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management assessments that have been completed for the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin and tributries (USDA-FS 1998, USDA­FS 1999, USDA-FS 2005a, USDA-FS 2005b, USDI-BLM 2007).

1

II. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES, BIOLOGY, AND STATUS

A. Federally Listed and BLM Sensitive Aquatic Species

The Red River, American River, and Upper South Fork Clearwater River drainages provide habitat for federally listed steelhead trout and bull trout. The listed fall Chinook salmon occur in the lower reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River and Clearwater River. The federal listing of the above species requires the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to ensure that all actions authorized or funded by the agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat of listed species [ESA Section 7 (a)(2) and (4)]. Spring/summer Chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Pacific lamprey are FS and BLM sensitive species which occur within the analysis area.

Federally Listed Species

Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnert) Steelhead trout are under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and occur within the watershed. Steelhead trout in the Snake River basin have been listed as threatened under ESA with an effective listing date of October 17, 1997 (Federal Register, August 18, 1997, VoL 62, 43937).

The Snake River steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was listed as threatened in a final rule on January 5,2006 (71 FR 834, effective date February 6,2006); the Snake River steelhead was previously listed as threatened August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937, effective date October 17, 1997). Critical habitat for Snake River Basin 0. mykiss was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630) and includes Red River, American River, and South Fork Clearwater River. A "may affect" determination for steelhead trout and designated critical habitat has been concluded if the proposed project is implemented.

Steelhead trout in the Snake River steelhead ESU, currently comprised of only anadromous forms is listed as a threatened species under the ESA. Steelhead trout are distributed throughout the South Fork Clearwater subbasin and the American River watershed (USDA-FS 1999). Steelhead trout in Idaho are the anadromous form of rainbow trout, which have been further classified as redband trout of the Columbia River basin (Behnke 2002). "Anadromous" refers to a life history whereby fish spawn and rear in freshwater but migrate to the ocean before maturing and returning to fresh water to spawn. Steelhead trout and most species of salmon follow an anadromous life history, and adults of both may attain large size as a result of time spent in the ocean. Populations of redband trout in the Columbia River basin, including those in Idaho, generally follow either an anadromous or resident life history. Some stream systems may support both types of individuals.

Steelhead trout spawning in the upper South Fork Clearwater River, Red River, and American River drainages generally enter fresh water in late summer and fall, spend the winter in the lower Columbia, Snake, and Clearwater Rivers, and migrate up the South Fork Clearwater River in early spring. Spawning usually occurs in the tributaries and South Fork Clearwater River during April and May. Juveniles usually spend about two years, sometimes three years in streams and rivers, before migrating downstream to the ocean during the spring runoff period in May and June (Behnke 2002).

2

Steelhead trout are present in the South Fork Clearwater River and all accessible tributaries with suitable habitat. With the exception of a few tributaries that have fish blockage caused by dredge mining or culverts, all accessible tributaries have documented occurrences of steelhead trout. The smaller accessible tributaries may only be used by steelhead trout for juvenile rearing.

Bull Trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) The bull trout is under the jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is listed under ESA. On July 10, 1998, the FWS listed the Klamath and the Columbia River population segment of the bull trout as threatened (Federal Register, June 10,1998, Vol. 63, 31647). Critical habitat for bull trout was proposed on January 14,2010 (Federal Register, Vol. 75, 2270) and includes Red River, American River, and South Fork Clearwater River. A "may affect" determination for bull trout and proposed critical habitat has been concluded if the proposed project is implemented.

Bull trout are actually a char and are included in the genus Salvelinus, along with brook trout, lake trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic char. The bull trout and Dolly Varden were long considered the same species and are generally similar in appearance, but skeletal and genetic analyses have shown they are separate species (Behnke 2002). Large bull trout are known as voracious predators of other fish, although small bull trout typically feed on invertebrates. Bull trout spawn in the fall, typically in the coldest reaches of smaller tributaries. Clean substrate (rocks), cold water temperatures, and the presence of cover are important attributes of preferred bull trout habitat.

Bull trout are especially vulnerable to human-induced factors that increase water temperature and sediment loads, change flow regimes, block migration routes, and established non-native trout, particularly brook trout (Behnke 2002).

Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) Fall Chinook salmon are under the jurisdiction ofNMFS and are listed under the ESA. The Snake River fall Chinook salmon was listed as threatened on May 22, 1992 (Federal Register, Vol. 57, 14653). The Clearwater River was designated critical habitat for Snake River fall Chinook salmon on December 28, 1993 (Federal Register, Vol. 58,68543), effective on January 27, 1994. Designated critical habitat for fall Chinook salmon is from the mouth (river mile 0.0) of the Clearwater to Lolo Creek (river mile 54.1).

A "no effect' determination was made for fall Chinook salmon. Fall Chinook salmon do not occur in the American River drainage, but they do occur in the lower reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River and in the mainstem Clearwater River. The mouth of American River is approximately 40 miles upriver from documented fall Chinook salmon use in the lower South Fork ofthe Clearwater River. No adverse affects from suspended sediment, deposited sediment, water temperature is expected to occur to the species or downriver fall Chinook habitats from project implementation. No further discussion on fall Chinook salmon will occur in this document.

Essential Fish Habitat Pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR Part 600.920, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may

3

adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Steven Act, Section 3, defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Federal agencies may incorporate an EFH assessment into Endangered Species Act Biological Assessments.

EFH habitat for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is not in the analysis area, but does occur in the lower Clearwater River subbasin, over 60 miles downstream from the mouth of American River. A "no effecf' is concluded for coho EFH and no further discussion will occur in this document.

Fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) does not occur in the Red River and American River watersheds, but they do occur in the lower reaches of the South Fork Clearwater River and in the mainstem Clearwater River. The mouth of American River is approximately 40 miles upriver from documented fall chinook salmon use in the lower South Fork of the Clearwater River. A "no effect" is concluded for fall Chinook salmon EFH and no further discussion will occur in this document.

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) EFH includes all historically accessible reaches of the Clearwater River basin (except the North Fork Clearwater River above Dworshak Dam). EFH is present in Red River, American River and the South Fork Clearwater River for spring Chinook salmon. Because of potential for effects, EFH for spring Chinook salmon will be addressed in this BA.

BLM Sensitive Species

Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) Spring Chinook salmon are not listed as a threatened species under the ESA in the South Fork Clearwater subbasin because indigenous populations were likely eliminated from the Clearwater River by construction of the Lewiston Dam in the early 20th century (Schoen et aI. 1999; Murphy and Metsker, 1962). Naturalized populations of spring Chinook salmon, however, have been re­established in the South Fork Clearwater subbasin, including Red River and American River, as a result of reintroduction efforts (Schoen et al. 1999) by federal and state agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe.

Red River and American River watershed has a high inherent capacity to support spring Chinook salmon (USDA-FS 1998), based on features such as climate, relief, and geology. These river systems are comprised of significant lengths of low gradient, meadow reaches that provide optimal spawning and rearing habitat for this species, offering large areas of appropriately-sized spawning gravels as well as preferred low gradient rearing habitat for juveniles.

Historically, significant numbers of spring Chinook salmon spawned and reared in these drainages as well as other tributaries ofthe South Fork Clearwater River. Currently, adult returns vary but are generally low. In 2003, the weir at the mouth of Crooked River counted 1,360 returning adult spring Chinook salmon. The 1990 fish habitat survey conducted by Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. (Fish Habitat Characteristics, Riparian Conditions and Salmonid Abundance In The Crooked River Study Area, November, 1990) identified 9810 square meters of spawning gravel available in the mainstem river from the mouth to Orogrande. If this habitat were fully seeded, even in the existing condition, there is potential to produce over 500,000 spring Chinook smolts annually in Crooked River. The Red River and American River are

4

similar systems. Both rivers have been dredge mined using large floating bucket line dredges. This resulted in a loss of pool habitat, removal of acting and potential woody debris and wider more shallow streams.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewiSl) Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a sensitive by the BLM, and the Northern Region, U.S. Forest Service and a species of special concern by the State ofIdaho. Currently, they are not listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. Cutthroat trout are widely distributed across the Clearwater basin, although the current abundance is probably less than historic abundance.

Westslope cutthroat trout are widespread in the project area, and have been found in virtually every tributary where surveys have been conducted. Populations may also be present in additional areas where surveys have not been conducted or where existing information is insufficient to define species presence or absence.

Although population status of resident westslope cutthroat trout is thought to be strong in some streams, the larger fluvial fish, those moving out of the tributaries and rearing in the mainstem rivers are showing very low densities, making this species at risk.

Primary existing threats to westslope cutthroat trout in the project area include habitat degradation, hybridization with native and non-native rainbow trout, loss of connectivity among populations, competition with non-native brook trout, and harvest of adults by anglers.

Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to exist in only 2 4% of their historic stream distribution (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Pure westslope cutthroat trout with no sign of genetic introgression only occur in about 10% of currently occupied habitats (Shepard et aL 2003). Brook trout out compete juvenile cutthroat trout for food (Novinger and Rahel 1999). When brook trout dominate the stream, cutthroat trout cannot compete and regain dominance. Historical barriers that disrupted historical migration routes for westslope cutthroat trout have sometimes served to protect them from non-native species.

Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnert) Interior redband trout includes both anadromous steelhead (discussed above) and native resident rainbow trout that do not migrate to the ocean (Behnke, 2002). They are classified as the same species, except fish included in this category spend their entire lives in a stream or river, often at or near their natal area.

In most anadromous steelhead populations, a portion of the juveniles do not migrate to the ocean and remain as resident redbands throughout their lives (Behnke, 2002). This is the likely scenario in the American River drainages. Most juveniles migrate to the ocean but small percentages probably remain as resident fish. There are no known isolated populations that are exclusive resident within the American River drainage.

Pacific Lamprey (Lam petra tridentate) Pacific lamprey adults enter freshwater (Columbia River) between July and September and migrate several hundred miles to Idaho. They do not mature until the following March. They spawn in sandy gravel immediately upstream from riffles between April and July and die soon after. Eggs hatch in two to three weeks and the ammocoetes (larval lamprey) spend up to six

5

years in soft substrate as filter-feeders before emigrating to the ocean. They remain in the ocean for 12 to 20 months before returning to freshwater to spawn. Diatoms appear to be a primary food supply for ammocoetes.

Recent sampling in the South Fork Clearwater River and Red River documented the presence of juvenile lampreys along the mainstem river and some of the tributaries (Cochnauer and Claire 2003). Similar sampling conducted in American River in 2001 did not identify any lampreys (Cochnauer and Clair 2001 and 2002). Much of American River was likely historic habitat for lamprey (Christopher Clair, per. Communications, 2004).

B. Listed and Candidate Wildlife: Biology, Habitat, and Status

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through its semi-annual species list update (#14420-2010-SL-0081), identified two listed species and one candidate species which may occur on lands administered by the BLM, CFO. The ESA-listed species include the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (threatened) and northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus) (threatened). The list also identifies the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), as a candidate species.

The project area does not occur within a Lynx Analysis Unit and does not include mapped suitable habitat for the Canada lynx. The project area does not provide suitable habitat for northern Idaho ground squirrel and no documented sighting exist for the South Fork Clearwater River subbasin. The project area does not provide suitable habitat for the yellow billed cuckoo and no documented sightings exist for these species within the analysis area. A "no effect" determination was made for the Canada lynx, northern Idaho ground squirrel, and yellow-billed cuckoo, and no further discussion of these species will occur in this document.

C. Listed Plants: Biology, Habitat, and Status

The list was compiled from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through its semi-annual species list update (#14420-201O-SL-0081, dated December 30, 2009), identified two listed plants which occur on lands administered by the BLM, CFO. ESA-listed plants include MacFarlane's four­o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei - threatened) and Spalding's catchtly (Silene spaldingii ­threatened).

The project area does not provide suitable habitat (Le., canyon grasslands or Palouse grasslands) for MacFarlane's four-o'clock or Spalding's catchtly and no documented occurrences exist for these plants in the upper South Fork Clearwater River.

Because no ESA-listed plants were found within the project area and no direct or indirect effects are expected to occur to listed plants from implementation of the proposed action, a "no effect" determination has been made for MacFarlane's four-o'clock and Spalding's catchtly, and no further discussion about these species will occur in this document.

III. WATERSHED AND ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION

Refer to Appendix A for maps of the project area. The project area is located in the upper South Fork Clearwater River subbasin, in the vicinity of Elk City, Idaho (T. 29 N., R. 8 E., Sections 33, 34, and 35; T. 28 N., R. 8 E., Sections 1,2,3, and 4; T. 28 N., R. 9 E., Section 6).

6

A. Physical Characteristics

The project area straddles a ridge1ine between the American River and Red Rivers. Slopes immediately off the ridgeline slope gently away to breaks and steep rocky slopes down to both rivers. As geomorphic setting is a function of underlying geology, foundation rock under the project area is the Metamorphic Elk City sequence and Augen gneiss with a perched layer of Tertiary sediments along the Western half of the ridgetop. The rolling topography of the ridge in this area is indicative of the sedimentary bedrock while the hard metamorphics tend to form the breaklands and steep rocky slopes.

Fluvial systems in the American and Red River drainages are characterized by snow melt hydrology and periodic seasonal weather events. The streams in the project area are small first order, steep, and primarily ephemeral.

The geology and soils in the project area help define the hydrologic response and runoff characteristics through seasonally dry portions of the year. Seasonal groundwater recharge and drainage is more effective in the Tertiary sedimentary rock when compared to the dense metamorphic rock with little pore space. Soils tend to be more developed on the gently sloping ridge line than on the steep slopes. Together, along with virtue of the setting, the tendency is for steams draining the tertiary sediments to be slightly larger and have longer flow periods like the streams found to the North and West than those primarily fed by surface runoff and little groundwater from the metamorphics to the East and South.

While the project area itself is over metamorphic, the region and both watersheds are primarily characterized by the Idaho Batholith. The decomposing Idaho Batholith has potential to provide large quantities of sediment in the form of grus or weathered granite due to ground disturbing activities. Historic activities in the American River, Red River and other tributaries including road building, timber harvest, and mining have caused elevated sedimentation of the South Fork Clearwater River.

B. Biological Characteristics - Fisheries

The following Table I lists the approximate period when ESA-listed and sensitive species/life stage occurs or are present in the upper South Fork Clearwater River subbasin.

7

. . th R d R"T bl 1 L'f H' ipeCles 10 W t h d a e I e Istones 0 f TES F'IS h S e e lver andAmerlcan R'Iver a ers e s Fish Species Spawning Spawning Spawning Egg Emergence Juvenile

Migration* Locations(s} Incubation Rearing Steelhead March-May Main stems,

tributaries April-May April­

earlyJuly June-July 2-3 yars

Bull Trout May- Headwater Sept-October September- February­ 2-3 years August streams March April

I Rainbow/Redband March-May Main stems, April-May April-July June-July 2-3 years trout lower ends of

tributaries i

Spring Chinook June-early Mostly main August-mid August- February- Typically I ! August stems September May June year

, Westslope March-May Headwater April-earlyJuly April­ May-August 2-4 years Cutthroat streams August Pacific Lamprey** July- Mainstems, Spring; 50-60 F 2-3 weeks March-June 4-6 years

October gravel and temperatures sand

(Table from lDFG and Nez Perce NF unpublIshed data, and Spangler 1997) *Resident forms of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout may not make substantial migratory

movements.** Lamprey information from http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/edulampreyfact.html

The upper South Fork of the Clearwater River subbasin and tributaries (e.g., American River and Red River) have been impacted to varying levels by a variety of land uses. Stream habitat and watershed improvement projects, improved road maintenance, and changes to designs of all types of projects have been implemented in recent years to help recover aquatic conditions. Current aquatic trends are experiencing a slight upward trend.

Recent deposited and substrate monitoring has been conducted by the BLM in Red River and American River, and is summarized in Table 2.

lver S b tr t M 't .Table 2 A meflcan Ri verandRedR' usa e om onng

Stream and Location Cobble Embeddedness Surface Fines Percent Fines by Depth

<6.3 mm (Spawning Gravels) American River RM 1.1 37% 12% 23% Red River RM 0.1 32% 4% 23%

Detailed aquatic descriptions of Red River, American River, and the upper South Fork Clearwater River are provided in several documents (USDA-FS 1998, USDA-FS 2003, USDA­FS 1999). Recent Environmental Impact Statements and Biological Assessments have also been prepared for three fuels/restoration projects in the upper South Fork Clearwater River subbasin (USDI-BLM 2007, USDA-FS 2005a, and USDA-FS 2005b). Refer to the above identified documents for additional information on aquatic/riparian resources.

C. Biological Characteristics - Vegetation

Uplands The uplands consist primarily of mixed conifer, with large tree (> 15 inches dbh) and medium sized trees (> 10 inches dbh) comprising the majority of the tree size class. Some old forest characteristic stands occur adjacent to or within the project area. Common overstory trees are comprised of grand fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine. Ponderosa pine and larch are also found within the project area.

8

Riparian Common riparian overstory trees include Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and grand fir. Understory vegetation includes alder, willow, red-osier dogwood, and sedges. Other common riparian species include twisted stalk, cow parsnip, manna grass, thimbleberry, and arrowleaf groundsel. A common habitat for riparian and wetland areas is grand fir/arrowleaf groundsel.

D. Human Caused Characteristics

The upper South Fork of the Clearwater River subbasin and tributaries (e.g., American River and Red River) have been impacted to varying levels by a variety of land uses which include mining, roading, timber harvest, livestock grazing, residences, and recreation. Dredge mining has altered channels and riparian habitats in lower American River and upper South Fork Clearwater River, and to a lesser extent in lower Red River. Highways have also encroached on channels and riparian habitats. Stream habitat and watershed improvement projects, improved road maintenance, and changes to designs of all types of projects have been implemented in recent years to help recover aquatic conditions. Current aquatic trends are experiencing a slight upward trend.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The action assessed is the proposed vegetation treatment of 556 acres to reduce fuel loadings within the Wildland Urban Interface areas of Elk City (see Appendix A, project maps). Refer to Appendix B for project design criteria descriptions. This would be accomplished by reducing fuel loadings on approximately 177 acres through a combination of commercial and non­commercial thinning, and subsequent prescribed fire. An additional 379 acres would be treated with prescribed fire only. Up to 1.1 miles of temporary road may be constructed and would be recontoured and naturalized following treatment. The BLM 2586 and 25213 roads would be maintained and improved to minimize adverse erosion/sediment and to allow large vehicle traffic.

A. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Purpose: The purpose ofthe South Township Project is to reduce the threat of wildfire to private property and values at risk within the Wildland Urban Interface areas of Elk City. This would be accomplished by reducing fuel loadings on approximately 177 acres through a combination of commercial and non-commercial thinning, and subsequent prescribed fire. An additional 379 acres would be treated with prescribed fire only. Reduced fuel loadings would reduce the threat of high intensity fire crossing the forest boundary and provide opportunities for fire managers to more successfully manage naturally occurring fires. The project area is located in "interface" and "rural" Wildland Urban Interface areas as mapped by the Idaho County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Additionally, BLM roads 2586 and 2586A (Forgotten 400 Road) would be repaired and upgraded to allow access for management activities and address watershed resource concerns.

Need: This proposed action would move the forest towards the desired condition class while reducing the wildfire threat to private property in the Wildland Urban Interface.

9

B. Proposed Action

The actions proposed by the agencies to meet the purpose and need are briefly described below. The agencies propose vegetation activities on two treatment areas as well as repair and improvement of access roads administered by the BLM (see Appendix A, project area maps).

Treatment Area 1: (approx. 177 acres) This treatment would utilize commercial and noncommercial thinning with ground based harvest systems to expand crown spacing and reduce tree density to approximately 60-100 trees per acre (TP A), depending on current stand structure. Thinning would focus on removing the smaller diameter (less than 10 inches diameter breast height), shade tolerant ladder fuels, leaving the larger and desirable overstory seral tree species such as ponderosa pine, larch and Douglas-fir. Activity generated fuels (slash) would be allowed to over-winter and burned on site following treatment. Up to 1.1 miles of temporary road may be constructed and would be recontoured and naturalized following treatment. The desired condition would be maintained over time through periodic prescribed burning.

Treatment Area 2: (approx. 379 acres) This treatment would occur on the steeper (>35%) south and west slopes of the project area and would consist of hand thinning/slashing small diameter, non-merchantable trees «6" DBH) in order to reduce ladder fuels. This treatment would make a continuous fuel bed to facilitate prescribed burning. Hand fire line would be constructed along the private property boundary and natural barriers and roads would be used to control fire spread throughout the rest of the treatment area. Burning may be conducted in spring, late summer or fall when conditions are favorable for meeting prescription objectives. No ignitions would occur in the riparian habitat conservation areas (RHeA's), however, fire would be allowed to back into them. The desired condition would then be maintained over time through prescribed burning.

A portion (approx. 60 acres) of this treatment would occur in a Designated Old Growth area. Within this area, prescribed burning would be used to reduce fuel loadings to meet the desired condition. Mechanical treatments in the form of pruning, thinning, and slashing would be used to replace the ridgetop fuel break, as proposed in the scoping letter, with approximately 2750 feet of control line for the prescribed fire (see Appendix A, project maps).

This fire line would enter the BLM old growth unit, but would not alter the old growth characteristics of the stand. Fireline construction would consist of an 18 inch minimum width scratched to mineral soil and reduction of surface and ladder fuels on an approximately 30 foot wide fuelbreak (20 ft below and 10 foot above fire line) by limbing up to 8ft, slashing up to 6 inch DBH, bucking and hand piling I burning piles. This modified proposed action would underburn approximately 4 acres in the BLM old growth stand due to location of the stand in relation to topographical breaks.

BLM Roads 2586 and 25213 The BLM 2586 and 25213 roads would be improved to allow large vehicle traffic. The road surface would be graded along its length to fill in ruts and holes. Drivable dips would be created to improve drainage and some areas "spot-rocked" to improve sub-grade support and decrease road surface erosion. The 2586 road would continue to have an administrative closure (gate) to protect the road surface and further minimize maintenance needs and erosion.

10

V. EFFECTS ANALYSIS

A. Evaluation Criteria

Effects and scope of actions will be assessed at the project, 6th code HUC, and subbasin level. Primary effects are associated with (1) commercial and noncommercial thinning - 177 acres; (2) hand thinning and prescribed burning 379 acres; (3) temporary road construction - 1.1 miles; and (4) road improvement and maintenance. Primary potential for direct or indirect effects is attributed to short term erosion/sediment. Consequently, the effects analysis will focus on erosion and sediment effects to ESA-species and aquatic habitats.

B. Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects by Activity

Commercial and Noncommercial Thinning - 177 acres These units primarily occur on the upper slope or ridge top. No harvest would occur within RHCAs. Short term discountable erosion or sediment would be expected to occur from this action.

Hand Thinning and Prescribed Burning - 379 acres Hand thinning small diameter, non-merchantable trees « 6 inches dbh), construction ofan upper slope/ridge top fire line (2750 feet) , and prescribed burning would be expected to result in negligible short term erosion/sediment.

Temporary Road Construction -1.1 miles Temporary road construction of 1.1 miles would occur in an upper slope/ridge top area. No road construction would occur in any RHCAs. After project activities are completed the temporary roads would be decommissioned. Short term negligible erosion would occur.

Road Improvement and Maintenance Short term discountable erosion or sediment would occur from actions to improve road drainage and reduce adverse sediment from BLM road 2586 and 25213. Long term benefits would occur from reduced erosion and sediment sources attributed to these roads.

Existing Condition and Effects:

The history and existing conditions for the American and Red River watersheds are discussed in the South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (USDA-FS 2010), Eastside Fuels and Vegetation Project FEIS (USDI-BLM 2007) and Red Pines FEIS (USDA-FS 2005b). The following Table 3 summarizes Equivalent Clearcut Acres (%) and sediment yield over base for the Lower American River and Lowest Red River subwatersheds.

11

Table 3 Existing Conditions per analysis from the Eastside Fuels and Vegetation Project FEIS and the Red Pines FEIS. Both subwatersheds are modeled and represented here as true watersheds.

Watershed Acres

Sediment Yield

Guideline (% Over Baseline)

Entry Frequenc

y Guideline

Model Year

ECA 0/0

Cumulative Sediment

Yield (% Over Baseline)

Lower r:I':J ....... w

2003 9 16

American Riv~IT· . 58,600 30

BLM NA

1:.1.. ­r-­Q)O "00 ·B~

2006 Peak

11 23

(1703()506) cn ell w 2012 10 14

r:I':J ....... w 2003 10 23

Lowest Red River

(17030506) 103,300

30 NPNF Forest

Plan 1987 1

1:.1.._ cn'"Q)O s::O .- N p... '-" "0

Q)

ex::

2005 Peak

12 27

2012 10 19

Water Yield: Implementation of the proposed action and ECA estimated water yield changes associated with the temporary road and vegetation treatments would be immeasurable and negligible. The water yield increase estimated with the ECA model for the proposed activities when disclosed with proper significant figures is 0% in both the American and Red River subwatersheds (see Table 4 below) (USDA-FS 2010).

12

Table 4 ECA water yield estimation for proposed activities. Some data is shown at a greater resolution (0.001) than the models significant figure of (1).

72 72 73 72 72 70 63 Proposed Activities

%ECA o o o o o o o

57

o

Sediment Yield: Implementation of the proposed action and estimated accelerated sediment associated with the proposed activities is un-measurable (deposited sediment) and negligible (see Table 5. The estimated sediment yield increase with the NEZSED model for the proposed activities when disclosed with proper significant figures is 0% in both the American and Red River subwatersheds (USDA-FS 2010).

Table 5 Estimated sediment yield from proposed activities modeled in NEZSED.

o 000

o o

Proposed Activities 2.015 0.765 0.347 0.138

13

Increased sediment yield from the project is estimated at approximately two tons during the first year of implementation, and would be less than one percent over base (see Table 5 above) for Red and American Rivers and is considered negligible (USDA-FS 20 to).

Summary Short term negligible or discountable erosion and sediment would occur during implementation. Erosion control and project design measures would prevent and adverse sediment or turbidity to occur from the project. No long term erosion or sediment would occur from project implementation. No adverse impacts to riparian shading and water temperature will occur from implementation ofthe proposed project. No prescribed fire would be ignited in RHCAs, however, it would be allowed to creep into RHCAs. Fire within RHCAs would be expected to burn at low intensities and cause discountable effects to riparian habitats, water quality, and stream channels.

Refer to Appendix C for matrices (Tables 1,2, and 3) which document effects of action(s) on relevant indicators and documentation of environmental baseline. The following screening process provides an analysis of potential effect of the proposed action on federally listed and BLM sensitive fish species.

C. Watershed and Aquatic Conditions and Effects of the Action

Watershed Condition 1. Watershed Road Density a. Environmental Baseline=Low (Red River), Moderate (American River).

b. Effect of the Actions=Maintain. Proposed action to construct 1.1 miles of temporary road. Temporary roads will be decommissioned after project completed. Will not increase road density in the long term.

2. Streamside Road Density Road Density a. Environmental Baseline=Low (Red River), Moderate (American River).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. No road construction proposed for RHCAs.

3. Landslide Prone Road Density a. Environmental Baseline=Low (Red River), Moderate (American River).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. No road construction activity will occur on landslide prone area.

4. Riparian Vegetation Condition a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. No road construction or commercial/noncommercial timber harvest in RHCAs. Prescribed burning, may back into RHCAs.

5. PeaklBase Flow a. Environmental Baseline=High. Environmental baseline condition has a high (good) condition for peak/base flow for Red and American Rivers. It appears that the watershed hydrograph indicates peak flow, base flow, and flow timing characteristics are comparable to a watershed functioning within its natural disturbance regime.

14

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing peaklbase flow conditions. The small amount of timber harvest and prescribed burning will have discountable effects at the watershed level and have no measurable effect to peaklbase flow.

6. Water Yield a, Environmental Baseline=High. ECA is less than 15 percent for Red and American Rivers. Some tributary watersheds will have low to moderate ratings for water yield (ECA).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain water yield for Red and American Rivers.

7. Sediment Yield a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate.

b. Effects of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain sediment yield for Red and American Rivers. Discountable increases in sediment yield are expected. Erosion control and project design measures would prevent adverse sediment levels and would be expected to be at pre-project conditions within one year after implementation. No chronic sediment source would be attributed to this project in the long term.

Channel Conditions and Dynamics 1. WidthlDepth Ratio a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain width/depth ratio for Red and American Rivers.

2. Streambank Stability a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate (Red River), High (American River).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. The proposed action will maintain stre':lmbank stability.

3. Floodplain Connectivity a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate. Historic dredge mining and road encroachment in areas have impacted floodplain connectivity.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. The proposed action will be to maintain floodplain connectivity. No adverse modification of floodplain will occur from proposed action.

Water Quality 1. Temperature - Spawning a. Environmental Baseline=Low to Moderate.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. The proposed project will have no adverse effects to water temperature. Discountable impacts (e.g., prescribed burning) to riparian vegetation is expected to occur from project implementation.

2. Temperature - Rearing/Migration a. Environmental Baseline=Low. Environmental baseline has a low condition for

15

rearing/migration (e.g., summer).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain rearing/migration water temperatures. The proposed project will have no potential to adversely affect water temperature in Red and American Rivers. No adverse impacts to riparian vegetation shading is expected to occur from project implementation.

3. Suspended Sediment a. Environmental Baseline=Low (Red River), Moderate (American River).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing levels of suspended sediment. Long term negligible benefits would occur from reduced erosion on roads. Erosion control and project design measures would prevent adverse sediment levels and would be expected to be at pre-project conditions within one year after construction. No chronic suspended sediment would be attributed to this project in the long term.

4. Chemical Contamination a. Environmental Baseline=High. Environmental baseline condition for chemical contamination has a high condition (good) for Red and American River.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Overall effects of the proposed action will be to maintain the high condition rating.

Habitat Access 1. Physical Barriers - Adults and Juveniles a. Environmental Baseline=High. Environmental baseline for adult and juvenile fish passage is high. No man made barriers exist on the main-stem Red and American Rivers. Some of the tributaries have man caused barriers.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing fish passage.

Habitat Elements 1. Cobble Embeddedness a. Environmental Baseline=Low. Recent monitoring of cobble embeddedness for lower Red River was 36% and American River was 32%.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing cobble embeddedness levels for Red and American Rivers. Discountable increases in sediment would result in un-measurable increases in deposited sediment.

2. Percent Surface Fines a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate (Red River), High (American River). Recent monitoring of surface fines for lower Red River was 12% and lower American River was 4%.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing surface fine levels for Red and American Rivers. Discountable increases in sediment would result in un-measurable increases in deposited sediment.

16

3. Percent Fines By Depth a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate. Recent monitoring of percent fines by depth «6.3 mm­spawning gravels) was 23% for Red River and 23% for American River.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing percent fines by depth for Red and American Rivers. Discountable increases in sediment would result in un-measurable increases in deposited sediment.

4. Large Woody Debris a. Environmental Baseline=Low. Large woody debris (L WD) is limited because of historic dredge mining and road encroachment into riparian habitats.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing levels of large woody debris for Red and American Rivers. No harvest of trees or removal of large woody debris is proposed with this action. Discountable disturbance to riparian vegetation is anticipated to occur from project implementation.

5. Pool Frequency a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate (Red River), Low (American River). Pool frequency is not optimum because of historic dredge mining and road encroachment into riparian habitats.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing levels of pools. The proposed action will have no effect on pool frequency. BLM proposed or ongoing activities will not result in increased in fine sediment deposition sufficient to further decrease number, size, and quality of pools.

6. Pool Quality a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate (Red River), Low (American River). Pool quality is not optimum because of historic dredge mining and road encroachment into riparian habitats.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing pool quality. Insignificant or negligible levels of erosion and sediment would occur from the proposed action. Increased deposited sediment from the proposed project would be un­measurable for Red and American Rivers and any potential for pool filling would not occur. BLM proposed or ongoing activities will not result in fine sediment deposition sufficient to further decrease number, size, and quality of pools.

7. Off-Channel Habitat a. Environmental Baseline=Low. Environmental baseline has a moderate condition for Red and American Rivers off-channel habitat. Off-channel habitat is not optimum because of historic dredge mining and road encroachment into riparian habitats.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effect of the proposed action will be to maintain existing off­channel habitats for Red and American Rivers.

8. Habitat Refugia a. Environmental Baseline=Low. Environmental baseline has a moderate condition for habitat refugia in the Red and American Rivers. Limited habitat refugia exist within these drainages.

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effect of the proposed action will be to maintain existing habitat 17

refugia conditions for Red and American Rivers.

Take 1. Harassment a. Harassment - Environmental Baseline=Moderate.

b. Effect ofActions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain existing conditions for potential harassment. Overall, it can be expected that no potential exists that increased levels of adverse harassment of listed species will occur from implementation of the proposed action.

2. Redd Disturbance a. Redd Disturbance - Environmental Baseline=High (Red River), Moderate (American River).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will be to maintain baseline conditions for potential redd disturbance. Overall, it can be expected that no potential exists that increased levels of redd disturbance will occur from implementation of the proposed action.

3. Juvenile and Adult Harvest a. Juvenile and Adult Harvest - Environmental Baseline=High (bull trout); Moderate (steelhead trout).

b. Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effects of the proposed action will have no effect on existing conditions for potential juvenile/adult harvest for Red and American Rivers.

Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics and Habitat Integration a. Environmental Baseline=Moderate.

b.Effect of Actions=Maintain. Effect to the proposed action will maintain existing conditions for bull trout sUbpopulation characteristics and habitat integration. The proposed project will have negligible potential to adversely impact Red and American Rivers. The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for bull trout will not be adversely modified by implementation ofthe proposed action. The following PCEs that will not be adversely altered by this proposed action include the following:

• Permanent water having low levels of contaminants • Water temperatures ranging from 2-15 degrees C • Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools,

etc. • Substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition • Natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low and base flows within historic ranges • Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity • Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers • Abundant food base • Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present

18

VI. KEY MITIGATION AND MONITORING

A. Key Mitigation

1. Actions that minimize adverse erosion/sediment from existing roads. 2. No timber harvest or road construction within RHCAs.

B. Monitoring

The following implementation and effectiveness monitoring will take place:

1. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring will take place to determine if all project design measures are implemented.

VII. INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS

The proposed site development is not interrelated or interdependent with any other actions.

IIX. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

1. Private and State Lands

The upper South Fork Clearwater River subbasin has a moderate to high risk for combined effects of activities occurring on private and State lands. A large variety of actions within the analysis area may affect listed species and habitat. Primary potential for adverse effects is associated with increased development, residences, roads, highways, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and recreation use.

2. Risk Assessment for FS and BLM Ongoing and Proposed Actions

The upper South Fork Clearwater River subbasin has a low to moderate risk for combined effects from federal proposed and ongoing activities.

19

IX. DETERMINATION

Determination Table

I SCIENTIFIC

NAME

COMMON NAME CAT* SPECIES

PRESENT OR

POTENTIALLY

INDIVIDUALS

POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED?

HABITAT

POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED?

DETERMINATION**

o.ncorhynchus mykiss

Steelhead trout T

PRESENT?

y Y Y NLAA

0., tshawytscha

Salvelinus conjluentus 0. mykiss

i

I a. tshawytscha

a. clarki lewisi

Lampetra tridentata

Fall Chinook

salmon

Bull trout

Resident

rainbow/redband

trout

Spring Chinook

salmon

Westslope

Cutthroat trout

Pacific lamprey

T

T

S

S

S

E­state

listing

N

y

Y

y

y

Y

N

Unlikely

Y

Y

Y

Unlikely

i

!

N

Unlikely

Y

Y

Y

Unlikely

NE

NLAA

MJ

MI

MI

MI I

, ,

"Category: E=Endangered; T -Threatened; S-USFS and BLM SensItive. ""ESA Determmatlons: NE-No Effect; NLAA-Not hkely to adversely affect; LAA=Likely to adversely affect""Sensitive Species Determination: NI=No Impact; BI=Beneficiallmpact; MI=May impact individuals or habitat, but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the population or species; U=Likely to impact individuals or habitat, with the consequence that the action may contribute towards federal listing or result in reduced viability for the population or species.

Project Determination

It has been determined that implementation of actions identified with the proposed South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project "may affect not likely to adversely affect" steel head trout and designated critical habitat. A "may affect not likely to adversely affect" determination was made for bull trout and for proposed critical habitat. The determination for spring/summer Chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Pacific Lamprey is "may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely lead to a trend toward foderallisting or cause a loss ofViability ofthe population or species".

Essential Fish Habitat A "not likely to adversely affect" determination was made for EFH (see analysis rationale for listed fish). Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) ofthe Magnuson-Stevens Act, Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Act, section 3, defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity". This BA incorporated an EFH Assessment into the analysis.

Project/Activity Rationale

The proposed action will result in varying levels ofvegetation and soil disturbance on a total of 556 acres. This would be accomplished by reducing fuel loadings on approximately 177 acres through a combination of commercial and non-commercial thinning, and subsequent prescribed fire. An additional 379 acres would be treated with prescribed fire only. Reduced fuel loadings

20

Projecti Activity Rationale

The proposed action will result in varying levels of vegetation and soil disturbance on a total of 556 acres. This would be accomplished by reducing fuel loadings on approximately 177 acres through a combination of commercial and non-commercial thinning, and subsequent prescribed fire. An additional 379 acres would be treated with prescribed fire only. Reduced fuel loadings would reduce the threat of high intensity fire crossing the forest boundary and provide opportunities for fire managers to more successfully manage naturally occurring fires. No timber harvest or road construction would occur in RHCAs. Prescribed burning would be allowed to creep into RHCAs, and is expected to result in low intensity bums. Predicted sediment yields are discountable and would be un-measurable as deposited sediment in Red River, American River, and the South Fork Clearwater River. Increased sediment yield from the project is estimated at approximately two tons during the first year of implementation, and would be less than one percent over base for Red and American Rivers and is considered negligible (USDA-FS 2010). Discountable effects to riparian/aquatic habitats is expected to occur from project implementation.

The proposed project is in accord with PACFISH (USDI-USDA 1995) standards and guidelines and would not retard achievement of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) or desired conditions identified in the Cottonwood Resource Management Plan (USDI-BLM 2009).

21

REFERENCES

Behnke, R. 2002. Trout and Salmon ofNorth America. The Free Press, New York, New York.

Clearwater Bio Studies, Inc. 1990. Fish habitat characteristics, riparian conditions and salmonid abundance in the Crooked River study area during summer 1990. P.O. No. 43-0295-02017

Cochnauer, T., and C. Claire. 2001. Evaluate status of Pacific lamprey in the Clearwater River drainage, Idaho. Annual Report 2001 (Project Number 2000-028-00), prepared for U.S. Dept of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID.

Cochnauer, T., and C. Claire. 2002. Evaluate status of Pacific lamprey in the Clearwater River drainage, Idaho. Annual Report 2002 (Project Number 2000-028-00), prepared for U.S. Dept of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID.

Cochnauer, T., and C. Claire. 2003. Evaluate status of Pacific lamprey in the Clearwater River drainage, Idaho. Annual Report 2003 (Project Number 2000-028-00), prepared for U.S. Dept of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID.

McIntyre, J.D., and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope cutthroat trout IN Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Torut. General Technical Remport RM-256. U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. M.K. Young, tech. Ed. Pages 1-15.

Murphy, L.W., and H.E. Metsker. 1962. Inventory ofldaho streams containing anadromous fish including recommendations for improving production of salmon and steelhead, Part II, Clearwater River drainage. Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Contract Number 14-19­001-431. Idaho Department ofFish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Novinger, D.C. and F.J. Rahel. 1999. Exploring Competitive Mechanisms that Allow Nonnative Brook Trout to Displace Native Cutthroat Trout in a Rocky Mountain Stream. American Fisheries Society 129th Annual Meeting Abstracts. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographics and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. U.S.F.S. Intermountain Research Station, Boise,ID.

Schoen, D., R.M. Jones, and P.K. Murphy. 1999. Comprehensive State Water Plan for the South Fork Clearwater River. Idaho Water Resource Board, Boise, Idaho.

Shepard, B., B. May, W. Urie, C. Corsi, K. McDonald, R. Snyder, T. Unterwegner, J. Uehara, and K. Walker. 2003. Status of wests lope cutthroat trout (Oncorhychynchus clarki lewisi) in the United States: 2002. Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, MT, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, MT, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, ID, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, OR, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, W A. 92p

Spangler, R.E. 1997. Distribution, abundance, and microhabitat use ofjuvenile bull trout, in two small tributaries to the South Fork Clearwater River. Thesis, Master of Science, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

22

USDA-FS.1998. South Fork Clearwater River landscape assessment. Volumes I and II. Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.

USDA-FS. 1999a. South Fork Clearwater River biological assessment. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.

USDA-FS. 2003. Red River ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Serve, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID.

USDA-FS. 2005a. American and Crooked River project - final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville,ID.

USDA-FS. 2005b. Red Pines project final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville, ID.

USDA-FS. 2010. South township hazardous fuels reduction project. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Red River Ranger District, Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville, ID.

USDI-USDA. 1995. Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of California (PACFISH). USDI- Bureau of Land Management and USDA - Forest Service, Washington D.C.

USDI-BLM. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Eastside township fuels and vegetation project, Volumes I and II. Coeur d'Alene District, Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, ID.

USDI-BLM. 2009. Record of Decision and Approved Cottonwood Resource Management Plan. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood Field Office, Cottonwood, ID.

23

APPENDIX A

PROJECT MAP

24

Proposed Action South Township Fuels Project Red River Ranger District Nez Perce National Forest and Cottonwood Field Office Bureau of Land Management

C South Township Project Area

Roads

- BlM Road 2586

Proposed Treatment Units

Treatment 1

_ Treatment 2

--­ Proposed Temporary Roads

Ownership

D USDA Forest Service

USDI Bureau of Land Management

D Private

CJ Nez Perce N.F. Boundary

J:lfsfilesloffic.elprojecl_sCclwlnfma_nepalsoulh_lownlrnapslscope_Itr_map.mxd

NezPerce National Forest

State and Forest Setting

* Project Vicinity

-­ Major Streams

Nez Perce N.F.

15 Jan. 2010 T.McDonald

South Township Proposed Action

_ oomroUinE! (attem3liWiZ)

Units South Township o 1re3llTlent 1

D1remlent2

owtiER_TYPE

Oy 0<' 0'" 1 ___-========-___c::=====::::J1 Miles

1= 24,00(1 +",l:iWl =2.000 feet.

Data Displayed in NAn 1983 UTM ZOnE! 11 N

....moI. .,.4nIlOlO__":1<....,, L\ "","Mhf:! C' t"..4ebrdt~Buf"l!lltu tfL",nd U""'\feMelt,,:: t.l[h~ "«VMq'. rei..." llit;r, +re.1'IIp leulnes= .fd.s~du'" t.rl'l dlvldu"lu:e.r..tr~~u:::e- vmh rit« d·u". +rt.rpu rpt:« ntt "ten". br BLU ::,.",u\lttftfM'ttlltftlft"rntr: JfteetB"Klrtn,,1 t.t.p he» r'fq::ttnd"pf!O tbif 11ft "",,,,t.H '11'1"1~&upd "'1Dd will.Ut n.tjf~[.n

APPENDIX B - DESIGN CRITERIA

Design Criteria

RIPARIAN HABI'rAT CON:!ERVATION AREA:!

I Do not allow feUing or removal of trees in streamside or wetland RHCAs; except at specified or temporary road crossings, withI instream restoration activities, or to facilitate anchoring of cable yarding systems. Coordinate such activities with aquaticsRHCA-A specialists to assure they are compatible with Riparian Management Objectives. (PACFISHIINFISH and Forest Plan, page 11-22, Riparian Areas Standards # I through #5)

i Do not allow timber harvest or road construction in areas of high landslide hazard. ModifY (via site specific mitigation measure(s» timber harvest, road construction, or fuel reduction in areas of moderate landslide risk as needed to protect slope stability and assure compliance with PACFISH guidance. If additional, unmapped moderate or high landslide prone areas are found during project implementation, coordinate with watershed specialist to determine how activities should be dropped or modified to protect slope stability. (PACFISHIINFISH and Forest Plan, page B-22, Riparian Areas Standards # I through #5)

RHCA·B

SOIL RESOURCES

Use when amending Forest Plan soil quality standard #2 a) Where detrimental soil disturbance from past activities affects 15 percent or less of the activity area, a cumulative minimum of 85 percent of the activity area shall not be detrimentally disturbed upon completion of the activities.

SR-A b) Where detrimental soil disturbance from past activities affects more than 15 percent of the activity area, the cumulative detrimental soil disturbance shall not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and shall provide a net improvement in soil quality. (Forest Plan Amendment is required) Mitigation for activities outside of MA 21 Limit ground based skidding to slopes less than 35 percent. Use logging system design and layout on slopes 35-45% to assure compliance with SR·A above. (Proposed Regional Standard)

SR-C Activities on slopes 3545% might include:

• Skidding on pitches up to 300 ft. in length i • Back trails (when not skidding logs)

f, I me or h I'• Use of el er·bunc hers m conJunctIon WIt e Icopter yard'mg. , Erosion control measures including removal oflog culverts and construction oftemporary cross drains, drainage ditches, dips, or berms will be required on all temporary roads before operations cease annually. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently SR-D 86.66) I

WATER QUALITY AND FISH HABITAT

I Dewater culverts, install sediment barriers, place rock on road surfaces andlor along ditches, etc., as needed to protect fish habitat WQ-A . and water quality when constructing, reconstructing, and decommissioning roads and/or implementing stream/road crossing

. improvements. (Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines) ~ Ensure channel width, flow velocities, substrate condition, and stream gradients approximate the natural channel and

WQ-B accommodate passage of expected streamflow, debris, fish, and other aquatic organisms at new stream crossings. (PACFISH) Prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (40 CFR 112) that incorporates the rules and requirements of the Idaho Forest Practices Act Section 60, Use of Chemicals and Petroleum Products; and US Department ofWQ-C : Transportation rules for fuel haul and temporary storage; and additional direction as applicable. (Timber Sale Contract Provision,

i currently B6.341) ACCESS MANAGEMENT &PUBLIC SAFETY

Require timber sale purchaser or stewardship contractor to post warning signs advising of equipment operations or hazards forAM·A public safety. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently 86.33) AM-B Secure all required state and county road permits and rights-of-way prior to implementation. AM-C Ensure all ownership boundaries are posted and current.

I AffiQUALITY

Follow procedures outlined in the North Idaho Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement, including restrictions imposed AQ·A

WILDLIFE

by the smoke management-monitoring unit, (Forest Plan, page 11-23, Air Quality Standard #1)

I WL-A

Prohibit mechanical treatments in verified MA 20 stands (Forest Plan, page Ill-57) or other stands of biological old growth (North Idaho Old Growth Standards). A stand is defined as an area that is 10 acres or greater, also considering the potential for aggregating smaller patches. (viability litigation)

WL-B

Retain snags and snag replacement green trees in accord with the Northern Region Snag Management Protocol (USDA, 2000). Use Appendix XX "Coarse Woody Debris, Snag, and Green Tree Retention Guidelines" for prescriptions. Snag prescriptions will be applied, where possible, at the stand scale. Allow removal of trees and snags which present a safety hazard, as defined by OSHA.

I WL·C Maintain existing motorized vehicle restrictions within the planning area for wildlife security purposes. Do not allow contractors or their representatives to hunt or trap while using motorized vehicles on restricted routes. Use signs where needed to discourage public use of closed roads open for logging. (Travel Management and Existing Closure Orders)

27

i

WL-D Maintain existing motorized vehicle restrictions on reconstructed roads during and after implementation of activities, and thereby maintain existing levels of access and wildlife security. Use signs where needed to discourage public use of closed roads open for logging. (Travel Management and Existing Closure Orders)

WL-J Comply with summer elk habitat standards (Wildlife and Fish Standard #6, pg, 11-18, Nez Perce Forest Plan; and Forest Plan Amendment #23),

WL-M Retain sufficient hiding cover to provide a visual screen for wildlife security along roads, Minimize size and number of openings for treatment areas along open roads, *Hiding Cover: Vegetation capable of hiding 90% ofa standing elk from view of a human at 200 ft. or less.

HERITAGE RESOURCES

Avoid or protect known historic properties or sites, (Forest Plan, page II-I 7, Cultural Resources Standard #4 and Timber Sale HR-A

Contract Provision, currently 86.24)

Halt ground-disturbing activities if cultural resources are discovered until an Archaeologist can properly evaluate and document ! HR-8

the resources in compliance with 36 CFR 800, (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently 86,24),

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Use Forest Service approved native plant species or non-native annual species to meet erosion control needs and other

NW-A management objectives. Follow regional plant and seed transfer guidelines, Require contractors to use certified seed laboratories to test seed against the all state noxious weed list, and provide documentation of the seed inspection test to the contract administrator. Apply only certified weed-free seed and mulch, (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently C6.60 I)

NW-8 Certify that rock used for surfacing is free of noxious weed seed. (Road Package Specification)

NW-C Remove all mud, soil, and plant parts from off road equipment before moving into project area to limit the spread of noxious

iweeds, Conduct cleaning off National Forest lands, (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently 86.35), Survey for existing exotic or noxious vegetation populations prior to ground disturbing activities in currently susceptible or

NW-D disturbed areas. Implement control measures, prior to, concurrent and/or following activities, to minimize expansion of noxious and exotic vegetation into new disturbed areas,

TESPLANTS

i PLT-A

Protect TES plant species and/or potential habitat identified at any point during planning or implementation as recommended by the unit botanist and approved by the appropriate line officer. (Timber Sale Contract Provision, currently 86,24),

SoIL RESOURCES

Restrict activities when soils are wet to prevent resource damage (indicators include excessive rutting, soil displacement, and SR-I

erosion),

Locate and design skid trails, landings and yarding corridors prior to activities to minimize the area of detrimental soil effects, Space tractor skid trails 80 to 120 feet apart, except where converging on landings, to reduce the area of detrimental soil

SR-2 disturbance. This does not preclude the use of feller bunchers if soil impacts can remain within standards, If forwarder operations are used, a slash mat at least 4" thick would be placed on skid trails,

SR-3 Restrict equipment used for post-harvest excavator piling to existing trails and/or previously impacted areas,

SR-6 Scarify and recontour excavated skid trails and landings to restore slope hydrology and soil productivity.

Scarify non-excavated skid trails and landings that are compacted or entrenched 3 inches or more, Scarify to a depth of 6 to 14SR-7

inches but avoid bringing up unfavorable subsoil material.

All temporary roads will be scarified and recontoured (decommissioned), Decommissioning temporary roads accessing SR-8 mechanically harvested units will be completed following the post-harvest activities and will be coordinated by the implementing

resource, Reshape cut/fill slopes and crossings to natural contours.

Retain and/or return green tops (optional to include limbs as necessary) within units and allow green foliage to over-winter I year SR-9 prior to burning,

SR-12 Keep slash piles (excavator piles) small (4-10' in height) and numerous rather than large and few,

Retain 10-15 tons per acre of coarse woody debris (greater than 3 inches in diameter) following completion of activities, SR-13 Reference Appendix XX "Coarse Woody Debris, Snag and Green Tree Retention Guidelines",

*This mitigation meets the needs for both soils and wildlife resources,

WATER QUALITY ANDFISHHABnAT

Scatter available slash uniformly over decommissioned temporary roads, skid trails and scarified landings to attain 50% effective WQ-l ground cover wherever possible. Slash is considered available where the equipment is able to reach it from the working area

where the decommissioning is occurring.

Avoid direct ignition of fuels within RHCA's, Allow prescribed fires to back into these areas when fire severity would be low WQ-2 and burning would not result in extensive reduction oflree canopy cover (5% or less mortality in the mature canopy within

RHCA's) or exposure of bare soil.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT & PUBLIC SAFETY

AM-! Close existing gates (consistent with current motor vehicle restrictions) daily during non-operating hours.

28

AM-2

Consider alternative snowmobile roules and/or access and parking whcn winter log haul occurs on roads normally used as groomed snowmobile routes. Coordinate with the contractors and local organization(s) responsible for trail grooming to minimize impacts on forest visitors.

·Project mitigation measures will identity specific routes, access and parking areas.

I AM-3 l

· Prohibit log haul on road(s) xx - xx on weekends (all day Saturday and Sunday) and on Federally recognized holidays from (date) through (date).

I WILDLIFE

. WL-I

Notity the unit biologist should any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species be sighted in the project area during implementation. The wildlife biologist will determine appropriate conservation measures necessary to avoid adverse effects.

WL-3 Retain trees with obvious cavities or large stick nests.

WL-5 Retain green trees that are 20 inches or more DBH as shown in Appendix XX "Coarse Woody Debris, Snag and Green Tree Retention Guidelines".

AlRQUAUTY

AQ-I Limit burning to times when wind patterns would cause smoke plumes to drift away from local populated areas.

AQ-2 I Coordinate with the North IdaholMontana Airshed Group when prescribed bums are scheduled (minimum 24 hour notice) to

ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act.

FISHERIES

Allow instream activities in fish bearing streams between July I and August 15 to avoid sediment deposition on emerging FF-I steelhead or Chinook redds. These dates may be site-specifically adjusted through coordination with Central Idaho Levell team

review and approval.

29

i

APPENDIXC

EFFECTS TABLES

30

TABLE l' SOUTH TOWNSHIP HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT

Commercial and

Indicators Noncommercial

Thinning Prescribed Fire Temp, Roads Road Maint.

Watershed Road Density -1 ST

. Streamside Road Density 1-1

: Landslide Prone Road Density

'Riparian Vegetation Condition ·1

Peak/Base Flow -1. +1 LT (reduce wild -1, +1 LT(reduce fire threat) wild fire threat)

Water Yield (ECA) -1 -1

Width/Depth Ratio

Sediment Yield -1 ST -1 ST -1 ST +1 LT

Streambank Stability

Floodplain Connectivity

. Temperature Spawning

Temp. - Rearing and Migration

Turbidity or Suspended Sediment -1 ST, +1 LT (reduce -1 ST, +1 LT (reduce -1 ST +1 LT wild fire threat) wild fire threat)

Chem. Contaminants - Nutrients

Physical Barriers - Adults

Physical Barriers - Juvenile

Cobble Embeddedness

Percent Surface Fines

Percent Fines by Depth

Large Woody Debris

Pool Frequency

Pool Quality

Off-Channel Habitat

Habitat Refugia

Harassment

Redd Disturbance

Juvenile/Adult Harvest II II. " P - Proposed ProJect, ST - Short Term Effects; L T -Long Term Effects; NBE =Net BenefiCIal Effect; + - BenefiCIal Effect; • =

Negative Effect SCH=Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon; SH=Steelhead; BT=Bull Trout

Probability of Effect Pol. Effect None Very Low Low Moderate High ~ 0 0 0 0 0 Very Low 0 1 1 1 1 Low 0 1 1 2 2 MOderate 0 2 3 3 4 High 0 3 4 4 4

31

TABLE 2: DOCUMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF ACTION(S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS

WATERSHED NAME: Red River SUBBASIN NAME: South Fork Clearwater River ACTION(S): South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project SPECIES/LIFE STAGE: Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout. Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Redband Trout, and P aCI'fiIC Lam prey

PATHWAYS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 1/ EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Indicators High Moderate Low Restore 7.1 Maintain 'JI

WAIERSHED QONDITIONS 1. Watershed Road Density

X X

2. Streamside Road DenSity X X

3. Landslideprone Road Dens. X X

4. Riparian Vegetation Cond. X X

5. Peak/Base Flow X X

X X 6. Water Yield (ECA)

7. Sediment Yield X X

CHANNEL QOND.&DYNAMICS 1. Width/Depth Ratio I

X X

2. Stream bank Stability X X

3. Floodplain Connectivity X X

WATER Q!JALITY 1. Temp.-Spawn.

XSH X SCH, BT X

2. Temp.-Rear/Migration X SH,BT,SCH X

3. Suspended Sediment X X

4. Chem. ContamJNutrients X X

HABITAT ACCESS 1. Physical Barriers - Adult

IX X (trib.) X

2. Physical Barriers Juvenile X X (trib.) X

..1/ Indicators of high, moderate, or low habrtat condition. Refer to specific subbaslnlwatershed BAs for river and stream

Degrade ~/

II

environmental baseline information. gj For the purposes of this checklist, "restore" means to change the function of an indicator for the better, or that the rate of restoration rate is increased. 'JI For the purposed of this checklist, "maintain" means that the function of an indicator will not be degraded and that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator will not be retarded. ~/ For the purposed of this checklist, "degrade" means to change the function of an indicator for the worse, or that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator is retarded. In some cases, a "not properly functioning" indicator may be further worsened, and this should be noted.

32

TABLE 2: CONTINUED: DOCUMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF ACTION(S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS

WATERSHED NAME: Red River SUBBASIN NAME: South Fork Clearwater River ACTION(S): South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project SPECIES/LIFE STAGE: Steel head Trout, Bull Trout. Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Redband Trout, and P acifiIC Lamprey

PATHWAYS

Indicators

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 11 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

High Moderate Low Restore 2! Maintain 'J! Degrade ~/

HABITAT ELEMENTS 1. Cobble Embeddedness

2. Percent Surface Fines

3. Percent Fines By Depth

4. Large Woody Debris

5. Pool Frequency

!6. Pool Quality

7. Off·Channel Habitat

8. Habitat Refugia

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

TAKE 1, Harassment

2. Redd Disturbance

3. Juvenile/Adult Harvest

X X

X X

XSCH,BT XSH X

BULL TROUT SUBPOP. CHAR AND HABITAT INTEGRATION 1. Subpopulation Size

2. Growth and Survival

3. Life History Diversity, Isolation

4. Persist. & Genetic Integrity

5. Integr. of Species & Habitat Condition

X X

)< X

X X

X X

X X

- -11 SCH-SpnnglSummer Chinook Salmon, SH-Steelhead Trout. 6T--Bull Trout

33

TABLE 3: DOCUMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF ACTION(S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS

WATERSHED NAME: American River SUBBASIN NAME: South Fork Clearwater River ACTION(S): South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project SPECIES/LIFE STAGE: Steel head Trout, Bull Trout, Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Redband Trout, andPaCITIC Lamprey

PATHWAYS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 1/ EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Indicators High Moderate Low Restore ?.I Maintain 'J.I

WATERSHED CONDITIONS 1. Watershed Road Density

X X

2. Streamside Road Density X X

3. Landslideprone Road Dens. X X

4. Riparian Vegetation Condo X X

5. Peak/Base Flow X X

X X 6. Water Yield (ECA)

7. Sediment Yield X X

CHANNEL COND.&DYNAMICS 1. Width/Depth Ratio

X X

2. Streambank Stability X X

3. Floodplain Connectivity X X

WATER QUALITY 1. Temp.-Spawn.

XSH, WC XBT,SCH X

2. Temp.-Rear/Migration XSH. BT. X

3. Suspended Sediment SCH,WC

X X 4. Chem. Contam.lNutrients

X X

HABITAT ACCESS 1. Physical Barriers - Adult

X X (few tribs.) X

2. Physical Barriers Juvenile X X (few tribs.) X

..11 Indicators of high, moderate, or low habitat condition. Refer to specific subbaSin/watershed BAs for fiver and stream

Degrade ~/

I

environmental baseline information. 'lJ For the purposes of this checklist, "restore" means to change the function of an indicator for the better, or that the rate of restoration rate is increased. 'J,/ For the purposed of this checklist, "maintain" means that the function of an indicator will not be degraded and that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator will not be retarded. ~/ For the purposed of this checklist, "degrade" means to change the function of an indicator for the worse, or that the natural rate of restoration for this indicator is retarded. In some cases, a "not properly functioning" indicator may be further worsened, and this should be noted.

34

TABLE 3: CONTINUED: DOCUMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF ACTION(S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS

WATERSHED NAME: American River SUBBASIN NAME: South Fork Clearwater River ACTION(S): South Township Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project SPECIES/LIFE STAGE: Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout, Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Wests lope Cutthroat Trout, Redband Trout, and Pacific Lamprey

PATHWAYS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 1/ EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Indicators High Moderate Low Restore ?J Maintain 'J/ Degrade ~

HABITAT ELEMENTS 1. Cobble Embeddedness

Xx

2. Percent Surface Fines X X

3. Percent Fines By Depth X X

4. Large Woody Debris X X

X X 5. Pool Frequency

6. Pool Quality X X

7. Off-Channel Habitat X X

8. Habitat Refugia X X

TAKE 1. Harassment

X X

2. Redd Disturbance X X

3. Juvenile/Adult Harvest X BT, SCH XSH,WC X

BULL TROUT SUBPOP. CHAR. AND HABITAT INTEGRATION

X X1. Subpopulation Size

2. Growth and Survival X X

3. Life History Diversity, Isolation X X

X X 4. Persist. & Genetic Integrity

5. Integr. of Species & Habitat X XCondition

- - - -11 SCH-SpnnglSummer Chinook Salmon, FA-Fall Chinook Salmon, SH-Steelhead Trout, BT -Bull Trout, WC-Weslslope CT

35