CHAPTER III ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Environmental Assessment Chapter III – Environmental Consequences 21

Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment Chapter III – Environmental Consequences

19

Range ............................................................................... 21 Noxious Weeds ................................................................ 30 Sensitive Plants ................................................................ 34 Soils .................................................................................. 36 Hydrology ......................................................................... 40 Riparian Areas and Fisheries .......................................... 49 Wildlife .............................................................................. 55 Recreation ........................................................................ 69 Heritage ............................................................................ 71 Roads ............................................................................... 73 Special Uses .................................................................... 74 Air Force ........................................................................... 75 Public Health and Safety ................................................. 76 Required Analyses ........................................................... 78

CHAPTER III ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTIONThis chapter presents information about current resource conditions, and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the alternatives. These effects are the scientific and analytic basis for the Deciding Officer to base their decision on. The information presented in this chapter summarizes and cites the specialists’ reports that are found in the project analysis file. Full versions of specialists’ reports are available at the Sullivan Lake Ranger District office in Metaline Falls, Washington. Maps of all proposals are located in appendix A.

Other Actions Considered In the analysis process past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that might have cumulative impacts with the proposed action were identified. Those actions are listed below. Each resource area considered different mixes of these actions depending on the cumulative effects boundary for the resource area and the resource affected. For example, the cumulative effects boundary for grazing considers the grazing allotment boundaries whereas the cumulative effects boundary for hydrology is the watershed. Only those past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that overlap the geographic analysis area boundary for each particular resource are considered, and only if those other actions are expected to have overlapping effects within the Calispell Creek allotment project area. Some past projects may still be having effects on one resource, but not another.

Private Forestry Practices Stimson Lumber Company owns approximately 9,000 acres within the allotment boundary. The majority of these acres appear in aerial photographs to have been harvested in the fairly recent past primarily using even-aged harvest techniques. There is some ongoing harvest activity within the allotment in an area proposed for removal from the allotment boundary.

Timber Harvest – National Forest System Lands Less than one third of the NFS (National Forest System) lands within this allotment were harvested in the past 50 years. The Power Lake Timber and Fuels Management Project is being conducted currently and overlaps the majority of the allotment. This project proposes to harvest timber and treat fuels on approximately 7000 acres within the allotment.

Between approximately 1975 and 1995 there was an increase in the amount of roads and timber harvest units which provided livestock access to riparian areas. In the past, many of these activities also prescribed the use of palatable forage species when seeding for erosion control. This created an environment that attracted livestock into riparian areas and provided forage that encouraged them to stay rather than moving to uplands.

Timber Harvest – Land Managed by Other Agencies Washington Department of Natural Resources, and the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, have no ongoing or recent timber harvest activities in the project area.


20

Fire Based on the Colville National Forest fire history data, this area appears to have been spared from the large stand destruction type fires of the early 20th century. The relative abundance of larger old trees seems noticeable over other portions of the Pend Oreille valley. Fires did occur in this area though, and records that show point locations of fires go back to the 1930s. Presumably these fires were of relative low intensity or are small patches.

Prescribed Fire The Forest Service is currently proposing to burn roughly 200 acres of older shrub fields in the southwest portion of the allotment (Cottonwood Divide Prescribed Burn). The intent of this project would be to remove encroaching conifers and rejuvenate upland shrubs, thereby improving browse resources for big game on their summer range. The area to be burned is located on steep slopes and removed from roads. Livestock do not access the area for those reasons. Other prescribed burning activities are proposed in the Power Lake proposed action, including approximately 6,000 acres of jackpot and/or broadcast burning.

Range Areas and Open Range There is private property, both fenced and unfenced, within the boundaries of the Calispell Creek allotment. The lands within the project boundary have been determined to be “Range Areas”, also sometimes referred to as “open range” by Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 16.24.010 states that within Range Areas, “it shall be lawful to permit cattle, horses, mules or donkeys to run at large.” Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties have specified that the season for range areas is from April 1 to November 30 each year. Within the boundary of the Calispell allotment the grazing permit specifies use from June 1 to September 30. The RCW 16.60.015 further states that it is the responsibility of the land owner to construct and maintain fencing around their property should they not want livestock to run at large on their property.

Homesteading This area was homesteaded in the late 1800s through the 1930s. The National Forest System Lands that make up the Calispell Creek allotment were purchased through the resettlement act during the Great Depression and given National Forest status in 1938. Most existing meadows were created or expanded in the homestead era. Many of the drier grasslands have been encroached by conifers (generally lodgepole pine), and many old created meadows have disappeared entirely. Livestock grazing within the Calispell Creek allotment has occurred since the homesteading era. Documented livestock use under Forest Service permits has occurred since 1946.

Noxious Weed Management Noxious weeds have occurred within the analysis area for many decades and the Forest Service has been treating them across the Forest since approximately 1979. Vehicles, humans, animals and other vectors will continue to carry new noxious weed threats onto NFS lands. The Forest Service will continue to work with the County Weed Board to treat them, but some, like St. Johnswort and knapweed, are expected to remain widespread and common.

Recreation Use Within the last ten years, recreation-related uses have dramatically increased in the project area, specifically along the Middle Fork of Calispell Creek. The Middle Fork Calispell Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trail is the only designated OHV trail on the Colville National Forest, and is located within the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment. Recreation has been observed as having impacts to meadows and riparian areas and directly to livestock. Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties passed an ordinance regarding OHV use and access to the analysis area that allows people to ride OHVs from local communities out to the national forest roads and system trails. It is expected to increase the availability of OHV access to multiple road systems in the analysis area. The Colville National Forest will be designating dual use routes in conjunction with these County routes.


21

The development of user-created recreation trails and motorized recreation within the project area complicates livestock management by breaching natural barriers to livestock movement, damaging fences, and displacing livestock.

Recreation uses, such as camping, are also having an impact to primary range areas within the project boundary. Camping activity is generally located at the meadow margins, in dry areas adjacent streams or springs. The impacts are severe in some locations, but spatially limited. Most of the meadows show some signs of dispersed camping and many have one or two user-created OHV trails. Small campsites are generally about 100 square feet; larger sites may be 1,000 square feet. Heavily used areas are less desirable to livestock.

Effects of Alternatives by Resource or Topic

Range Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about rangeland grazing is excerpted from the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Range Report by Chase Bolyard, District Rangeland Management Specialist (2011). The full text of this report is incorporated by reference and is available in the project analysis file.

Data Collection Grazing use occurs in accordance with annual operating instructions which are developed prior to each grazing season. The annual operating instructions define the authorized number of livestock, pasture rotation and use periods, and discuss range improvements. The following discussion is based on these documents, field review, GIS data, monitoring data, and on aerial photo interpretation.

Framework Management of grazing by domestic livestock is guided by the Forest Plan (pages 4-44 and 4-45). Individual direction regarding the implementation of grazing in the Calispell Creek allotment is found in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) of 1979. Additional utilization standards are listed in the Forest Plan, pages 4-46 and 4-47.

Desired Conditions The Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan desired future condition for the Forest in ten years is that livestock grazing will be more intensively managed. Livestock use will stay within the established use rates. Permittee control will be at an adequate level and, overall, more intensive management systems will be employed. Riparian habitat protection and/or recovery will be emphasized (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-63).

Existing Condition History The Calispell Creek allotment has documented grazing use back to 1946, but grazing use likely occurred in the area long before that since homesteading occurred from approximately the 1890s to the 1930s. Documented authorized livestock use has always been for cattle. In the past the allotment was jointly grazed by 2 permittees, but is currently managed by only 1 permittee. Until 1963 the allotment was managed as a single pasture, but uneven distribution of cattle and over utilization of some areas of the allotment prompted the construction of cross-fencing and creation of 4 different pastures in 1963. Over the years the fence condition has become degraded and the rest-rotation system has been abandoned and the allotment is currently managed as a season-long pasture.


22

The amount of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) authorized has varied widely over the documented history of the allotment. An AUM is defined as the amount of forage required to feed a 1,000 pound cow for a one month period. Historic stocking rates were somewhat variable, ranging from 524 to 600 AUMs. Currently the allotment is authorized for 461 AUMs to be utilized between June 1 and September 30.

Current Management The Calispell Creek allotment is categorized as a Cattle and Horse (C&H) allotment with 87 cow/calf pairs authorized to graze from June 1 to September 30 each year. The allotment is managed as a single, season-long pasture even though the AMP identifies 4 separate pastures on the allotment. Natural barriers that limit cattle drift have been altered due to timber harvest activities, and fences that once helped to control cattle movement have degraded to an ineffective state.

The 1979 plan identified four pastures which are; Big Swamp, Cahow, Delaney, and Gletty/Bartlett. The AMP identifies a deferred rotation grazing system with rotations as follows:

Table 5. Current Rotation Grazing System Year Big Swamp Gletty-Bartlett Cahow Delaney

1 6/1 – 6/12 6/13 – 7/26 7/27 – 8/28 8/29 – 9/30

2 9/17 – 9/30 6/1 – 7/14 7/15 – 8/16 8/17 – 9/16

3 8/4 – 8/16 8/17 – 9/30 6/1 – 7/3 7/4 – 8/3

4 7/1 – 7/14 7/15 – 8/27 8/28 – 9/30 6/1 – 7/2

The deferred rotation grazing system was kept in place until the early 1990s. At that time timber harvest activities removed a majority of the natural barriers that helped to keep cattle from drifting across the allotment, and along with a lack of fencing to restrict cattle movement a rotational grazing system was no longer an achievable objective. The allotment management was changed to a season-long grazing system, where cattle are placed on the allotment at lower elevations in Delaney and Bartlett Meadows early in the season and allowed to naturally drift. Cattle are moved to higher elevations such as the Ninebark area as available forage decreases in the lower elevations and conditions at the higher elevations become more conducive to grazing use. Season long pressure from grazing use in the Delaney Meadows area has led to higher than desirable use levels. Cool evening temperatures and abundant water act as an attractant late in the season, causing cattle to

Table 4. Current Pastures Current Pasture

Designations Acres

Big Swamp 17,704

Cahow 8,596

Delaney 5,247

Gletty/Bartlett 5,467

TOTAL 37,014

Figure 1. Delaney Meadow, early 1930s


23

be drawn to the Delaney Meadows area instead of remaining at higher elevations such as the Ninebark area. This has led to higher than desirable riparian vegetation use and stream bank alteration.

There are several homestead meadows that provide valuable forage for livestock and wildlife within the Calispell Creek allotment. These homestead meadows are generally located adjacent to water sources such as streams. Homestead meadows are areas that were cleared of timber to provide a home site, then tilled and planted to provide forage for livestock. Some of the homestead meadows on the Forest were maintained into the 1980s by removing encroaching trees, burning, tilling and reseeding these areas to maintain their productivity. Conifer tree encroachment into the original cleared area of homestead meadows is occurring at varying degrees within this allotment, and is decreasing the amount and quality of upland foraging areas provided by meadows. Additionally, noxious weeds are present in many of the homestead meadows within the allotment, further decreasing the amount and quality of available forage. Grass species commonly found in homestead meadows include Kentucky bluegrass, orchard grass, timothy and red top.

Range Improvements The first range improvement projects within the Calispell Creek allotment were constructed in the 1960s. Identifying range improvement project needs and construction/reconstruction of range improvement projects has been occurring from the time of construction to present. Existing range improvements for the Calispell Creek allotment consist of twelve livestock management fences totaling 3.4 miles. The fencing was put in place in order to create allotment and pasture boundaries. There are no developed water sources within this allotment, so cattle are required to water at streams and undeveloped springs within the allotment. The first range improvements on this allotment were constructed in 1963, and construction/reconstruction of improvements continue as the need arises. Range improvements identified in the Term Grazing Permit are maintained annually by the permittee. All range improvements deteriorate as they age and may require reconstruction when annual maintenance is no longer capable of keeping them in working order.

Of the 12 livestock management fences that exist on the ground, only the Delaney and North Fork (NF) Calispell Bridge fences are assigned to the permittee for maintenance currently. Neither of these fences serves a critical function in controlling livestock drift. There are fences currently in place that are essential in controlling livestock drift and are maintained by the permittee. Fences that serve a critical function in controlling livestock drift have been inventoried on the ground and would be

Table 6. Existing Improvements Improvement

Name Type of

Improvement Condition

Rating Length (ft)

Long-Term Need

Flowery Trail 1 Fence Poor 2873 keep

Flowery Trail 2 Fence Poor 7067 remove

Tenmile East Fence Good 336 keep

Tenmile West Fence Good 269 keep

NF Calispell Bridge

Fence Poor 456 remove

East Bartlett Fence Poor 772 remove

Ninebark Fence Poor 857 remove

Donaldson Fence Good 277 keep

Delaney Fence Poor 2753 keep

MF Calispell Fence Good 875 keep

Flowery Trail 1 Wing

Fence Good 197 keep

Tenmile South Fence Poor 980 remove


24

assigned to the permittee for maintenance so that what is on the ground and what is included in permit are consistent with each other. There are also seven small exclosure fences not represented in the above table that are maintained by district wildlife staff.

Vegetation The Calispell Creek allotment is a mix of many habitat types and aspects. There are many areas of denser timber that provide few foraging areas for livestock. Most livestock foraging areas in the allotment are found in naturally open areas, homestead meadows and open canopy timber stands that provide transitory rangelands. Elevation within the allotment ranges from approximately 2,300 to 5,700 feet.

Most of the allotment is timbered with major tree species being ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, white pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western red cedar, hemlock, Engelmann spruce and western larch.

Principle forage species within the allotment include Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, redtop, orchard grass, timothy and pinegrass. Shrubs found on the allotment which appear to furnish browse for livestock and wildlife include: redstem ceanothus, serviceberry, snowberry, ninebark and oceanspray.

Usable forage available for wildlife and livestock is 50 percent of the total forage produced (CNF Land and Resource Management Plan 2-12, 1988). Of the 50 percent available to livestock and wildlife, 45 percent is available to livestock. This equates to there being 22.5 percent of the total forage produced that is available to livestock. Private lands within the boundary of the Calispell Creek allotment are not included in the carrying capacity calculations since the Forest Service can not authorize grazing on private lands.

Alternative B- Adaptive Management Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, permitted livestock grazing of National Forest Lands would continue with some changes to the grazing system, construction of improvements to improve distribution and management of the allotment, and changes to the allotment boundary.

Allotment boundary adjustment In order to comply with national direction and the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the allotment boundary would be modified to exclude large pieces of private land to minimize conflicting interests, and to include one piece within the forest boundary that is not currently part of the allotment.

Boundary adjustments proposed for removal include:

Lands on the south end of the allotment in T. 31 N., R. 42 E. over which the Forest Service has no jurisdiction or legal access;

The area around the 49° North Mountain Resort Ski area because cattle grazing is not a compatible use in management area 3C (downhill skiing);

The area north of the ski area; and

Approximately 160 acres of section 8 in T. 32 N., R. 43 E. in the northeast corner of the allotment which is also private land over which the Forest Service has no authority for permitting cattle use.

One boundary adjustment is proposed for addition:


25

Approximately 160 acres would be added to the current permit boundary in T. 32 N., R. 43 E., SW ¼ of section 28. This would allow for the permit boundary to more closely align with the forest boundary.

Designation of a new pasture system for management of the allotment. The season of use on the allotment would remain the same (June 1 – September 30) but a deferred rotation grazing system would be implemented. The allotment would be divided into 3 pastures- Delaney, Bartlett, and Big Swamp totaling 27,161 acres.

Early season use would be in the Delaney Pasture. From Delaney the cattle would be moved to the Bartlett Pasture, with late season use in the Big Swamp Pasture. The length of stay in each pasture would be as follows:

The rotation schedule is based on number of acres capable or suitable of supporting grazing use as well as input from the permittee. This would be used as a general guideline to prescribe seasons of use of each pasture. Livestock may be moved from a pasture early if resource conditions on the ground permit. In the event that grazing standards were being

met or exceeded prior to September 30 the permittee would be required to remove their livestock from the allotment. Indicators used to determine appropriate livestock use levels would be as follows:

Utilization- <45% of available forage removed from forested settings, <55% of available forage removed from meadows

Streambank alteration:

- Annual: <20%

- 10-year desired future condition: <15%

Greenline stubble height- >4”

Shrub utilization- <50% use of current year’s growth

These indicators would be assessed on an annual basis (at a minimum) for each pasture by rangeland management staff. Failure to comply with the above described standards for one grazing season would result in a warning being issued to the permittee. Consecutive failures to comply with standards may result in reduced permitted numbers or reduction in length of grazing season.

The current season long grazing system and lack of developed water sources has resulted in higher than desired impacts to stream banks and riparian vegetation in the Delaney Meadows area on Middle Fork Calispell Creek. Intensive monitoring of cattle use in the Delaney Meadows area would be required to ensure that livestock do not exceed allowable standards for use in order to allow the stream and riparian vegetation to recover. Stream bank alteration has been identified as the critical indicator of use for Middle Fork Calispell Creek because it is the indicator that is most likely to be met or exceeded first. Monitoring of stream bank alteration as described in Bengeyfield and Svoboda (1998) would begin approximately half way through the season of use for the Delaney pasture. Stream bank alteration would continue to be measured at least weekly. If stream bank alteration meets or exceeds 20% prior to July 15, the permittee would be required to move the cattle to the Bartlett pasture. The permittee would also be responsible for ensuring cattle drift back into the Delaney pasture is minimized once cattle have been moved out of the Delaney pasture. This should provide for recovery of the stream bank and riparian vegetation conditions in the Delaney Meadows area. Improvements to stream bank conditions and riparian vegetation should be apparent within 5

Table 7. Proposed Rotation Schedule

Pasture Acres Dates

Delaney 11,822 6/1 – 7/15

Bartlett 6,562 7/16 – 8/15

Big Swamp 8,777 8/16 – 9/30


26

years. After five years a determination would be made if the proposed pasture rotation and livestock use standards are sufficient to allow recovery of the Middle Fork Calispell Creek or if other measures such as fencing or rest would be required. The long-term goal for the Middle Fork Calispell Creek in the Delaney Meadows area is to have 15% or less altered stream banks within a 10 year period.

Water Development Up to four water developments are being proposed for construction. Developing upland water sources provides livestock a place to water other than the stream, reducing livestock impacts to streams and water quality. In areas where water troughs are installed, there is likely to be decreased use of streams by livestock (Willms et al. 2002) because livestock prefer to drink at the trough rather than a stream or spring. Springs would be developed and fenced with water piped to a trough in an upland location away from the source, with an overflow to return excess water back to the stream channel or into the ground. Three water developments are being proposed in the Delaney Pasture. Construction of water developments in the Delaney Pasture may reduce livestock use of the Middle Fork Calispell Creek providing for improved riparian and stream conditions.

An additional water development may be constructed in T. 32 N., R. 43 E. S17 NE¼ SW¼ in the Bartlett Pasture. Construction of this water development may not be necessary and is contingent on livestock use patterns and riparian conditions. If watering opportunities within the Bartlett pasture are sufficient and riparian conditions are satisfactory, this water development may not be necessary.

Construction of water improvements would be contingent on a site assessment by Forest archaeology crews to determine if historic or cultural materials exist in the proposed locations. The Rangeland Management Specialist would identify the locations of the water improvements and provide this information to the Forest Archeologist so that each site can be assessed prior to any work being performed.

Fence construction, maintenance, and removal Grazing permittees have always been responsible for maintenance of range improvement projects and project maintenance is a term and condition of their grazing permits. Current range improvement project maintenance and that which would be required under the proposed action alternative are displayed below.

Table 8. Current and Proposed Range Improvement Maintenance Requirements

Allotment

Current Proposed Action

Fence (miles)

Water developments

Fence (miles)

Water developments

Calispell Creek 1.00 0 1.00-1.25* 3-4

*Note- actual miles of fence would depend on the amount of drift fence required to reduce cattle drift from the Bartlett pasture into the Delaney pasture.

A new fence on Bartlett Creek would exclude livestock use from a portion of Bartlett Creek that is lacking multiple age classes of woody riparian vegetation. This project would occur on the north side of County road 2030 in the Bartlett Meadow area. This fence, in addition to the potential water trough, may greatly reduce livestock impacts to riparian areas along Bartlett Creek. Riparian habitat and water quality would likely improve as a result of constructing an exclosure (Schulz and Leininger 1990).

The Tenmile South Fence (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S14 NW¼ NE ¼) would have the wire rolled up and removed but the posts would remain in place. This fence is currently not needed for livestock


27

management but may become essential if future timber harvest activities provide greater cattle access to Tenmile Creek. The posts would only be left in place temporarily, and if not needed for long-term management of the allotment, would be removed.

The East Bartlett (T. 32 N., R. 43 E. S16 SW¼ SW¼), North Fork Calispell Bridge (T. 32 N., R. 43 E. S19 SW¼ NE¼), Delaney (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S25 SW¼ SE¼, NW¼ SE ¼, and NE¼ SW¼), Flowery Trail 2 (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S11 and 12), and Ninebark (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S10 NW¼ SE¼) fences would be removed from the allotment. A majority of the Flowery Trail 1 fence (T32N R42E S12) would also be removed, totaling approximately 3 miles of fencing. These fences are all in poor condition and serve no purpose for livestock management. The cattle guard in the Middle Fork Calispell Road (C2022) where the Delaney fence crosses the road would also be removed.

The eastern-most portion of the Flowery Trail 1 fence and associated cattleguard would remain in place to reduce cattle drift off the allotment. Additionally the Flowery Trail Wing (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S12 SE¼ NE¼), Middle Fork Calispell (T. 32 N., R. 43 E. S21 NE¼ SW¼), Tenmile East (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S11 NW¼ SE¼), Tenmile West (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S11 SW¼ SE¼), and Donaldson fences (T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S09 NE¼ NW¼) and their associated cattle guards would remain in place to reduce drift between pastures and off the allotment.

Roads A cattle guard would be installed in the Middle Fork Calispell Road (C2022) in a location that would reduce livestock drift back into the Delaney pasture after the specified off-date. Depending on location, wing fences attached to the cattle guard may be necessary to create an effective barrier to livestock movement. The most likely location for this cattle guard is in T. 32 N., R. 42 E. S19 SW1/4. Additional drift fencing may be required to reduce cattle drift from private land in T. 32 N., R. 43 E. S19 NW1/4.

A stock driveway would be constructed by removing dense vegetation from Forest Road 3530-010 to allow livestock to be more effectively moved from the Bartlett Pasture to the Big Swamp Pasture. Vegetation would be removed from the road prism so that livestock could be moved while trying to discourage off-highway vehicle (OHV) use of this route. Construction of this stock driveway would help to improve distribution of livestock.

Hardened Crossings There are 2 hardened crossings on Middle Fork Calispell Creek that need to be improved to allow access by livestock and reduce impacts to the stream. By flattening the approaches and improving access to hardened crossings, livestock would be more likely to use the crossings than non-improved sites. Once improved, the hardened crossings would reduce sedimentation by sloping and armoring stream banks. Livestock use of Middle Fork Calispell Creek in proximity to the proposed hardened crossings is expected to decrease since livestock prefer to water at such areas compared to natural stream crossings.

While there would be minor impacts due to the construction of range improvement projects such as fencing, water troughs and hardened crossings, these projects would act Figure 2. Hardened Crossing at Delaney Meadow


28

to disperse livestock and attract livestock away from riparian areas. As a result livestock utilization in uplands would be more uniform and riparian utilization would be reduced.

Meadow Retention The removal of encroaching coniferous trees from homestead meadows such as Delaney, Bartlett, and Platt Place meadows and seeding where appropriate or needed would provide valuable upland foraging areas within this allotment for livestock and wildlife. As trees begin to establish in homestead meadows, the grassy herbaceous understory is reduced or lost due to shading. Maintaining homestead meadows as open areas would act to attract livestock away from riparian areas by providing forage in nonriparian areas. Riparian areas associated with homestead meadows would not have trees removed and may have brush barricades constructed where woody vegetation is inadequate. Therefore livestock would not have increased access to riparian areas from meadow retention activities. Livestock would likely spend less time grazing or loitering in riparian areas as a result of the proposed meadow retention work.

Though most homestead meadows are in close proximity to water sources and riparian areas, no additional impacts are expected to occur in these areas from the proposed action. Removal of coniferous trees would only occur in upland areas. Sensitive areas such as along streams and in riparian areas would be avoided.

Meadow retention would result in less impact to established vegetation in the other portions of the allotment as well. There would be more grass for livestock and wildlife to utilize within the allotment, therefore the total use would be spread out over a greater area. Forage produced in homestead meadows is especially important because these areas are quite productive when compared to forests of the surrounding areas.

Ripping and Seeding Ripping and seeding of a portion of Bartlett Meadow would help to reduce soil compaction and increase productivity. Over the years a variety of activities such as homesteading, grazing, recreation, OHV use and others have created highly compacted soils in many of the homestead meadows throughout the allotment. Plant roots have difficulty penetrating these compacted soils, resulting in less vigorous and productive plants. This decreased productivity can lead to increased bare soil which is susceptible to noxious weed invasion. Ripping loosens the soil so that plants can more easily establish and have higher productivity. Seeding would help to ensure that desirable native species re-establish on the site and would minimize the chance for nonnative species or noxious weeds to become established. The area that would be ripped and seeded would be temporarily fenced off to allow the plants time to establish and re-vegetate the site with minimal disturbance.

Cumulative Effects Homesteading between the 1890s and 1930s created clearings adjacent to or surrounding streams and riparian areas. Due to past management and livestock grazing these areas have been slow to recover and many of the riparian areas near homestead meadows show impacts from livestock grazing. In some locations, riparian area improvement has been challenged by inadequate range improvement projects which would provide for periods of rest/deferment and off stream watering. Riparian areas within the Calispell Creek allotment should improve by increased vegetative age class diversity and bank stability as a result of water development construction and changing the grazing system to a deferred rotation system.

Past timber harvest activities within the Calispell Creek allotment have resulted in a positive effect on the forage base. Timber harvest created openings in the forest which provided temporary additional forage for livestock by way of creating transitory rangelands. When transitory rangeland is created and available, it reduces the level of grazing pressure on primary and secondary rangeland.


29

Transitional rangelands also provide an abundance of forage for livestock which produces heavier calves for the producers and higher economic gains when their calves are sold at market.

Future timber harvest activities on National Forest System lands would have an effect on the forage base on the Calispell Creek allotment. Removal of timber and canopy cover would create transitory range areas that provide forage for livestock grazing. Timber harvest on both Forest Service and private lands may alter natural boundaries to cattle movement and cattle use patterns. This may allow for cattle drift among pastures or off the allotment. Timber harvest is a reasonably foreseeable action and the effects of harvest on cattle distribution and use patterns would need to be considered to help ensure the success of the proposed grazing system.

Range improvement project maintenance is expected to increase with the proposed action alternative. Increased efforts to complete project maintenance based on the number of water developments and miles of fence would have an impact to permittees by requiring more time to complete such work. Usual maintenance for projects that are in good or satisfactory condition generally requires little to be done each year. Each improvement would have to be visited annually to ensure it is functioning properly and maintenance would occur as needed prior to and throughout the grazing season. Therefore, the increase in the number of projects to maintain would likely have a relatively small impact on permittees time over that currently required.

Within the last ten years, recreation-related uses have dramatically increased in the Calispell Creek area. Recreation has been observed as having measurable impacts to riparian areas, which degrade and damage riparian resources and increase the amount of sediment in streams. The proposed action would act to lessen impacts to riparian areas from livestock grazing by encouraging riparian recovery and likely reducing the amount of time livestock spend in riparian areas. Due to recreation use combined with livestock use, some riparian areas and streams may demonstrate characteristics that are less than their potential, but impacts to these areas are likely to be reduced by the proposed action compared to the existing condition.

The development of user created recreation trails and motorized recreation within the project area have acted to complicate livestock management by breaching natural barriers to livestock movement and displacing livestock. The proposed grazing system for the allotment was designed to allow for riparian recovery by managing the timing of grazing. When there are ineffective livestock barriers, breached barriers, or gates (typically adjacent to cattle guards) left open, livestock could potentially use an area outside of its proposed use period which could affect the rate of riparian recovery. When user created OHV trails intersect livestock fences, the fences could become damaged or cut, thus rendering them ineffective. As a result, the amount of fence maintenance required may increase.

Recreation use such as camping is also having an impact to primary range areas within the project boundary. Many of the homestead meadow sites, which are considered to be semi-permanent primary range areas, are increasingly used as camping locations for forest visitors. Use of these homestead meadows by campers is causing areas of soil compaction, which in turn reduces infiltration and productivity. Heavily used areas are also less desirable to livestock

Continuing to permit the current number of livestock on the Calispell Creek allotment would allow for a sustained level of livestock production for the permittees, which equates to sustaining the local economy.

Continuing the permitting of livestock within the project area could have some impact on post harvest regeneration rates of timber on NFS and private lands. Impacts to tree regeneration have been observed to be insignificant in dry, upland areas and therefore, the impact is likely minimal.

The activities in the proposed action would act to guide the Calispell Creek allotment to improved resource conditions while sustaining the current level of permitted livestock and AUMs.


30

Alternative C (no action) Under this alternative livestock use would not be permitted so no boundary adjustment would be needed. None of the developments or improvements would occur. Under the no action alternative the existing range improvements would no longer be the responsibility of the permittees to maintain. Alternative funding sources for maintenance of range improvements would need to be secured if range improvements were to remain functional, or they would deteriorate on the landscape.

No forage material would be used by livestock; therefore, additional forage should be available for wildlife.

Under the no action alternative, all use levels attributed to livestock would be classified as no use; no Forest Plan allowable use levels would be exceeded. Trees would continue to establish in these meadows and the grassy herbaceous understory would diminish due to shading. Ultimately there would be either no meadow, or a much smaller meadow confined to the wettest portions. There would be no impacts of livestock accessing riparian areas.

Cumulative Effects Under the no action alternative, range improvements would not be maintained by permittees. If livestock management fences and water developments are not maintained and fall into a state of disrepair, there could be negative impacts to wildlife (Rosenstock et al. 1999). Deteriorating fences could also have a negative impact on motorized and non-motorized recreation since loose wire could entangle motorized vehicles, people, horses, and pets.

Private, state and other federal lands within or adjacent to the project area that are unfenced or have poorly constructed and/or maintained fences would not experience incidental livestock use from Forest Service permitted livestock as a result of the “no action” alternative since livestock grazing would not be authorized.

Noxious Weeds Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about noxious weeds is excerpted from the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Noxious Weed Report by Chase Bolyard, District Rangeland Management Specialist and Noxious Weed Coordinator (2011). The full text of this report is incorporated by reference and is available in the project analysis file.

Analysis is based on review of District and Forest records as well as site-specific review of the permit area. Many noxious weed species are present and established within the Calispell Creek allotment, therefore, only the prevention of weed spread and/or the compounding of weed problems that could result from the alternatives will be discussed. The project would not address the treatment of existing weed locations or the spread of weeds that could occur independently of the actions proposed in alternatives. Treatment of existing noxious weeds within the project area is addressed in the Colville National Forest Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment Environmental Assessment (1998) and supported by the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program EIS and ROD (2005).

Data Collection Noxious weed surveys were contracted and occurred simultaneously with noxious weed eradication in the Power Lake project area in 2010. Survey and treatment will continue in 2011. Japanese knotweed is an aggressive invader that spreads via rhizomes. It tends to grow along creeks or in moist areas that are very favorable for plant growth. There is only one known population within the project area that was detected in 2009; treatment will begin in the 2011 season.

Framework Direction provided in the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is that “emphasis will be given to the control and reduction of noxious weed infestations”. The Forest has also developed the Seeding and Planting Guide for the Colville National Forest which addresses the


31

need to seed vegetation such as grasses and legumes on highly disturbed sites and provides guidance to match sites with appropriate plant species. Direction is also provided by the Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines document which was developed to minimize the introduction of noxious weeds, minimize conditions that favor the establishment of noxious weeds and minimize conditions that favor the spread of noxious weeds (U.S. Forest Service 1999).

The Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (October 11, 2005) provides for seven new standards for prevention of noxious weeds. There are three that apply to this project:

Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be addressed in ….grazing allotment management plans; vegetation management plans, and other land management assessments.

Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will operate outside the limits of the road prism ….require the cleaning of all heavy equipment prior to entering National Forest System Lands.

Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management.

Desired Conditions The occurrence and spread of noxious weeds will be reduced as a result of integrated pest management (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-64).

Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B Noxious weeds are non-native plants that have been introduced and can be highly destructive, competitive and difficult to control. Noxious weeds can lead to degraded plant and animal habitat, displace native vegetation, increase erosion and some are toxic to animals.

The following table displays the noxious weed and invasive species known to exist within the project area and their control category as determined by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_list/weed_list.htm).

The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board has developed control categories to prioritize noxious weed species based on the seriousness of the threat they pose. Noxious weeds are classified into three major classes; Class A, Class B, and Class C.

Class A weeds are non-native species whose distribution in Washington State is still limited. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations are the highest priority. Eradication of all Class A plants is required by law. There are no Class A plant species known to exist within the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment.

Class B weeds are non-native species

Table 9. Noxious Weeds in the Project Area and their State Designations

Species Common Name Control Category Cheatgrass Unclassified Common Mullein Unclassified Common Bugloss Class B Non-Designate Dalmation Toadflax Class B Non-Designate Diffuse and Spotted Knapweed Class B Non-Designate Japanese Knotweed Class B Non-Designate Orange Hawkweed Class B Non-Designate Oxeye Daisy Class B Non-Designate Sulfur Cinquefoil Class B Non-Designate Yellow Hawkweed Class B Non-Designate Absinth Wormwood Class C Bull Thistle Class C Canada Thistle Class C Hounds tongue Class C St. Johnswort Class C


32

which are presently limited to portions of the state. These species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet widespread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In areas where Class B species are already abundant, control is decided at the County level with containment as a primary goal. For species listed as Class B Designate, control is required; there are no Class B Designate weeds recorded in the project area. For species listed as Class B Non-Designate, control is required in vehicle corridors and areas of limited distribution and encouraged in areas of large infestations.

Class C weeds are species that are already present and widespread across the state and control is encouraged in areas of large infestations, but not required.

Weed Treatments The Colville National Forest has been engaged in noxious weed treatments in the project area since 1979. Currently, noxious weed treatments have been occurring under the direction of, and in compliance with, the Colville National Forest’s 1998 Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment and the 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Environmental Impact Statement. The Colville National Forest utilizes an integrated pest management approach to controlling noxious weeds. Noxious weed treatments have primarily focused on herbicide application, but cultural, mechanical and biological control methods have also been employed.

The roads within the Power Lake project area, which overlaps the Calispell Creek allotment, were most recently treated for noxious weeds in 2010. Treatment will continue in 2011.

Most noxious weed populations found within the Calispell Creek area are associated with forest roads and trails. Roads and trails are areas of disturbance with bare soil which is susceptible to noxious weed establishment, and they act as vectors for noxious weed spread by vehicles.

Spread of Noxious Weeds Under the proposed action, continued presence of livestock within the Calispell Creek allotment may continue to spread certain noxious weeds, such as diffuse knapweed and houndstongue to a small degree by seeds becoming attached to livestock hair. Most populations of noxious weeds within the project area are associated with roads and human activities such as camping, driving and motorized recreation. Livestock are a relatively minor vector in spreading many of the noxious weeds found to exist within the project area; therefore continued livestock grazing is likely to contribute very little to the spread or establishment of noxious weeds.

Disturbed Ground and Shading Maintaining homestead meadows as open areas by removing encroaching coniferous trees would result in these areas remaining susceptible to noxious weed invasion. Once a seed source is present, noxious weeds usually require an area of disturbed soil and adequate sunlight to establish. Most noxious weeds do not establish in dense vegetation or in shaded environments, such as under a continuous tree canopy, with the exception of yellow and orange hawkweed. Maintaining homestead meadows within the Calispell Creek allotment as open areas would provide additional noxious weed habitat, but seeding of desirable vegetation following treatments would act to mitigate the establishment of invasive plants. By removing trees from meadows, noxious weed treatments would be easier to implement since trees would not be interfering with herbicide application equipment or spray pattern.

Employing prescribed fire to reduce remaining woody vegetation after completion of meadow retention work could promote new noxious weed infestations. The relatively small size of the piles and fuel to be burnt would not create measurable soil disturbance especially since treatments would occur in the fall or spring when there is additional soil moisture and reduced soil temperatures.


33

Seeding desirable vegetation in areas following fuels treatment would act to reduce the risk of noxious weed establishment.

The proposed meadow rehabilitation work that would occur in Bartlett Meadow may have potential to become established with noxious weeds since there would be disturbed soils and there is a seed source for yellow hawkweed and diffuse knapweed currently in the area. The risk for noxious weed invasion following proposed activities would occur during the first two growing seasons while there would be bare soil and until desirable vegetation becomes established. Once desirable vegetation has become established, the site would be at a reduced risk of noxious weed infestation compared to the present condition. Therefore, there would likely be less noxious weeds present following ripping, seeding and desirable vegetation establishment than there is currently. Temporary fencing would keep vehicles and livestock from transporting any additional weeds into the area, while giving new plants time to establish.

The proposed construction of fences and water developments would result in very small isolated areas of soil disturbance where noxious weeds could establish. Potential areas of noxious weed invasion associated with fencing include disturbed soils around brace posts and cattleguard installation. Potential areas of noxious weed invasion associated with water development construction and use would be denuded areas around water troughs and disturbed soils where pipelines would be buried. Because of the small size of the disturbed areas, they should be revegetated with desirable species in one or possibly two growing seasons. These areas are routinely monitored both for maintenance needs and noxious weed infestations by permittees and Forest Service personnel.

In areas where construction-type equipment would be used for project construction, such as the proposed hardened crossings, there is a risk of noxious weed seeds and reproductive parts being introduced. The potential for noxious weeds becoming established at the above mentioned sites would be effectively mitigated by requiring the washing of equipment prior to entering the National Forest and using only aggregate and fill from sites identified to be free of noxious weeds and noxious weed seeds.

Alternative C (no action) If grazing were no longer permitted (no action alternative) on the Calispell Creek allotment, there would likely be little to no noticeable difference in spread of noxious weeds. This is because the known noxious weed species within the Calispell Creek allotment are spread by a wide variety of vectors including wind, birds, gravity, vehicles, humans, and animals. Vehicles seem to be the primary vector of noxious weed spread transporting noxious weeds to non-infested areas. Elimination of livestock is unlikely to appreciably affect the rate or distance of spread since vehicle use is likely to continue, if not increase.

The exceptions are spread of diffuse knapweed and houndstongue which may attach to hair or fur and be transported. But again, this is not the sole vector, nor the primary one. Because these other vectors will still be present in the project area, the rate of diffuse knapweed spread is likely to continue as is, or change only slightly.

Under the no action alternative, the small denuded areas resulting from concentrated livestock use, such as near livestock trails, would eventually have vegetation establish on them. These areas, once vegetated, would be less susceptible to noxious weed invasion. These currently denuded areas represent a negligible area within the allotment, therefore the risk they currently pose is likely very small.


34

Cumulative Effects There has been an increasing trend in the introduction and spread of noxious weeds on the Calispell Creek allotment since the 1950s starting with St. Johnswort followed by diffuse knapweed. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, a major increase in road construction and timber harvest created opportunity for the establishment of diffuse knapweed and many other newly introduced noxious weeds. Livestock numbers were stable or in a declining trend during that same time period. With increased disturbance and access, the spread of noxious weeds increased. In the 1980s an increase in the amount and species of noxious weeds generally went unabated except for some minor mechanical treatments until the early 1990s.

Due to the amount of roads that exist within the Calispell Creek allotment, and the maintenance and use of these roads, noxious weed populations are expected to increase and spread in the future regardless of livestock grazing. Soil disturbance, such as that associated with roads and motorized trails, appears to be critically important in the beginning of the invasion process since it creates openings for noxious weeds to occupy (Masters and Sheley, 2001).

Fuel treatments, timber management and road construction, all of which produce areas of soil disturbance, are currently being proposed in the Power Lake Timber and Fuels Treatment Project and are likely to continue into the future. The areas of new disturbance are likely to remain the locations that are most susceptible to noxious weed invasion despite following the Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines because of exposed mineral soil and the presence of vectors that spread noxious weeds.

Currently, livestock are a small contributor to noxious weed spread in the Calispell Creek allotment when compared to motorized recreation and driving, which appear to be the main vectors for noxious weed spread.

Driving for pleasure, motorized recreation, hunting, hiking, firewood gathering, dispersed recreation and camping are all expected to continue independent of the proposed action, therefore noxious weeds would continue to be spread by these sources. Overall, motorized recreation is increasing in the project area, and the rate of noxious weed spread is expected to increase as a result since there would be more vehicles present to act as vectors. The proposed South End Motor Vehicle Management project would reduce vehicle access in the meadows and near streams, reducing this weed vector.

In spite of present and on-going noxious weed treatments in the area, which are implemented independent of this Environmental Assessment and the proposed action, populations of noxious weeds are expected to slightly increase and evolve based on trends that have been experienced to date. Effectiveness of noxious weed treatments is monitored and results have shown that the benefits of treatment can be observed for 2 to 5 years depending on the treatment method and the type of soil present.

Sensitive Plants This analysis was conducted by Colville National Forest Botanist Kathy Ahlenslager (2011) and the full report is located in the project file.

No federally listed threatened or endangered plants or plants proposed for federal listing are known to occur in the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment analysis area (USDI FWS 2007 and 2009).

Data Collection Intuitive-controlled sensitive plant surveys were conducted in 2006, 2009, and 2010. This survey technique means that during the pre-field review, species that normally occur well outside the


35

elevation range of the project area or those where typical habitat is not present are omitted from further analysis. Field reconnaissance is limited to areas within, adjacent or near the project area where proposed ground disturbing activities may affect sensitive plant species.

Framework Forest Service regulations direct the agency to ensure that management activities do not contribute towards listing or cause a loss of viability of species identified as “sensitive” by the Regional Forester. “A sensitive plant is one thought to be vulnerable to becoming threatened or endangered due to low population levels or significant threats to its habitat” (FSH 2670.22).

The Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2670.3) directs sensitive plant management on NFS lands: “All actions are taken to assure that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive species or result in an adverse modification of their essential habitat.”

Direction for the management of sensitive plants is also found in the standards and guidelines for the Forest Plan, “No actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any plant or animal species or cause the need for listing any species threatened or endangered will be authorized, funded, or carried out by the Colville National Forest. When evaluating the potential effects of an activity on any species, the species status, its dependency on the affected habitat, and the extent or limitation of the habitat, will be evaluated as they influence the viability of populations within the Forest or the range of the species.”

The Colville National Forest is mandated to protect species viability for plants listed on the 2008 Sensitive Species Plant List for Region 6 (Washington and Oregon) of the Forest Service. Botanical surveys on NFS lands are conducted for sensitive species documented or suspected to occur in analysis areas with suitable habitat.

Desired Condition Special or unique habitat components required by sensitive or other specific plants or animals… will be retained in sufficient quantity and quality to insure that viable populations of the dependent species continue throughout their range in the analysis area (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-63).

Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B Sensitive Plant Species Three plant species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (2008) are known from the project area, Crenulate moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum), water avens (Geum rivale), treelike clubmoss (Lycopodium dendroideum), and blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium septentrionale). Potential habitat exists in the analysis area for 48 suspected sensitive vascular and non-vascular plant species. Since the intent of the proposed projects is riparian restoration, they should have positive effects on sensitive plant habitat.

Through adaptive management, the proposed action would reauthorize grazing within the project area with modifications to the existing permit conditions to address management and resource concerns that currently exist within the allotment. Season of use and number of permitted animals are expected to remain the same as the current permit.

Since the intent of some of the proposed projects is to restore riparian areas, they should have positive effects on sensitive plant habitat. The presence of livestock has the potential to add to the spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds displace native vegetation, including the habitats of sensitive plants. The proposed action alternative provides for the control of noxious weeds, which would benefit sensitive plant habitat. Trampling and destruction of individual sensitive plants by cattle may occur. Maintenance, monitoring, and actively moving cattle throughout the allotment can reduce potential impacts to sensitive plants caused by continued grazing. If the design criteria and mitigation


36

measures proposed for noxious weed control for this project area are implemented, then the proposed activities should not increase noxious weed distribution and so not affect sensitive plant populations.

Two of the sites proposed for projects are in locations for three sensitive plants. In Bartlett South meadow retention, as well as meadow ripping and seeding is proposed at a site with blue-eyed grass. In addition, the meadow retention in Delaney South is proposed at a location with blue-eyed grass and water avens. These proposed activities could negatively affect sensitive plant populations at these locations. By flagging and excluding the areas of the sensitive plant sites in these two meadows, there should be no negative effects on the sensitive species. Lastly, the Forest Botanist or their designee would be consulted for the placement of the watering troughs and salt blocks.

The effects of the proposed action may impact individual sensitive plants, but are not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of any sensitive plant (vascular or nonvascular) species.

Alternative C (no Action) Under the no action alternative, current management plans would continue and natural processes would dominate. This alternative does not include livestock grazing or any proposed action projects. Ongoing activities such as fire prevention and suppression, dispersed recreation, road maintenance, noxious weed treatments, and established special use permits would continue. No new activities would be initiated to accomplish proposed project goals.

Cumulative Effects The effects of current and reasonably foreseeable actions such as the Power Lake Vegetation Management and South End Motor Vehicle Management Project (EA in process) were considered along with effects of the proposed action. The combined effects of cattle grazing and noxious weeds could negatively affect sensitive plant species over their ranges. With the addition of the design elements, and those included to protect Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, no effects to sensitive plant population viability are anticipated from this project and therefore no cumulative effects are anticipated. The effects of the no action alternative may impact individual sensitive plants, but are not likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of any sensitive plant species.

Soils Livestock have access to a large area within the allotment; most of the allotment receives very light livestock use. More concentrated livestock use occurs in foraging areas and watering areas -- meadows and grasslands, along roadsides seeded with palatable grasses, and near water. This analysis focuses on the concentrated livestock use areas within the allotment.

The section below summarizes the existing condition information, along with the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects as analyzed in the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Soils Report by Forest Soil Scientist Nancy Glines in the project analysis file (2011).

Data Collection The Soil Survey of Pend Oreille County, Washington (USDA SCS, 1992), Soil Survey of Stevens County, Washington (USDA SCS, 1982), Landtype Associations of North Central Washington (Davis, 2004), the Geologic Map of the Chewelah 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle (Miller, 2000) and the soil scientist’s personal knowledge of this area obtained through numerous visits provide the underlying information on which this analysis is built.

Framework The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs the Forest Service to achieve and maintain outputs of various renewable resources in perpetuity without permanent impairment of the land’s


37

Detrimental soil conditions include compaction, puddling, displacement, and severely burned soil.

productivity. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to safeguard the land’s productivity. The implementing regulations for Forest Planning that followed NFMA require the Forest Service to measure effects of prescriptions, including “significant changes in land productivity” (Code of Federal Regulations 36, CFT Part 200, Section 1, 1987). To comply with NFMA, the Chief of the Forest Service has charged each Region with development of soil quality standards for detecting soil disturbances indicating a loss in long-term productivity potential.

For Region 6 these soil quality standards are located in the Forest Service Manual at 2520, R6 Supplement 2500-98-1. Recognizing that some activities (recreation development, etc.) impact soil productivity, the Forest Service policy is to limit the extent of these detrimental impacts. The Pacific Northwest Regional policy emphasizes protection over restoration (Forest Service Manual 2500—Watershed and Air Management, R6 Supplement 2500 – 98 – 1).

The Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan discusses the effects of timber harvest on soil productivity (FEIS pp IV-8). The Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan provides three additional soil standards (pp 4-50 – 4-52):

Design new activities that do not exceed detrimental soil conditions on more than 20% of an activity area. For grazing, the activity area is the pasture.

Identify areas of high soil erosion or mass failure potential and evaluate probable impacts of resource development.

Retain organic matter to maintain site productivity.

Revegetate cut and fill slopes, and other large areas of disturbed soil, as quickly as possible with vegetation suitable for the management goals of the area.

Desired Conditions Maintain or improve continued long-term site productivity (U.S. Forest Service 1988, pages 4-1 to 4-2).

Alternative B Existing Condition, Direct, and Indirect Effects The impacts of livestock grazing on soil is often locally severe, but spatially limited, and of limited significance at the landscape scale. The allotment is roaded and has a history of timber management and recreation use.

Detrimental Soil Conditions At a landscape scale, the existing detrimental soil conditions are estimated to be less than 5%. Most of the detrimental soil conditions that have occurred are limited in extent, intense, but widely scattered and do not occupy a large percentage of the analysis area. Livestock impacts are primarily limited to the meadows and bedding areas – mostly in the Middle Fork Calispell Creek area. Detrimental soil conditions as a result of the combination of recreation and livestock use was noted in less than ⅓ of the meadows.

Overall, continued grazing is not expected to increase the extent or intensity of detrimental soil conditions. This allotment and its pastures currently meet the Forest Plan, and are expected to continue to meet the Forest Plan standard for soil quality.

Soil Productivity Forty-one meadows were mapped within the allotment area totaling about 370 acres. The meadows range in size from less than an acre to about 150 acres (Middle Fork Calispell Creek). The median meadow is about 2.1 acres in size. Most of these meadows are remnant homestead meadows.


38

Fourteen meadows (70 acres) are characterized as “wet meadows” or non-forested wetlands. Slopes are typically flat, and most are located along stream courses. These areas are generally too wet for livestock to bed, but trails are common. These soils are wet and have little strength; they are easily puddled on trails. However, because of the water content, these soils are resilient, and most impacts disappear in 1-2 years.

Eighteen meadows (280 acres) are characterized as “wet/dry meadows”. This is the most common type of meadow in this allotment. These meadows include some wet meadow soils, but they were expanded by homesteaders – so they also include upland forested soils as well. These meadows are impacted by both livestock and the recreating public. Soil strength is low, so they compact easily.

Nine meadows (17 acres) are characterized as “dry meadows”. The dry site soils are typically terrace and bottomland soils. The slopes are typically gentle (<30%). Recreation use of these meadows is generally light because they are very small and they do not have any water features. Conifers have encroached on the dry meadows, and some have disappeared entirely. All of these soils are moderately sensitive to livestock impacts. Soil strength is low, so they all compact easily.

Most of the meadows were found to be in good or fair condition. Livestock use is generally light to moderate in all meadows. Most of the livestock activity in the meadows is dispersed. Outside the bedding areas and trails, soil conditions are satisfactory. Vegetation cover is good; plant roots are abundant. The meadows show no evidence of detrimental conditions – no bare ground, no blocky or platy structure, no evidence of overland water flow, no evidence of wind scour.

Proposed Action Fences, barriers, and exclosures typically have no impact to soil productivity.

The proposal would install troughs in 3 locations. Livestock would impact the area immediately around the water, and create some new trails to the water, but the area impacted is generally less than ⅛ acre. At the pasture scale new water developments are an imperceptible impact.

Hardened crossings are created by covering the ground with 1 to 3 inch rock. Typically they are placed at existing crossing points. The area impacted is about 100 square feet – much less than ⅛ acre. At the pasture scale hardened crossings are an imperceptible impact to soil quality.

A stock driveway would be constructed by removing vegetation on about 1.6 miles of FR 3530010 and 0.2 miles on FR 4347300. Not all vegetation would be removed, only enough to allow livestock to travel through. Gates would be placed on both ends to control use, and the gates would be closed when not in use. The proposal would take some gravel from FR 3530010 roadcut, and use that gravel to armor an area that is wet. Since the activities are located entirely on existing roads, they would have no impact on soil productivity.

Alternative B proposes to install a cattle guard on Middle Fork Calispell Road. This activity is entirely within the road prism and would have no impact on soil productivity.

Meadow Retention Meadow retention would consist of cutting conifers that are encroaching. The cut trees would be hand piled. Some piles may be burned, and some may be retained for wildlife habitat. Since this is handwork, there would be no direct impact to soil resources.

The proposal would treat about 132 acres in 9 locations. Most of the meadows proposed have low to moderate recreation use, and removal of the encroaching trees would not change the current conditions.

This treatment is proposed on the hillslope across from the Middle Fork OHV Trailhead (Figure 3). This area has a history of uncontrolled vehicle traffic resulting in degraded soil conditions (erosion, compaction, rilling). The cut material may be used to block OHV trails, reducing soil damage in this area.


39

Meadow Restoration Meadow restoration includes ripping the soil to reduce compaction, disking or tilling to prepare a seedbed, adding organic amendments, and seeding. This treatment should improve soil productivity by reducing compaction. After this treatment, the soil condition is expected to be improved. About 6.5 acres of meadow restoration is proposed in Bartlett Meadows.

Water Developments Frog Pond - Currently, an excavated pond is used by livestock for water. The proposal would install a trough about 4-500 feet farther west, farther in the timber. Water would be piped (underground) from the spring to the trough. The trough would be set in a drier area. The soils are Martella and Aits. Both soils have a lot of clay, and tend to get muddy when wet. A geotextile and gravel would keep the area from getting too muddy – puddling and “postholing”.

The installation of a water development near Frog Pond may reduce the extent of puddling and/or the depth of “postholing”

at the existing Frog Pond.

Platt Place Meadow – The trough would be located in a more timbered area, and may be located above or below the road. The soil is Martella and armoring would be needed to reduce puddling and “postholing” around the trough.

Homestead Meadow – The trough would be located in a lightly timbered area – the wetter part of Homestead Meadow. The soil is Martella and armoring would be needed to reduce puddling and “postholing” around the trough.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative soil effects happen when multiple events occur in the exact same area. Activities on other lands do not impact soil productivity of NFS lands. Activities that contribute to cumulative effects include recreation and timber harvest. Reasonably foreseeable activities include the South End Motor Vehicle Management Project (EA in process), and the Power Lake Timber and Fuels Project (EA in process).

The South End Motor Vehicle Management Project proposes to reduce the number of dispersed campsites in meadows along the Middle Fork and Bartlett Roads (CR 2022 and CR 2030), and to reduce off-road travel in these areas. Right now the primary impact to these meadows is from recreation users. By reducing the number of campsites and especially by reducing off-road travel, total impacts to the meadows would be reduced from existing levels. The cumulative effect of this project combined with continued grazing is a reduction in detrimental soil conditions in the meadows.

The Power Lake Timber and Fuels Project proposes to harvest timber and treat fuels on about 5-7,000 acres within the allotment. In the short-term, livestock may utilize some forage created primarily on temporary roads and landings. Livestock will often use temporary roads and tractor/skidder trails in preference to traversing cross-country. They do not appear to show the same preference for forwarder trails, probably because of the slash. In the short-term (0-5 years) the new forage may lure livestock away from the meadows, thereby reducing the impacts on the meadows. The livestock are not expected to increase detrimental soil conditions in the harvest areas. There are too few cows,

Figure 3. Vehicle hillclimb in the meadow across from the Middle Fork OHV Trailhead


40

they are too dispersed, and the compaction from livestock is too shallow to create long-term detrimental soil conditions.

Considering cumulative effects, this allotment and its pastures currently meet the Forest Plan, and are expected to continue to meet the Forest Plan standard for soil quality.

Alternative C (no action) Direct and Indirect Effects The mechanisms by which livestock grazing impacts soil were described in a previous section. Grazing has a very minimal impact in upland areas. The termination of livestock grazing would have no impact to long-term site productivity of upland areas.

Livestock are not creating detrimental soil conditions in the meadows. As long as recreation activities continue, conditions and soil productivity would remain about the same.

Small areas of puddling and “postholing” due to livestock were observed. If grazing ceased, these areas may recover rapidly, depending on wildlife use. Because of the small areas involved, overall productivity would remain about the same.

Cumulative Effects The primary cumulative effect observed is due to the interaction of recreation uses and livestock in meadows. With the elimination of grazing, camping and OHV use in these meadows would continue to cause compaction and impact vegetative cover.

The proposed South End Project would reduce the impacts from recreation. The cumulative effects would be a reduction in detrimental soil conditions in the affected areas.

Hydrology This section summarizes the existing hydrologic condition and potential impacts of alternative B for the North Fork Calispell Creek watershed. The full analysis is available in the project file (Lawler 2011).

The subwatershed can be broken into three “catchments”: Upper North Fork Calispell Creek, Lower North Fork Calispell Creek, and Middle Fork Calispell Creek.


41

The upper North Fork Calispell Creek can be further divided into three “subcatchments” (see map in appendix A): Upper North Fork Calispell Creek, Mid North Fork Calispell Creek, and Tenmile Creek. Tenmile Creek flows from the northwest corner of the subwatershed where the 49˚ North Ski Resort is located. Middle Fork Calispell Creek flows from the southwest corner of the watershed and joins the North Fork Calispell Creek approximately two miles west of the Forest boundary. Tenmile Creek and Middle Fork Calispell Creek flow into North Fork Calispell which flows into the Power Lake reservoir just outside of the Forest boundary.

All three of these creeks have been influenced by natural events and human-induced management. Natural events include glacial scour, climate variability, and rain-on-snow events. Human-induced events include homesteading, road construction, harvesting, fire suppression, recreation, and cattle grazing. These events have influenced the watershed’s erosion processes, hydrology, stream channel morphology, water quality, and aquatic diversity (species and habitats).

Data Collection Existing condition was obtained from historical and current fieldwork, GIS-generated data, historical hydrology files, aerial photographs, published scientific literature, and current on-going research and monitoring were used to assess the effects of this project based on the following indicators as derived from a list of potential effects:

Figure 4. North Fork Calispell Creek Watershed Catchments


42

Water Quality

Hydrologic Function

Stream bank Condition (Channel Morphology)

Watershed Condition

Stream segments are defined using the Rosgen (1996) channel types. Using a modified Rosgen (1996) level B methodology, 34 stream surveys within the project were performed by the Forest Service in summer 2008. These surveys indicate a variety of channel conditions including sediment supply, stream bed stability, width/depth condition, and stream type. These surveys provide an indication to the geomorphologic condition of the area streams and the overall condition of the subwatershed.

The surveys were conducted on main channels (i.e. Tenmile, North Fork Calispell, and Middle Fork Calispell) and tributaries. Stream types B, C, E, and F (Rosgen, 1996) were identified. Channel morphology rated good or fair condition, with one exception; the lowest North Fork Calispell reach surveyed rated poor. Grazing predominantly occurs on the Middle Fork Calispell Creek and Lower NF Calispell Creek catchments. Grazing does occur in the middle portion of Calispell Creek (between Middle Fork Calispell and Tenmile creek confluences) and Tenmile Creek subcatchments as well, but to a lesser extent.

Framework

Forest Plan The Forest Plan requires that management activities “comply with State requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of waters of the State of Washington (Washington Administrative Code, Chapters 173-201 and 202) through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in conformance with the Clean Water Act, regulations, and federal guidance issued thereto” (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-51).

Clean Water Act The principal law governing pollution in the nation's streams, lakes, and estuaries is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500, enacted in 1972), commonly known as the Clean Water Act (as amended in 1977, 1981 and 1987). The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that protects the nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, aquifers and coastal areas. The Act's primary objective is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters.

Through the CWA, each state is required to provide guidance and direction to protect and restore water bodies (40 § 131.12). The State of Washington has met this federal requirement through their state Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Forest Service is required to meet and/or exceed State Best Management Practices to protect water quality (Forest Plan, p. 4-51).

Under section 303(d) of the CWA and EPA regulation (40 CFR 130.2(J), 130.7), states are given authority to list which waters do not meet water quality standards or have impaired beneficial uses. This list of impaired waters is commonly known as the “Section 303(d) list”. The individual states are directed by the EPA to improve the aquatic conditions of those streams not supporting beneficial uses. Once a water body is listed as impaired, it is the state’s responsibility to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant of concern. These TMDLs are then submitted to EPA for review and approval or disapproval.

For the State of Washington, the 2008 water quality report has the most current 303(d) official list of streams not supporting beneficial uses (approved January 2009). Segments of North Fork Calispell Creek and Middle Fork Calispell Creek were listed as temperature impaired. The Colville National Forest TMDL plan for reducing temperature in impaired streams has been approved.


43

Executive Orders Executive Order 11988 – Requires protection and management of floodplains through incorporation of BMPs.

Executive Order 11990 – Requires protection and management of wetlands through incorporation of BMPs.

Desired Conditions Water quality will remain high with quantity increasing slightly. A monitoring program will be in effect to insure that water quality standards are met. Riparian areas will be stable and show some evidence of uneven-age harvest, without any resource conflicts (Forest Plan 1988, pp 4-64).

Existing Condition, Direct, and Indirect Effects The majority, if not all, of the hydrologic impacts are located within the NF Calispell Creek subwatershed. For this reason, the analysis focused on the NF Calispell Creek subwatershed.

Watershed conditions are not based on a single parameter but rather upon a compilation of a wide variety of parameters. Management issues for protecting water resources as related to grazing include hydrologic function, riparian function, water quality, and cumulative watershed effects. Platts (1991) summarized the following potential effects of livestock grazing to the hydrologic environment:

Higher stream temperatures from lack of sufficient woody streamside cover

Excessive sediment in the channel from bank and upland erosion

High coliform bacteria counts from upper watershed sources

Channel widening from hoof-caused bank sloughing and later erosion by water

Change in the form of the water column and the channel it flows in

Change, reduction, or elimination of vegetation

Elimination of riparian areas by channel degradation and lowering of the water table

Water Quality Water quality includes physical and chemical characteristics of water. Parameters commonly measured include turbidity, pH, alkalinity, hardness, specific conductance, nutrients, metals, fecal coliform, and water temperature. Those parameters affected by grazing are typically limited to sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and water temperature. The main water quality parameter of concern in the NF Calispell Creek subwatershed is water temperature. High water temperatures are commonly influenced by a lack of sufficient shade, over widened stream channels, and excessive sediment. Fecal coliform is a parameter which can be influenced by high water temperatures. Currently, the only parameter, as related to grazing, impairing the NF Calispell Creek subwatershed is water temperature.


44

Figure 5. Department of Ecology 305b report (2008) listed North Fork Calispell Creek subwatershed as impaired. Red indicates TMDL has been approved and implemented (water temperature), green indicates waters attaining state standards (fecal coliform, temperature).

Vegetation acts as a parasol for streams, shading them from the sun and keeping water temperatures cool. Shade controls direct solar radiation and thus heat influx in small forest streams. Variables other than vegetation, which influence the amount of solar radiation reaching the stream, include stream width, orientation, solar angles, surrounding topography, and upwelling groundwater as influenced by hyporheic exchange and subsurface geology. Protecting and improving riparian conditions can decrease the magnitude of stream temperature increases and changes to riparian microclimate.

The 2008 Washington Department of Ecology (WA-DOE) water quality report (Figure 6), the 305b list, has various levels of concern from “attaining state standards” to “impaired with approved TMDLs being implemented”. Four of seven reaches monitored for impairments within the subwatershed are temperature impaired. The two headwater reaches are attaining state water quality standards for temperature whereas four of the five lower reaches do not. Two of the lower reaches were checked for fecal coliform and found to be attaining state water quality standards.

Immediately upstream of the impaired reaches on Middle Fork Calispell Creek is the Delaney homestead meadow. This meadow area has been heavily grazed for the past several decades and is currently a popular area for dispersed camping. As a result, riparian vegetation is insufficient,


45

stream bank conditions are generally unstable, and width depth ratios are too wide (Site visits, 2010). It is suspected this area has considerable influence on downstream water temperatures and a likely contributor to the impaired stream temperatures.

Upstream of the impaired reaches on the North Fork Calispell Creek is an area known as Big Swamp. The Big Swamp area is characterized by wide, slow-moving water due to past beaver activity. This area also likely contributes to elevated water temperatures in the downstream reaches of NF Calispell Creek.

Water temperatures in NF Calispell Creek below the confluence with the MF Calispell Creek have been collected since 2002. The trend has been fairly consistent with temperatures exceeding the state water quality standard of 16C by late June/early July and continuing to exceed throughout the summer into late August/Early September. These exceedance values continued through July and into August both years.

Hydrologic Function Hydrologic function addresses the ability of a basin, watershed, and/or catchment to balance water and sediment yields. More specifically, it defines movement of water through the landscape as precipitation passes through the forest canopy, over and through the soil, and through lakes, rivers, and streams on its way to the ocean. Rosgen (1996) generalizes a “stable channel balance” as the appropriate proportion between sediment discharge, stream discharge, particle size and slope. A change in any one of these variables initiates adjustments in the other variables, thus resulting in a change to the channel.

Stream segments are defined in this document using the Rosgen (1996) channel types. Using a modified Rosgen (1996) level B methodology, 34 stream surveys within the project were performed by the Forest Service in summer 2008. These surveys indicate a variety of channel conditions including sediment supply, stream bed stability, width/depth condition, and stream type. These surveys provide an indication to the geomorphologic condition of the area streams and the overall condition of the subwatershed.

Middle Fork Calispell Creek can be characterized into three distinct conditions (personal observation, 2010) and locations: lower, middle, and upper reaches. The lower reach is boulder/bedrock and large wood dominated. Impacts are low to none. Width/depth ratios and stream bank stability are in good condition. The mid reach is about a 2-mile segment through the Delaney homestead meadow with low gradient. This reach is silt/sand dominated and lacks a large wood component. Width/depth ratios and stream bank stability are in fair to poor condition. The upper (or headwater) reach is cobble/boulder and large wood dominated. Impacts are low. Width/depth ratios and stream bank stability are in good condition. Grazing and dispersed camping impacts are a contributing factor to the instability of the mid reach and water temperature impairment of the downstream

Figure 6. Middle Fork Calispell Creek along County Road 2022


46

reaches. Additional influences to the hydrologic function of this reach include new beaver activity (personal observation, summer 2010).

The mid reach of NF Calispell Creek is separated from the upper NF Calispell and Tenmile reaches by big swamp - an area influenced by past beaver activity. These three areas typically receive minimal to no grazing pressure. The Tenmile, Upper NF Calispell, and middle section of NF Calispell reaches tend to have width/depth ratios and stream bank stability in good condition (field surveys, 2008).

The lower NF Calispell catchment has a mixture of conditions influenced by grazing, dispersed camping, and two miles of county road predominantly located in the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) of NF Calispell Creek. Tributaries are generally in good condition. Bartlett Creek runs through Bartlett homestead meadow. Cattle routinely travel between the Lower NF Calispell Creek reaches and Bartlett homestead meadow via an established “cow” path along Bartlett Creek. Grazing impacts are predominantly focused along NF Calispell Creek and Bartlett Creek. Areas of high use are characterized by high width/depth ratios and stream bank instability. Stream reaches more difficult to access (e.g. log jam, steep topography) tend to have good width/depth ratio and bank stability condition. Other reaches of the lower NF Calispell Creek catchment tend to have a wide floodplain allowing easy access to “over-flow” channels and ground with high water table. Impacts tend to be prominent in these areas.

In summary, the Calispell Creek subwatershed has been affected by grazing for about the last 100 years. Impacts from this grazing tend to be localized in homestead areas (e.g. Delaney, Bartlett) and stream reaches with wide floodplains. Overall, the stream reaches within the subwatershed are in good-to-fair condition.

Alternative B Changing the season-long, single pasture to rotational, three-pasture grazing is expected to have various results. The concentration of cattle on MF and NF Calispell Creeks (Delaney Pasture) would be limited to a maximum of 45 days (i.e. June 1 to July 15). Annual monitoring may indicate the cattle need to be moved prior to July 15. In addition, changing the grazing regime is expected to reduce the amount of bank instability, increase/re-establish healthy riparian vegetation, and stream channel to become deeper and narrower in those areas most utilized by the cattle. These improvements in the long term should result in increased shade and reduced stream temperatures. Other improvements to help reduce impacts on MF Calispell Creek include installing three water troughs and a cattle guard on the County road just west of the NF Calispell bridge. The goal of the troughs is to draw the cattle away from the creek by providing an alternate watering source. Further mitigation may be necessary to meet desired conditions set by the forest plan and to achieve state water quality standards as described in the approved Colville National Forest Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Implementation Plan (2006).

The Bartlett Creek pasture area has traditionally received moderate to light cattle use throughout the grazing season. This area would likely receive heavy use due to concentration of the whole herd during the 47 day period (i.e. July 16 to August 31) for this pasture. To draw cattle away from the creek, a water trough is to be placed north of Bartlett meadow. Concentrating cattle activity into this short grazing period and drawing cattle away from the creek to water at a trough is expected to result in healthier riparian vegetation and improve channel morphology conditions in those areas typically impacted by cattle (e.g. Bartlett Creek).

The Big Swamp Pasture typically receives light use that is generally focused on Tenmile Creek and the edges of Flowery Trail road. Thirty-day (i.e. September 1 to September 30) access to the upper reaches of the NF Calispell Creek would be re-established by opening the 3530-010 road as a stock driveway. Cattle drives on the 3530-010 road would require mitigations to protect two natural stream crossings and one spring.


47

Increasing cattle activity in the Big Swamp area, which has had little to no activity in the recent past, would likely result in stream segments with reduced bank stability. Unstable banks often lead to wide and shallow streams with inadequate shading and results in higher stream temperatures. Annual monitoring is expected to provide the assurance that impacts to these stream reaches remain in relatively short sections of the stream (i.e. small localized areas) and that “long” reaches do not become candidates for future 303d listing.

A potential rock source was identified for development on the NFS road 3530-010 in NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of S14 in T32R42. This rock source is located in a dry area with no hydrologic connectivity and is expected to provide the needed aggregate for the stock driveway mitigation.

Cumulative Effects Past actions within NF Calispell Creek subwatershed include homesteading, grazing, timber harvest, road construction, fire wood cutting, and recreation. Homestead meadows are typically located adjacent to water ways and incorporated a natural meadow or wetland. These localized areas are attractive to grazing as well as recreational use (e.g. dispersed camping, OHV activity) and often result in negative impacts to the water quality by reducing riparian vegetation, stream bank stability, and shade. Timber harvest and associated road/skid trail construction has occurred within the riparian area. Mixed effects result from timber harvest; negative in that stream access for cattle and recreation is often enhanced and positive in that transitory range lands provide grazing opportunities away from the streams. Past season long grazing practices have negatively impacted (i.e. wide and shallow channels, bank instability, and inadequate riparian vegetation) localized areas of the streams (e.g. Delaney Meadow – MF Calispell Creek, Bartlett Meadow – Bartlett Creek, dispersed campsites – lower NF Calispell Creek). These areas are also attractive recreation sites for dispersed camping which typically do not have delineated boundaries. Without specific boundaries, dispersed sites tend to increase the amount of ground impacted over time. These sites have become OHV “launch” points in the recent past as OHV vehicle use has become a popular camping/recreation activity. Operators of these vehicles have negatively impacted the subwatershed through unauthorized trails and stream crossings. These trails typically do not have controlled drainage and often create undesired hydrologic connectivity to the stream network. This hydrologic connectivity is likely to result in increased sediment delivery to the stream.

Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on National Forest System (NFS) land include the South End Motor Vehicle Management project, development of a groomed snowmobile route on NFS 3530-010 road, and the Power Lake Vegetation Management project.

The goal of the South End project is to address OHV travel and dispersed camping in the Calispell Creek, Tacoma Creek, and Chewelah Creek areas. North Fork Calispell Creek subwatershed is one of the 16 subwatersheds being analyzed in the South End project. The project decision is expected to limit dispersed camping to designated sites with delineated boundaries. Current sites not adopted for designated camping are expected to be restored to natural conditions. OHV travel would be restricted to an expanded subset of roads throughout the Calispell, Tacoma, and Chewelah project area. These additional opportunities for OHV travel are expected to reduce the number of unauthorized trails and stream crossings. The subwatershed condition is expected to improve as a result of the restoration efforts designed to increase riparian vegetation, shade, and stream bank stability per the South End project.

The Power Lake project proposes to treat approximately 7000 acres. As a result, there is potential to increase transitory range. Additional restoration is expected to include a reroute of the MF Calispell County road (C2022) from the Bartlett/Power Lake road junction to the 3500-050 road junction. The stream segment along this stretch of road is TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) impaired for temperature. As part of the CNF Temperature TMDL Water Quality Implementation Plan, removing riparian roads, limiting camping in the riparian areas, and limiting grazing in these reaches are all


48

recommended for enhancing stream shade to reduce stream temperatures. Long-term results are expected to include increased density of riparian vegetation resulting in improved stream bank stability and improved water quality (i.e. reduced water temperature), as well as reduced stream bank alteration resulting in properly functioning stream channel morphology.

The new location for the MF Calispell Creek county road would use a portion of the Bartlett road and reconstruction of the 3500-050 to county standards. The new route is expected to have minimal effects on the hydrology as it is mainly located in the uplands. The segment of the MF Calispell Creek road being rerouted would be obliterated and restored to mimic a natural condition. The obliteration and restoration process may have some short-term sediment delivery to NF Calispell Creek due to close proximity with the stream channel. Mitigation efforts are expected to keep the sediment delivery to a minimum.

Other recent, current, or foreseeable future activities within or near the analysis area include Pend Oreille County road maintenance and improvements, private road improvements, Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) road abandonment and culvert removal, Stimson road abandonment, and Stimson harvest. The harvest activities planned by Stimson are located south of the proposed allotment boundary and are expected to have little to no effect on the hydrology of the area due to best management practices and mitigation required by Washington State Forest Practices. The road maintenance, abandonment, and improvement activities are expected to have minimal short term impact to the hydrology as Washington State BMPs and mitigation requirements are to be followed.

In summary, the proposed action alternative is expected to allow the overall condition of the NF Calispell Creek subwatershed to improve as a result of rotational grazing and range improvement projects. Additional impacts from increased grazing in the Big Swamp area (i.e. upper NF Calispell Creek and Tenmile Creek) are expected. Impacts to MF Calispell Creek, Lower NF Calispell Creek, and Bartlett Creek are expected to decline resulting in a positive trend toward improved water quality and stream morphology conditions in the overall watershed.

Alternative C (no action) This alternative would eliminate impacts from grazing through termination of the grazing permit. Areas with high cattle impacts would be expected to improve as vegetation and bank stability recover. This recovery is also expected to result in deeper and narrower stream channels where current impacts are high.

The factors contributing to short-term improvements in aquatic condition are principally related to removing cattle. The short-term effects could be fairly substantial due to the concentrated area of the watershed affected. Because cattle grazing is mostly concentrated within small areas along the North and Middle Forks of Calispell Creek, the effects can be more readily observed in the short-term as well as the long-term.

The long-term consequences on several of the processes would be high. Removing grazing from the watershed would have a considerable effect overall. Localized impacts range from low to high and are widespread within the North Fork Calispell Creek watershed. Removing this impact would allow the watershed to move towards improvement. Removal of cattle from the Middle Fork Calispell Creek area has the potential to reduce fecal coliform levels, but fecal coliform would still be a concern due to human use and wildlife in the area.

The no action alternative suggests high positive effects in the short-term, and a substantially higher long-term improving trend for watershed health. Recovery depends upon a complex and long-term process of channel adjustment requiring the reestablishment of a floodplain and the channel within it (Rosgen 2001; Bengeyfield 1999). Eliminating grazing would aid in initiating recovery, but may not appreciably shorten the process. Recovery can be expected to take multiple decades if time alone is


49

relied upon. Often, mechanical stream restoration is the only way to recover these reaches in a suitable period (Rosgen 2001).

Riparian Areas and Fisheries This document incorporates the Environmental Consequences sections (Salwasser et al. 1995) of the INFISH amendment to the Forest Plan (U.S. Forest Service 1988). This is done to address the effects of implementing the INFISH standards and guidelines. Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about the aquatic environment is excerpted from the Calispell Creek Allotment Fisheries Report and Biological Evaluation (BE) of Bull Trout by Tom Shuhda, Fisheries Biologist (2011). The full text of this report and BE is incorporated by reference and is available in the project analysis file.

Data Collection Biotic surveys were completed by Forest Service and Kalispel Tribal personnel in branches of Calispell Creek (1992, 1994, 2001, and 2002) to determine fish presence. No bull trout were found during these surveys. Fish population information from Calispell Creek and its tributaries was collected through electroshocking, and snorkeling (FS, Kalispel NRD 2000-2002). The Colville National Forest uses the Hankin and Reeves Region 6 Protocol for Stream Surveys (Hankin and Reeves 2006) to inventory riparian habitat, describe the condition of the fish bearing reaches, and understand causes of habitat degradation.

Framework The Forest Plan requires that range allotment management plans will “include a strategy for managing riparian areas for a mix of resource uses. A measurable desired future riparian condition will be established based on existing and potential vegetative conditions. When the current riparian condition is less than that desired, objectives will include a schedule for improvement. The allotment management plans will identify management actions needed to meet riparian objectives within the specific time frame. Measurable objectives will be set for key parameters…The allotment plan will address the monitoring needed to determine if the desired rate of improvement is occurring” (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-54).

In 1995, the Forest Plan INFISH amendment (Salwasser et al. 1995) directed the Forest to provide a diversity of high quality aquatic habitats to support viable populations of fish, manage for riparian plant communities, (which maintain a high level of riparian dependent resources), and maintain or restore stream channel dynamic equilibriums and full linkages between channels and their associated riparian areas. The amendment established four RMOs (Riparian Management Objectives) to assess health of the forested riparian systems and protect the minimum needs of good riparian habitat: water temperature, large woody debris (LWD), bankfull width to depth ratio (BFWD), and pools per mile (PPM). The INFISH applies to all water bodies regardless of whether they support fish.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to "ensure" that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered (E), threatened (T) or proposed (P) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. There are no endangered or threatened fish species in the analysis area.

The National Forest Management Act requires that the Forest Service manage for a diversity of fish habitat to support viable fish populations (36 CFR 219.19).

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Bull Trout Biological Opinion (2007) provides required Terms and Conditions for the Colville National Forest to follow for all FS authorized activities on NFS lands to


50

avoid jeopardizing bull trout and its habitat. In October of 2010, lower Calispell Creek was designated as critical habitat for the recovery of the bull trout in northeastern Washington. Bull trout, historically, were known to inhabit this area. This designated habitat is below the analysis area and an impassable cascade. Although there is presently a blockage to upstream and downstream fish passage at the mouth of Calispell Creek, fish passage would be required to be established under the new license for Box Canyon Dam within the time frame of the new allotment permit. This would allow any bull trout from the Pend Oreille River to access this critical habitat.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion provides required terms and conditions for the Colville National Forest to follow for all authorized culvert replacement/removal on NFS lands to avoid jeopardizing bull trout and its habitat.

Desired Condition Native fish species will be encouraged with the objective of restocking populations of native trout to selected forest streams and lakes. Introduced species will continue to enhance angling in locations where they provide a superior fishery (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-62).

Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B The analysis area contains portions of the Calispell Creek watershed. Limited historic information is available for the fish populations of Calispell Creek, the drainage within the analysis area. Smith (1935) mentions that members of the Kalispel Tribe fished for char at weirs in lower Calispell Creek. “All kinds of small fish, including trout, were trapped here, in greater number, in fact, than at any other site. It was, in consequence, one of the main fisheries.”

The watershed has three main branches of Calispell Creek, the North, Middle and South Forks, as well as several fish bearing tributaries to two of the three forks. The South Fork is not located within the analysis area and does not flow on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Smalle and Winchester subwatersheds, tributaries to Calispell Creek are also not located within the allotment boundary.

The North and Middle Forks on NFS lands contain eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and coastal rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) (USFS 2005-2007). Hybrids, confirmed through genetic analysis, of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus lewisi clarki) and coastal rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) have been found in the upper headwaters of Tenmile Creek, a tributary to the North Fork (Powell et al 2002). Eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) reside in the South Fork.

Individual bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) have been found in Box Canyon Reservoir, a 55 mile segment of the Pend Oreille River from Box Canyon Dam to Albeni Falls Dam. Bull trout in the reservoir have been most recently captured and documented between 1988 and 2010. The total number of fish captured is 28 individuals. Twenty-one of these individuals were spawning age migratory adults. The streams in the analysis area flow into this reservoir. Biotic surveys were completed by Forest Service and Kalispel Tribal personnel in branches of Calispell Creek (1992, 1994, 2001 and 2002) to determine fish presence. No bull trout were found during these surveys.

Private lands downstream from the analysis area in the Calispell Creek watershed have been designated as critical habitat for bull trout (USFWS 2004, 2010). As well, NFS lands outside of the analysis area but in the Calispell Creek watershed are proposed as critical habitat for bull trout (USFWS 2010). Calispell Creek is considered to be core area habitat for bull trout within the Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998).

Effects to Pacific Northwest Region Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species

Bull Trout (Threatened)

The analysis area is located above an impassable cascade on the North Fork of Calispell Creek and bull trout were not known to inhabit this area historically. Bull trout are not known to occupy


51

habitat above the cascades presently. Since there are no bull trout in the analysis area, the proposed action would have “no effect” on bull trout and their habitat in this watershed.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Sensitive)

Interior Redband Trout (Sensitive)

Pygmy Whitefish(Sensitive)

Implementation of alternative B would overall improve fish habitat, in the long term, within the analysis area. As pure westslope cutthroat trout, interior redband trout and pygmy whitefish are not known to inhabit the project area nor the larger watershed, there is “no effect” from implementation of the action alternative to these species and subspecies or their habitat.

Water Temperature The proposed action would implement a new pasture system for management of the allotment. The current season long grazing system has allowed cattle to reside in riparian areas for most of the grazing period. This has resulted in livestock damage to stream and riparian habitat where access to streams is easily available. Under the proposed grazing system, early season use would start in the Delaney pasture, along the Middle Fork of Calispell Creek, for 7 weeks, starting June 1st. After the seven weeks the cattle would be pushed into the Bartlett pasture for 6 weeks, and then finish out the season in the Big Swamp/Ninebark area. The stated grazing periods in each pasture are also dependent upon monitoring of the utilization of both riparian and upland vegetation. Once proper utilization is reached, the livestock would be moved to the next pasture regardless of how long the animals have been in the particular pasture. In addition to these changes, three additional water sources would be developed in the Delaney pasture to facilitate drawing livestock away from the Middle Fork of Calispell Creek and to increase the level of grazing of upland forage. As well, existing hardened livestock crossings on the Middle Fork would be refurbished to reduce excessive sediment input into stream habitat.

It is anticipated that riparian and streambank condition along all streams, the Middle Fork in particular, would improve with this new grazing system and new water developments. Under proper forage utilization, riparian vegetation should improve in vigor and in numbers. Streambank alteration would decrease as riparian vegetation reestablishes itself in bare areas and bank stability would increase as roots start to provide a more stable part of the overall bank structure. Consequently, overhead shading would increase and stream width should narrow and depth should increase. Early season use in the Delaney pasture would also to allow for the recovery of the riparian vegetation along the Middle Fork Calispell Creek and its tributaries for the majority of the season.

This alternative is not expected to prevent or retard movement toward achievement of the water temperature RMO on any of the streams within the project area due to proposed action. The proposed action, instead, would move the existing conditions toward achievement of this RMO. It would do so through the anticipated decrease in summer water temperatures due to a substantial improvement in overhead shading and an improvement in channel form where presently over utilized riparian vegetation, streambank instability and wide, shallow stream reaches exist.

Pool Frequency This alternative proposes a new grazing system that would allow riparian vegetation to recover from overutilization in certain stream reaches. Reaches of both the North and Middle Forks of Calispell Creek do not meet INFISH RMOs. However, all measured reaches exceed the average number of pools for streams of their size determined through analysis of pool numbers from regionwide Hankin and Reeves stream survey data.


52

The level of fine materials and large wood within a stream can affect pool habitat. It is expected that riparian vegetative condition and function and streambank stability would improve under the proposed changes in the present grazing system due to proper utilization of existing forage. In the short term, as sloughing and trampling from livestock decrease and riparian vegetation increases in vigor and numbers, streambanks would stabilize and channel widths would decrease. Improvement in channel form and decreases in sediment input from damaged, eroding streambanks may increase the depth of existing pools.

It is anticipated that the present level of large brush and trees would still be an adequate source of instream wood to serve as a factor in the creation and perseverance of pool habitat in most of the stream reaches, within the analysis area, under this alternative. In the long term, the function of the riparian vegetation to provide instream wood recruitment, which is a major factor in the creation of pools, would slightly increase due to the improvement of riparian health along certain stream reaches where overutilization of this vegetation has been occurring.

For these reasons, the effects of the proposed new grazing system, within the analysis area, are not expected to retard the attainment of this RMO.

Large Woody Debris The action alternative proposes changing the existing season-long grazing system and implementing a number of other range improvements previously mentioned.

These activities would maintain and possibly increase the current frequency of instream large woody debris in the short and long-term respectively.

Proper utilization of riparian areas, presently accessed by livestock, is expected to increase numbers and vigor of the existing riparian vegetation. Improvement in riparian vegetative condition would allow these areas to contribute small and large instream woody debris along these stream reaches in the future. This is particularly important along two of the reaches of the Middle Fork of Calispell Creek in the Delaney pasture where INFISH RMOs for large woody debris is not being met.

For this reason, the effects of the proposed new grazing system, within the analysis area, is not expected to retard the attainment of this RMO.

Bankfull Width/Depth (BWD) Ratio One important factor affecting the bankfull width/depth ratio for streams within the analysis area is the overutilization of its riparian vegetation and compaction and erosion of its banks from livestock grazing. Sediment that is eroded due to these activities can be deposited in the lower gradient stream channel reaches and widening these areas over time. The proposed new grazing system, together with other proposed improvements, would improve livestock utilization of the riparian vegetation where it is currently in an undesirable condition. This would allow the streambanks that have been damaged to recover their vegetative cover in the short term. Reduction of sediment from these eroding streambanks entering the creek would deepen existing pools and narrow the stream channels over time. For these reasons, under this alternative, no increases in the ratio are expected.

Compliance with the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH These RMOs were developed to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat features, to meet the life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed (INFISH 1995).

The action alternative would, through a new grazing system and other range improvements, improve the condition of riparian vegetation needed for the purpose of providing bank stability, detritus, contribution of instream wood and overhead shading. Improvements in overhead shading and large wood recruitment should move towards attainment of the water temperature in the long term and maintain the INFISH RMO for large woody debris.


53

The action alternative would reduce sediment input as riparian and streambank conditions improve through proper utilization of forage by livestock. The effect would be to improve pool habitat quality by reducing sediment in this habitat type.

Improvement in riparian and channel habitat should slowly decrease the bankfull width/depth ratios, another RMO.

For the reasons above, the action alternative has not been found to retard the attainment of these RMOs in the long term

Habitat factors not included within INFISH RMOs Embeddedness Direct sediment input into fish habitat is occurring where damage to riparian vegetation and the stream channel is happening within the analysis area. Any additional sediment produced from damaged streambanks could fill interstitial spaces within spawning gravels and other size substrate that is used for hiding cover by fry and juveniles and habitat for macroinvertebrates.

The proposed action would decrease current impacts by cattle access into riparian areas. The accompanying soil compaction and bank trampling, which can become a consistent source of sedimentation into adjacent stream systems and embeddedness of the streambed substrates, would be decreased after riparian vegetation and streambanks are allowed to recover under the proposed grazing system.

Riparian Vegetation Functional riparian vegetation provides shade, detritus, large instream wood, cover, bank stability and acts a filter to reduce soil movement into stream and river systems. The proposed implementation of a new rotational grazing system and other range improvements is expected to improve the condition and function of the existing riparian vegetation where livestock damage has been occurring. Most of the above functions are expected to improve in the short term, with the ability of the riparian vegetation to provide recruitment of large instream wood increasing over the long term.

Fish Populations Instream habitat condition is dependent upon riparian habitat condition. Proposed new grazing system and range improvements would improve riparian condition in certain portions of the watershed.

Improvements in riparian condition, particularly within the Middle Fork of Calispell Creek, should improve channel condition through reduction of bank erosion and sediment input possibly reducing the level of embeddedness. Summer water temperatures are anticipated to decrease as a result of the improvements of riparian habitat condition along portions of this subwatershed. This decrease in water temperatures should improve fish habitat not only in the Middle Fork but also in the portion of the North Fork below the confluence.

Fish populations would continue to be represented by the present suite of species – rainbow and eastern brook trout. These species would continue to be self sustaining.

Cumulative Effects INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs)

Water Temperature In the near future, approximately 7,000 acres of proposed timber harvest between 2012 and 2017, within the Calispell Creek allotment analysis area, would cause an increase in created openings on NFS lands within the North Fork Calispell watershed. Any timber harvest on private lands within or


54

adjacent to the analysis area may also increase the overall amount of openings in the watershed. No downstream cumulative effects to stream temperatures are anticipated to occur under this action alternative since the capability of riparian vegetation to shade the streams and modify water temperatures to some degree within RHCAs would remain intact and undisturbed except for limited riparian vegetation disturbance during the construction and reconstruction of stream crossings. Overhead shading would increase in portions of the watershed with this action alternative. Downstream cumulative effects of these combined with other ongoing activities to temperature would likely be beneficial.

Pool Frequency Logging would occur on NFS lands within and adjacent to the analysis area. Under this alternative, no activities within the riparian vegetation within the RHCAs of the North and Middle Forks of Calispell Creek are proposed except for some minor riparian vegetation removal at proposed stream crossings. Road obliteration and the removal of culverts during decommissioning of roads within the Power Lake project, within the riparian area, may cause a temporary increase in sediment introduction into certain segments of streams within the analysis area. Pool habitat may be affected by these actions on NFS lands. These activities would increase the sediment input in the short term which may increase the amount of sediment in pools on low gradient sections of streams located downstream. The action alternative, together with proposed restoration activities within the timber sale, is likely to have an overall beneficial effect to pool habitat on the lower gradient reaches of the North and Middle Forks due to protection of the riparian vegetation from both harvest and overgrazing from livestock and restoration of riparian vegetation in the long term.

Large Woody Debris Under this alternative, new road crossings, within the riparian area on NFS lands, may cause a very slight decrease in potential numbers of available large instream wood recruitment into limited segments of non-fish bearing streams on NFS lands. However, a long-term increase in large wood recruitment on fish bearing stream segments is anticipated as currently over utilized riparian vegetation slowly recovers under the new grazing system. Over time, these areas would mature and eventually start contributing to the overall numbers of instream wood. The availability of large instream wood for cover, foraging, sediment collection and pool formation should increase for fish populations on NFS lands within the analysis area.

Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio INFISH RHCAs would prevent any stream channel modification from future upland timber harvest, under the Power Lake project, through the filtering of any overland soil movement and protection of streambank integrity. Small amounts of channel would be modified on the segments of streams within the proposed crossing corridors however. Any potential harvest on private timberlands within or adjacent to the analysis area could reduce riparian vegetation on non-fish bearing and intermittent streams. The potential effects on the bankfull width/depth ratios of streams on these private lands are dependent upon the level of riparian harvest. Bankfull width/depth ratios are expected to improve from reducing current grazing effects on channel structure under the proposed action. This beneficial effect should more pervasive than the small amount of modification that would occur under the future timber sale. Cumulatively, the proposed alternative should not, when considered with stream conditions affected by future road building on NFS lands within the analysis area, detrimentally affect functioning channel habitat in the North and Middle Forks of the Calispell Creek watershed within the analysis area for this reason.

Alternative C (no action) This alternative is expected, over time, to reduce the level of soil movement from streambanks into the streams within the allotment and decrease embeddedness of the substrate and pool


55

filling. It is also expected to lower the present maximum summer water temperatures through an increase in overhead shading within the riparian areas. Similarly, as woody riparian vegetation matures and dies, increases in instream wood and pool numbers are expected. The no action alternative would allow riparian vegetation to recover to a fully functional state providing bank stabilization and overhead shade among its other functions. These changes are expected to improve spawning and rearing conditions for the existing rainbow and eastern brook trout subpopulations found within the North Fork and Middle Fork Calispell drainages. The trend of these subpopulations may improve as instream and riparian habitat conditions improve under this alternative.

As sediment levels decrease and bank integrity increases, many channels will deepen and narrow (improved bankfull width to depth ratio). This alternative is expected to decrease the level of sediment accumulation within pools and possibly increase pool quality (deeper pools with less fine material in the substrate) and frequency (pools per mile).

This alternative would move conditions towards achievement of RMOs within those portions of the watershed where these are presently not being met. The overall trend for all instream and riparian habitat characteristics would be expected to improve.

Cumulative Effects Under the no action alternative riparian vegetation would eventually block access to the creeks at the lesser used dispersed recreation sites along meadows. However, the more popular sites would probably continue to be user maintained. Without cattle use, the vegetation along roads would not be impacted and would provide a better sediment buffer than if cattle use continued. Therefore road derived sedimentation would decrease under this alternative. Noxious weed control would also aid in allowing native plants to revegetate, forming a more stable root mat in currently infected areas.

Eliminating grazing would aid in initiating recovery, but may not appreciably shorten the process since parts of the drainage are experiencing degradation of instream and riparian habitat due to high recreation use. The time period for the recovery of this habitat can be expected to be shortened if not only grazing is eliminated on NFS lands within this watershed but also the impacts from high recreational use are reduced or eliminated.

Wildlife Because the Forest Service manages habitat and the State of Washington manages wildlife populations, the FS objective is to provide habitat capable of supporting the desired population of each management indicator species (MIS) or threatened, endangered or sensitive species (TES).

Data Collection District records were reviewed for past observations of wildlife species or their sign within the allotment. Over the course of several days in the summer of 2000, wetlands in the allotment were reviewed with Lisa Hallock, Herpetologist with the Washington Department of Natural Resources. In the summer of 2009 and 2010, timber stands in the allotment were reviewed in conjunction with the proposed Power Lake project. Data was collected on such things as type and condition of existing grazable areas, riparian habitats, aspen stands, and the occurrence of wildlife or evidence of use.

The key habitat components and conditions of concern for each species were derived from the applicable standards and guidelines relating to each species as described in the Forest Plan, and/or other relevant documents.


56

Framework Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to "ensure" that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered (E), threatened (T) , or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats.

The FS maintains a list of sensitive species for each national forest. Sensitive species are those whose population viability is a concern because of:

Significant current or predicted downward trends in numbers of animals, or

Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

The Forest Service Manual 2670 establishes direction to guide habitat management for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species to ensure that these species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. That direction establishes the process, objectives, and standards for conducting biological assessments (BAs) and biological evaluations (BEs).

Rather than attempt to manage for each of the hundreds of other wildlife species found on the Colville National Forest, the management indicator species (MIS) approach singles out a few representative species or species groups for active management and conservation. Habitat managed for each MIS would in turn support many other animals that require similar habitats. The 15 MIS were selected by the Colville National Forest because they:

are endangered or threatened with extinction,

are believed to be sensitive to the effects of forest management on a major biological community (such as old growth forests),

require specialized habitats that could be sensitive to forest management practices, or are species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped.

Standards and guidelines for managing indicator species habitats are found on pages 4-38 to 4-42 of the Forest Plan. According to the Forest Plan, application of these required measures should ensure that each indicator species, and all other animals that use the same habitat, would persist over time. In other words, populations should remain viable. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act and Direction Letter for Neotropical Migratory Birds (US Congress 2000) require the Forest Service to consider the effects of proposed activities on neotropical migratory birds.

Desired Conditions Special or unique habitat components required by specific wildlife species will be retained in sufficient quantity and quality to insure that viable populations of the dependent species continue throughout their range in the analysis area. Threatened and endangered species (such as lynx, woodland caribou, and grizzly bear) will be recovering and on upward trend in their identified recovery areas (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-63).

Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects to Management Indicator Species (MIS) Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about MIS wildlife species is excerpted from the Analysis of Effects to Management Indicator Species and Landbirds by Michael Borysewicz, Wildlife Biologist (2011). The full text of the MIS report is incorporated by reference and is available in


57

the project analysis file. The following table displays the MIS species listed for the Colville National Forest and their potential to occur within the Calispell Creek allotment. Species with no habitat present in the allotment were not further analyzed.

Table 10. Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Habitats for MIS and Landbirds

Species Habitat present?

Comments

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)

yes Effects to these threatened and endangered species are covered in the next section. woodland caribou

(Rangifer tarandus) no

northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis)

no No high elevation bogs in the allotment.

beaver (Castor canadensis)

yes This species requires low gradient streams with abundant hardwoods or other forage plants.

elk (Cervus canadensis) and deer (Odocoileus spp.)

yes The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for winter range habitat only

Forage habitat – open forest, meadows, shrub fields Hiding cover – vegetation capable of concealing 90% of a deer or

elk at 200 ft. thermal cover – for deer, stands of evergreen trees at least 40

feet tall with at least 60% canopy closure; 70% for elk.

trout yes Effects to fish species are covered under the Riparian Areas and Fisheries section of this document.

pine marten (Martes americana)

yes

These three species require stand structures characteristic of older forests; large live and dead trees, down logs, and good overhead canopy closure (>50%). Marten require forested travel corridors to move across fragmented forest landscapes.

barred owl (Strix varia)

yes

pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

yes

primary cavity excavators

yes These species require dead and defective live trees for reproduction, roosting, and foraging.

northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus)

yes This species requires subalpine fir / spruce, lodgepole pine, or lodgepole pine / mixed conifer stands.

dusky (blue) grouse (Dendragapus obscurus)

yes This grouse requires mature, limby Douglas-fir growing along ridge tops for roosting. Brood habitat is low elevation, park-like stands with ground forage.

Franklin’s (spruce) grouse (Dendragapus. canadensis)

yes This species requires dense, young (<20 years old) lodgepole pine forests with scattered mature spruce in project areas.


58

Table 10. Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Habitats for MIS and Landbirds

Species Habitat present?

Comments

waterfowl yes Lakes, ponds and wetlands with emergent vegetation. Some species are cavity nesters.

raptors and great blue heron

yes Various requirements dependent on species.

landbirds yes The allotment has all of the priority habitats identified in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman, 2000): dry forest, mixed mesic forest, riparian woodland, riparian shrub, and unique habitats (subalpine forest).

The allotment contains about 3,791 acres of designated deer winter range (Forest Plan Management Areas 6 and 8). Another 1,734 acres of lands in other management areas are also suitable wintering areas for deer. These areas are at low elevations, adjacent to designated deer winter range, and contain some old homestead meadows; all good foraging sites for wintering big game. Grass/forb meadows occupy very limited acreages on National Forest System lands in Pend Oreille County. Delaney and Bartlett meadows are the two main meadow complexes on the “biological” winter range in the allotment. During the winter, these sites are usually buried under snow. Elk must then either switch to browsing shrubs to a much greater extent, or move to lower elevation, private pasture lands off the forest (pers. comm. with S. Zender, 2005). The winter diet of deer in eastern Washington mainly consists of evergreen and deciduous woody plants and lichens (Peek, in Halls et al, 1984). Within the allotment, there are very few acres of upland shrub fields on big game winter ranges. Most of these resources are effectively inaccessible to cows. Cattle are over-utilizing alder, willow, dogwood, and other riparian shrubs along certain stream segments however.

A summary of the effects of alternative B to other management indicator species is provided in Table 11. See the wildlife biologist’s report in the project file for a more detailed discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action to MIS.


59

Table 11. Summary of Effects to Management Indicator Species Common

Name Existing Condition Effects of Alternative B Effects of Alternative C

beaver, big game

Active beaver pairs/family groups exist on the major creeks in the allotment. Each sub-drainage in the allotment supports small numbers of elk (perhaps 10-20 head) and scores of deer. White-tailed deer will graze in close proximity to cattle. Mule deer prefer more rugged, mountainous terrain than do livestock. Elk can make use of steeper slopes and dense shrub fields that cattle tend to avoid. Elk will generally exclude themselves from areas cattle are using. Livestock are over-utilizing riparian shrubs on certain local stream segments. Late-season browsing by livestock is reducing the density and diversity of existing plants and suppressing regeneration on these sites. These impacts to forage resources and streamside cover may be reducing habitat quality for beavers and big game animals on the affected stream reaches.

Aspen provide important food resources for beaver, big game animals, and a host of other wildlife. Annual browsing by livestock on aspen sprouts is keeping the young trees from growing beyond a couple feet tall in some locations. This is mainly occurring where cows have easy access to existing aspen clones, such as on the edges of meadows. If sprouts aren’t allowed to grow out of reach of browsing animals, the overstory trees of these stands will not be replaced when they die over time.

Livestock grazing would continue to have insignificant or discountable impacts to coniferous forest cover for big game animals.

Alternative B would employ a three-pasture rotational grazing system in the allotment. Stock would be kept in a given pasture by new, strategically placed cattle guards and fencing, as well as by steep topography or dense timber. As a result, cattle would no longer have the opportunity to freely move across the allotment and concentrate on preferred sites (mainly meadows) for extended periods. This should effectively reduce the period of grazing on those sites. Elk may be able to better utilize the sites in the absence of season-long grazing by cows. Areas of bare ground on these areas should be reduced over time.

Continued monitoring of grass stubble height, riparian shrub utilization, and stream bank alteration in key areas would guide the timing of grazing in each pasture. This should result in improvements in the vigor of individual green forage plants for cattle and big game animals.

There should also be an increase in the overall density and diversity of riparian shrubs where they have been impacted by repeated livestock browsing. These improvements in forage resources would compliment habitat improvement projects the FS has recently completed or proposes to complete in the watershed, such as, aspen protection from livestock browsing, and fencing of locally over-used riparian sites.

Recovery of all over-utilized riparian shrub habitats over time.

Potential release of aspen regeneration in all stands presently affected by cattle browsing.

Initial recovery of locally degraded forage in meadows. Potential long-term reduction in green forage production/palatability in the absence of grazing. Decreased risk of noxious weed spread. More frequent meadow maintenance required than with Alternative B.


60



pine marten

The project area contains one designated MA-1 area and six pine marten core habitat areas. Livestock tend to move along roads or trails from one preferred foraging area (meadow or other forest opening) to the next. They avoid most forest stands in the allotment, particularly stands with good canopy closure that would be preferred by pine marten, pileated woodpeckers, and barred owls. Cattle movement is restricted in these habitats by understory vegetation and down wood. Typically, there is little forage available for cattle on the well-shaded forest floor.

Livestock grazing would continue to have insignificant or discountable impacts to large tree habitats, down logs, or overhead canopy closure. There is little potential for conflict between livestock operations and the maintenance of reproductive habitats or travel corridors for the three MIS.

No effect to standing snags, down logs, mature forest habitats or habitat connectivity.

barred owl

pileated woodpecker

primary cavity excavators, northern 3-toed woodpecker

Most species of woodpeckers use conifer tree habitat, but some are strongly associated with hardwoods (cottonwoods, birch, or aspen). With forest succession, hardwood trees are being over-topped by growing conifers in the allotment. In the absence of a disturbance such as wildfire or timber harvest, the overhead conifer tree canopy will become more closed, shading out light-loving hardwood trees over time. Compounding this effect, repeated livestock browsing on aspen sprouts is keeping the young trees from growing beyond a foot or two tall in some locations. This is mainly occurring on the edges of meadows where cows have easy access to existing aspen. If sprouts aren’t allowed to grow out of reach of browsing animals, the overstory trees of these clones will not be replaced when they die over time.

Because livestock do not utilize conifer snags, defective live trees, stumps, or down logs, there would continue to be insignificant or discountable impacts to these habitats resulting from this alternative. Selected aspen stands that are being suppressed by annual browsing pressure from cattle would be protected with log fencing, piled slash, or other means. Young, encroaching conifers would be cut out within and around these clones in order to increase light levels for the hardwoods. Over the course of several years, protected aspen clones should respond with new sprouting from their root systems, ensuring continuation of the clones. Long-term, local increases in woodpecker foraging and nesting habitats could be the result of these restoration projects.

Livestock browsing on hardwood tree regeneration across the allotment would cease. Over time, sprouts that are not over-utilized by wild ungulates would recover and release. There should be sufficient regeneration to perpetuate aspen clones, so long as growing conifers do not overtop and completely shade them out.


61



dusky (blue) grouse

Timber stands used for breeding by dusky grouse are typically park-like with abundant shrubs and interspersed ground forage. Decades of fire suppression has allowed once open, park-like stands on the Calispell Grazing Allotment to become encroached with young fir trees. Historically, frequent, low-intensity ground fires would have removed these small trees and had little effect on the thick barked overstory trees. Presently, the allotment appears to contain little high-quality brood habitat. Most potential habitat is isolated from roads and trails, and surrounded by denser forest stands. There is scant evidence that livestock are accessing and grazing on these upland sites.

Livestock grazing would not impact suitable winter roost trees or winter forage. Open, park-like stands that provide potential brood habitat would continue to be limited in extent across the allotment. These sites would continue to fill in with young fir trees unless forest succession is set back by wildfire or timber harvest.

There would be no impact to suitable winter roost trees or winter forage. Open, park-like stands that provide potential brood habitat would continue to be limited in extent across the allotment. These sites would continue to fill in with young fir trees unless forest succession is set back by wildfire or timber harvest.

spruce (Franklin’s) grouse

Spruce grouse require dense, young (less than 20 years old) lodgepole pine forests with scattered mature spruce trees. Higher elevation areas in the allotment (4000 feet and above) have the greatest potential to provide habitat for this grouse.

Presently suitable spruce grouse stands appear to receive little to no use by cattle, owing to the dense nature of the stands and the lack of green forage on the forest floor. Livestock grazing does not appear to be impairing the development of younger plantations into suitable spruce grouse stands.

There would be no effect to suitable spruce grouse habitat or to potential development of younger plantations.

waterfowl

Livestock drink water and utilize riparian vegetation associated with wetlands in the allotment to some degree. Cattle sometimes churn up the sediments in certain shallow areas of open water ponds. They do not appear to be impacting emergent or aquatic vegetation in ponds to an appreciable extent. Certain open wetlands in the allotment (example; small wetlands within Delaney Meadows) have been impacted through trampling, soil compaction, and over-use of vegetation from both cattle and recreation use. Cattle are over-utilizing aspen regeneration in clones growing on the edges of some meadows in the allotment.

Cattle would be confined to one of three pastures during the latter part of the nesting season when most waterfowl clutches have hatched. Thus, the potential for incubating ducks to be disturbed, or for nests to be mechanically destroyed by cattle, would be limited in time and space. A three-pasture rotation system and new rangeland improvements (fencing, watering sites, etc.) would be employed to reduce cattle use of riparian areas and better distribute grazing pressure across the allotment. Waterfowl habitats that are being impacted by livestock should receive less concentrated use, resulting in greater habitat integrity over time.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to wetlands from cattle grazing, trampling or trailing that currently occur in the allotment on an annual basis. Wet meadows that are being grazed and mechanically impacted by cattle trailing would recover over time.


62



large raptors/ great blue heron

Various requirements dependent on species.

Based on tree stocking surveys conducted in plantations, livestock grazing does not appear to be having a substantial impact on the establishment of young conifer trees in the allotment. Grazing should not affect live conifers or snags that could provide nesting habitat for raptors or great blue herons. Livestock grazing would have no impact to cliff habitats or other rock features used for nesting by some raptors.

There would be no effect to nesting habitats. Stream banks and wet meadows that are being mechanically impacted by cattle trailing would recover over time. Habitats for voles, amphibians, and other small prey animals would be restored on the affected sites. In the absence of livestock grazing, young conifers would likely accelerate their encroachment into the meadows, potentially leading to the conversion of these openings to forestland over time (pers. comm. with S. Zender, 2005).

landbirds

Livestock grazing is restricted to only the most open forest stands and is not impacting conifer or riparian woodland tree recruitment. Along certain stream segments, livestock browsing is reducing the density and diversity of riparian shrubs and suppressing regeneration. Cattle are over-utilizing aspen regeneration in clones growing on the edges of some meadows in the allotment.

A three-pasture rotation system and new rangeland improvements (fencing, watering sites, etc.) would be employed to reduce cattle use of riparian areas and better distribute grazing pressure across the allotment. The overall effect should be improvements in the condition of riparian shrub habitats across the allotment. Selected aspen stands that are being suppressed by annual browsing pressure from cattle would be protected with log fencing, piled slash, or other means.

Streamside areas that were heavily utilized by cattle would become more densely vegetated. Shrub species composition would become more diverse. Over time the suitability of these sites for landbirds would be enhanced. Aspen regeneration that was over-utilized by cattle should recover over several years. In the absence of livestock grazing, young lodgepole pine and other conifers would likely accelerate their encroachment into the meadows, potentially leading to the conversion of these openings to forestland over time (pers. comm. with S. Zender, 2005).


63

Cumulative Effects The effects for each species was based on an analysis that included expected effects from other projects overlapping the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment. Other projects included, but were not limited to, the Power Lake Vegetation Management EA, South End Motor Vehicle Management EA, and current recreation use. Based on the preceding table, alternative B as proposed would be consistent with Forest Plan and other direction for MIS and land birds.

Alternative C would result in no adverse cumulative effects to wildlife attributable to livestock grazing. Opportunities to use livestock as a tool to maintain/improve the vigor of forage plants, and check conifer encroachment into existing open meadows would be lost.

Figure 7. Exclosure Fencing to Protect Aspen, Delaney Meadow


64

Existing Condition, Direct and Indirect Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) Information provided in this Environmental Assessment about TES wildlife species is excerpted from the Biological Evaluation of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Species by Michael Borysewicz, Wildlife Biologist (2011). The full text of the biological evaluation is incorporated by reference and is available in the project analysis file.

The following tables display the threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species listed for the CNF, and their potential to occur on the allotment. Species with no habitat present in the allotment were not further analyzed.

Table 12. Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment ‐ Habitats for Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) Species Listed for the Colville National Forest

Species Status Habitat

Present? Comments

bull trout (S. confluentus)

T Yes Existing condition for bull trout is displayed in the Riparian Areas and Fisheries section.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)

T Yes A portion of the allotment is within the Chewelah Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). Lynx occupy higher elevation (typically above 4,000 feet) forests. Foraging habitat is in extremely dense, young stands of lodgepole pine, other conifers, or mixed conifer/ hardwood stands (snowshoe hare habitat). Lynx den in stands having late and old structure with jackpots of down logs (also habitat for red squirrels, an important alternate prey species). Other considerations include habitat connectivity and seclusion from human disturbance.

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)

T Yes The allotment is outside recovery habitat, but grizzlies have occurred in the area. Spring forage habitats include low – mid elevation riparian areas, meadows, parklands, etc. Summer / fall foraging sites include mid - high elevation, berry producing shrub fields. Grizzlies often den in alpine/subalpine areas with deep soils. Seclusion from human disturbance is a primary management objective.

woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)

E No The allotment is more than 20 miles south of the designated recovery area for caribou. Thus, habitat in the allotment is not needed for the survival and recovery of the species. Caribou have never been documented within or near to the allotment.


65

Table 13. Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment – Habitats for Sensitive Terrestrial Vertebrates Listed for the Colville National Forest

Species Habitat Present?

Comments

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Yes Eagles forage on rivers and large lakes with abundant fish, (e.g., Pend Oreille River). For nesting/perching, they select large trees that stand above the main forest canopy, and usually within one mile of a foraging area. Winter roosts may be in late and old structural stage stands with good canopy closure.

common loon (Gavia imner)

No Allotment contains no large (>40 acre) lakes or rivers with abundant fish that provide foraging and nesting habitats for loons.

eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis)

No Allotment contains no prairie lakes or marshes that this species typically nests on. The nearest nest colony is located at Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge, many miles south of the project area.

fisher

(Martes pennanti)

Yes Fishers inhabit dense coniferous or mixed coniferous/deciduous forests with good canopy closure. They prefer late and old structural stage stands. Travel habitat includes forest stands adjacent to lakeshores, riparian areas, ridges. Fishers den in large hollow logs or snags, tree cavities, brush piles etc.

gray wolf

(Canis lupus)

Yes Wolves are closely tied to habitats that support abundant big game populations. Limiting human-caused mortality is a primary management concern.

great gray owl

(Strix nebulosa)

Yes This owl forages in open, grassy habitat including open forest stands, selective and clear-cut logged areas, meadows and wetlands. They nest in forest stands near wet meadows, pastures and other openings. Nest structures include large, broken topped snags and abandoned raptor nests.

harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

Yes Harlequins breed in cold, fast-moving mountain streams (e.g., Sullivan, Harvey Creeks) with dense shrub/timber nearby and an absence of human disturbance. They winter on boulder strewn coastal waters.

n. leopard frog (Rana pipiens)

Yes This species requires wetland and pond habitats with much concealing cover.

peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus)

No No tall cliff faces or other rock features that peregrines could use for nesting exist in the allotment. Good quality potential foraging habitats are located east of the allotment on the Pend Oreille River and adjacent private lands.

pygmy shrew

(Sorex hoyi)

Yes Found in conifer stands with dense ground vegetation. May be associated with disturbed, seral habitats. In Washington pygmy shrews have been captured in upland, even-aged second-growth conifer forests.

red-tailed chipmunk

(Tamias ruficaudus)

Yes On the CNF this species occurs in mixed second growth forests of lodgepole pine, western larch, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, grand fir and aspen.

sandhill crane (Grus canadensis)

No Allotment has no isolated, large tracts of marshes and wet meadows that are more than a ¼ mile from open roads.


66

Table 13. Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment – Habitats for Sensitive Terrestrial Vertebrates Listed for the Colville National Forest

Species Habitat Present?

Comments

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

No Allotment has no known caves or mines that could be used for roosting or hibernation, nor suitable abandoned buildings that could be used by a nursery colony.

white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)

Yes Primarily birds of mature, ponderosa pine forests. This species forages on large, decayed snags and ponderosa pine trees greater than 24” in size.

wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

Yes Wolverines typically den in higher elevation rock slides, caves, and crevices; often in glacial cirque basins. They forage in all higher elevation forested habitats but particularly those where carrion can be found. They require seclusion from human disturbance. The highest elevation habitats at the west end of the allotment have the greatest potential for use by wolverines.

Table 14. Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment – Habitats for Sensitive Invertebrates Listed for the Colville National Forest

Species Habitat

Present? Comments

meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona)

Yes Common in the eastern US in hayfields and human-disturbed habitats. In the west they occur in meadows and openings in aspen or pine forests.

Great Basin fritillary (Speyeria egleis)

Yes This species uses forest openings and edges, generally at higher elevations.

Rosner’s hairstreak (Callophyrus nelsoni)

Yes Habitat for this species includes openings and edges in coniferous forest around mature western red cedar stands.

magnum mantleslug (Magnipelta mycophaga)

Yes Found in a variety of low to mid-elevation sites, often with water in the general vicinity.

Fir pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum)

Yes Most often found in moist and rocky Douglas-fir forest at mid-elevations in valleys and ravines and sometimes in western redcedar. Often found in or near talus of a variety of rock types, or under fallen logs.

masked duskysnail (Lyogyrus spp.)

No Allotment contains no kettle lakes used by this species.

The following table briefly describes the effects of the proposed action on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, including the rationale for each determination. See appendix C (biological evaluation) for a more detailed discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action to terrestrial TES species. A more detailed discussion of effects to TES fish species is located in the previous Riparian Areas and Fisheries section.


67

Table 15. Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species for Alternative B

TES Species Alternative Determination Rationale for Determination

Canada lynx (threatened)

B No effect

Little use of high-elevation habitats by livestock. Grazing is having insignificant or discountable effects to forage habitats for lynx. No impacts to active dens (none are known to exist) or potential den habitat. C

Bull trout (threatened)

B

No effect

The analysis area is located above an impassable cascade on the North Fork of Calispell Creek and bull trout were not known to inhabit this area historically. Bull trout are not known to occupy habitat above the cascades presently. Appropriate BMPs would be followed to decrease any potential effect of the action on aquatic resources.

C

grizzly bear (threatened)

B May affect – not likely to adversely affect

Allotment lies outside recovery habitat and thus is not needed for the survival or recovery of the species. No impacts to potential denning habitat. Insignificant or discountable impacts to berry crops. Better distribution of livestock should lead to improvements in hiding cover and available green forage.

C No effect

Recovery of all local, over-used riparian sites, aspen. Improvements in meadow conditions (percent bare ground, green forage). However, active management required to rejuvenate grasses and keep meadows in an open condition.

bald eagle (FS sensitive)

All No impact No known active or historic nests in the allotment. No impacts to large trees or potential forage base.

fisher (FS sensitive)

All No impact

No known sighting records. No impacts to mature/old forest structures or overhead canopy from grazing. Little overlap between livestock grazing areas and deep forest habitats important to fishers.

gray wolf (listed as sensitive on 5/4/11)

B Not likely to cause a trend to federal listing

No impacts to active dens (none are known to exist) or den habitats. Better distribution of livestock should lead to improvements in hiding cover around rendezvous habitats. Less intensive, local use of green forage and riparian browse, leading to improvements in forage and reproductive habitats for wolf prey animals. Livestock grazing would tend to maintain meadows in an open condition, benefitting elk and deer.

C No impact

Recovery of all local, over-used riparian sites and aspen, benefitting wolf prey animals. Improvements in meadow conditions (percent bare ground, green forage). However, active management required to rejuvenate grasses and keep meadows in an open condition over time.

great gray owl (FS sensitive)


No known sighting records. No impacts to potential nest trees from grazing. Grazing would tend to maintain meadows (foraging habitat) in an open condition. Reduction in low cover for voles and other prey animals in meadows that are being actively grazed.


68



C No impact

Recovery of all local, over-used riparian sites, aspen. Improvements in low cover and forage for prey in meadows. Active management required to rejuvenate grasses and keep meadows in an open condition.

harlequin duck (FS sensitive)

All No impact No known sighting records. Low habitat suitability. Livestock grazing is well removed from stream reaches with any potential to provide breeding habitat.

northern leopard frog, pygmy shrew (FS sensitive)


No known sighting records. Better distribution of livestock should lead to improvements in low cover at over-used riparian sites from the current condition. Sediment input to wetlands that could adversely impact amphibian egg masses should be reduced from the present situation. Grazing would tend to maintain meadows in an open condition.

C No impact

Recovery of all locally degraded wetland habitats. No sediment input to reproductive habitats that could smother amphibian eggs. Improvements in low cover in meadows. Active management required to rejuvenate grasses and keep meadows in an open condition.

red-tailed chipmunk (FS sensitive)

All No impact

No known sighting records. Little use of high-elevation habitats by livestock. No impacts to overhead canopy or nest sites. Insignificant or discountable impacts to forage base.

white-headed woodpecker (FS sensitive)

All No impact

No known sighting records. No impacts to large tree habitats.

wolverine (FS sensitive)


Little of use of high-elevation habitats by livestock. No impacts to active dens (none known to exist) or den habitats. Insignificant or discountable impacts to berry crops. Less intensive, local use of green forage and riparian browse, leading to improvements in forage and reproductive habitats for prey animals.

C No impact

Recovery of all local, over-used riparian sites and aspen, benefitting prey animals. Improvements in meadow conditions (percent bare ground, green forage). However, active management required to rejuvenate grasses and keep meadows in an open condition over time.

sensitive invertebrates


No known sighting records. Better distribution of livestock should lead to less intensive, local use of meadow habitats from the current condition. Livestock grazing would tend to maintain meadows in an open condition. No impacts to rock features, coarse woody debris, or dense forest stands.


69



C No impact

Recovery of all local, over-used meadows and aspen. Improvements in meadow conditions (percent bare ground, green forage). Active management required to rejuvenate grasses and keep meadows in an open condition.

westslope cutthroat trout (FS sensitive)

B

No impact

Conditions for cutthroat trout and their habitat in many portions of the watershed would improve through the expected reduction to sediment input, decrease in summer water temperatures, increased habitat complexity, and access to previously inaccessible good quality habitat. Pure westslope cutthroat trout are not known to inhabit the project area nor the larger watershed.

C

Interior redband trout (FS sensitive)

B No impact

Overall improvement of fish habitat, in the long-term, within the analysis area. Pure interior redband trout are not known to inhabit the project area nor the larger watershed. C

pygmy whitefish (FS sensitive)

B

No impact

Improvement of habitat conditions for trout in many portions of the watershed through the expected reduction of sediment input, decrease in summer water temperatures, increase in habitat complexity, and access to previously inaccessible good quality habitat. However, pygmy whitefish are not known to inhabit the project area.

C

Cumulative Effects The effects determination for each species was based on an analysis that included expected effects from other projects overlapping the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment. Other projects included, but were not limited to, the Power Lake Vegetation Management EA, South End Motor Vehicle Management EA, and current recreation use. Based on the information displayed in the preceding table, alternative B as proposed would be consistent with Forest Plan and other direction for threatened, endangered and sensitive fish and wildlife species.

Recreation Proposed actions are reviewed to assure that the recreation attributes that facilitate the desired recreation opportunity class for the analysis area are being protected. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is one of the tools that the Forest Service uses to frame the setting when describing the potential for the recreation experience. It is not a land classification system: it is a method of describing and providing a mix of recreation opportunities. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum provides a framework allowing administrators to manage and users to enjoy a variety of outdoor environments.

Data Collection This analysis is based on Forest Plan direction utilizing forest data and site-specific specialist review.


70

Framework The Forest Plan requires that provision is made for a broad range of ROS settings and recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, viewing scenery, camping, hiking, and floating.

Desired Conditions Provide a broad range of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum settings in the analysis area (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-35).

Existing Condition, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Alternative B The Calispell Creek allotment can be characterized by the Roaded Modified and Roaded Natural ROS classes, and the present recreation experience is appropriate for these ROS classes. This landscape is heavily roaded and modified. Its history of management for timber and numerous in-holdings of private timber land are consistent with these classifications. Forest recreation users currently share the travel routes and dispersed camping areas with grazing cattle. While the evidence and presence of cattle changes recreation activities from an expected natural appearing and wildland experience to one containing domesticated animals, user conflicts appear to be minimal. Under Forest Plan direction, the area would continue to be used for dispersed recreation opportunities that involve use of motorized vehicles and nonmotorized opportunities.

The Middle Fork Calispell OHV Trail (approximately 10 miles of trail) is the only designated OHV trail on the Colville National Forest, and is a popular destination for motorized recreation in this area. The project area is used heavily for recreation during the summer months. In most years, heavy weekend use begins in mid-May, depending on the weather, and continues through Labor Day. The heaviest use generally occurs on the three summer holiday weekends. Non-holiday weekends also sustain high levels of use, and weekdays beginning in mid-June (after school is out for the summer) see a moderate level of use. Weekday recreational use in the spring is generally light. Fall recreational use (weekday and weekends) is generally moderate to heavy depending on the hunting seasons that are open. The majority of recreationists in the project area live in the towns surrounding the Forest or travel from the Spokane area. The allotment is the closest part of the Forest to Spokane, and thus receives a high level of use from this major population center.

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan management area prescriptions for recreation and proposed activities would meet Forest Plan standards. Activities adjacent to dispersed sites and roads would follow Forest Plan guidelines. The analysis area would continue to provide a spectrum of recreation experiences compatible with the Roaded Modified and Roaded Natural ROS classes.

In general, the existing conflicts between recreation users and grazing permit activities would be reduced due to improved management of the allotment under the proposed action. The proposed activities, while not directly altering the type of recreational use within the allotments, may cause short term disruption while users adjust to the changed conditions. Users of dispersed recreation sites may be disturbed or displaced by activities, however, meadow retention may create new opportunities for dispersed campsites at certain times of the year.

The proposed action would not create a loss of dispersed recreation opportunities. It does not alter the present routes as designated by the Motor Vehicle Use Map Colville National Forest, East side-South (U.S. Forest Service 2011) within the analysis area.

The proposed action preserves the existing character of the recreating experience, and there would be no long-term adverse effects to recreation due to this alternative.


71

Alternative C Under the no action alternative the overall recreating experience could improve due to the removal of cattle from travel routes and dispersed camping areas. A slight long-term loss of camping areas could occur under the no action alternative if forest openings, now used by campers, become forested.

Cumulative Effects The Power Lake project proposes to harvest timber and treat fuels on about 7,000 acres within the allotment. In the short-term, livestock may utilize some forage created primarily on temporary roads and landings. Livestock will often use temporary roads and tractor/skidder trails in preference to traversing cross-country. In the short-term (0-5 years) the new forage may lure livestock away from the meadows, thereby reducing the impacts on the meadows.

The South End Motor Vehicle Management Project proposes to reduce the number of dispersed campsites in meadows along the Middle Fork and Bartlett Roads (CR 2022 and CR 2030), and to reduce off-road travel in these areas. By reducing the number of campsites and especially by reducing off-road travel, total impacts to the meadows would be reduced from existing levels.

Increased recreation use resulting from CNF travel management programs may cause an increase in recreation users/livestock interactions under the proposed action alternative. Some recreation users find livestock a deterrent from their experience. Because the proposed action creates more upland areas for cattle use, but does not increase the number of animals, the interactions are expected to be balanced and any increase slight to unnoticeable in the short term.

Heritage The following is a summary of information located in the Heritage report in the project file (Kramer 2011). As per 36 CFR 296 specific sites are not listed nor described in the EA or project analysis file.

Introduction During the past 6,000 years, the region has been utilized by diverse groups of people for a variety of activities. The project area lies within the traditional use area of the Kalispel Tribe. The Kalispel is a sub-group of the Salishan speaking groups which include the following cultural traditions: Wenatchee, Columbia, Chelan, Methow, Okanogan, Nespelem, Sanpoil, Spokane, Coeur D’Alene, Colville, Lakes and Kalispel. Ethnographic accounts indicate that the Pend Oreille River Valley, specifically, the eastern edge of Colville National Forest may have also been utilized by the Kootenai, Spokane and Colville tribes (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998, Lahren 1998). Native people of the region ranged freely over the hills and valleys hunting and gathering. Compared with many other areas of the Pacific Northwest, the numbers of native peoples living in Pend Oreille County were relatively small. Ethnographic accounts indicate that the Kalispel practiced wintertime deer drives and maintained resident fisheries along the Pend Oreille River. In addition to hunting deer and fishing, the Kalispel harvested camas (Camassia sp) (Lahren 1998). There are currently no known Native American cultural resource sites (on National Forest System lands) within the Area of Potential Effect.

Euro-American The project area was largely unoccupied by non-Native Americans until the middle of the Nineteenth century. The mid-1800s began a period of settlement and development of lumber, mining and agriculture industries.

Beginning in 1821, the Hudson Bay Trading Company had great influence in the Colville and Pend Oreille Valley regions; this influence lasted through to the late 1800s. The Hudson Bay Trading Company was the largest trade outpost in the region serving parts of Washington, Idaho, Montana,


72

and Canada. The company also maintained a cadre of trappers, and purchased furs from Native Americans and free-lance trappers. Under the influence/guidance of the Hudson Bay Trading Company, many trails were created to facilitate trade within the region. The presence of the Hudson Bay Trading Company induced cultural changes in both Euro-American and First Nation Communities alike (Chance 1973). In 1809, David Thompson of the North West Company was the first trader to make contact with the Kalispel (Thoms 1987b). Thompson traded ironworks (knifes, awls, guns, etc.) for beaver pelts.

By the late 19th century, homesteading and extractive industries (mining, logging) became more prevalent in the Pend Oreille River valley. Settlers in the late 1880s introduced the timber industry into the area. With the timber industry and the passage of the Forest Homestead Act in 1906, homesteaders moved into the project area (Bamonte and Bamonte 1996). The Forest Homestead Act allowed for 160-acre homesteads on reserved forest lands. Under the Act the land parcels were supposed to have agricultural potential, but much of the land was rocky and unsuitable for farming. Settlers in the area found that timber harvest was much more profitable than farming (Bamonte and Bamonte 1996).

The analysis area began to be homesteaded at the turn of the 20th century. Dates of occupation of most homesteads in the analysis area begin in the 1900s to 1910s. There is little evidence of mining activities in the analysis area.

Data Collection A cultural resources records review and field inventory were conducted in accordance with the Colville National Forest Inventory Design for Heritage Resources (Kramer 2002).The Forest Archaeologist performed field inventories on selected proposed range improvements and existing historic properties during the summers of 2009 and 2010.

Framework Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the Colville National Forest conducts a program designed to identify, evaluate, preserve and protect heritage resources. In addition, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) entered into by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Region 6), The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forest Lands (1997) offers additional management guidelines for these resources.

Desired Conditions Identify, protect, and enhance the values of cultural properties on the Forest (U.S. Forest Service 1988, page 4-8).

Existing Conditions, Direct and Indirect Effects There are thirty-one identified historic properties within the analysis area. All properties have the potential to be affected by the project.

Past management practices have not evaluated these properties for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Historic properties that are unevaluated are managed as if eligible, and mitigations for these properties would follow management prescriptions as specified in the mitigations section. Currently the Heritage Program management attempts to relocate sites, monitor the sites for damage/deterioration, evaluate the sites for NRHP eligibility, and preserve/protect the sites. A system of site evaluation has been developed to classify existing historic properties according to the type of management required. All thirty-one sites fall into management class 2: “Not evaluated. Property must be protected and preserved as if eligible. Protect historic property through avoidance.”


73

Alternative B Under this alternative, there would be little to no potential to affect cultural resources within the analysis area. This is exclusive to identified cow/calf pairs as identified, and does not include proposed range improvements, which shall be discussed separately.

The proposed stock driveway would utilize existing disturbed ground and would have no effect on cultural resources. Proposed meadow retention projects would have no effect on cultural resources.

The proposed ripping and reseeding project is proposed within a meadow associated with historic homesteading. However, extensive sub-surface testing was conducted across this area and no cultural resources of significance were encountered. The proposed ripping and reseeding would have no effect on cultural resources.

The proposed new fence construction is an appendix A undertaking as defined in the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Forest Service, the Advisory Council, and the State Historic Preservation Officer which states that fence construction has little to no potential to effect cultural resources.

The proposed cattle guard relocation and the proposed water developments have not yet been identified on the ground. These two proposals would require separate National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 clearance prior to implementation. When these proposals are identified on the ground, and funding becomes available for implementation, cultural resource field surveys would be conducted. If no cultural materials are encountered, the two proposals would result in no effect to cultural resources. If cultural materials are identified prior to implementation at any of the proposed locations, the project would be re-designed to avoid cultural materials, thereby resulting in a no effect.

Alternative C (no action) Under this alternative the grazing allotment authorization would not be renewed. Therefore, there would be no effect to archeological sites from cattle use.

Cumulative Effects Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the analysis area include vegetation management and motor vehicle use management. These management activities have the potential to affect cultural resources by providing greater access to sites. Through proper mitigation for each management activity, effects may be kept at a minimum.

Roads No road construction or reconstruction is proposed under alternative B, therefore a roads analysis was not completed for this project. The following is a summary from the Transportation report (Hendricks 2011) located in the project file.

Existing Condition, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Alternative B Under the proposed action (alternative B), a cattleguard at mile post (MP) 0.01 on FR 3530000 would be relocated to approximately milepost (MP) 0.3, along the pasture boundary. No effect to the National Forest Road system is expected due to the relocation.

A stock driveway is proposed along FR 3530010 and the first 0.3 miles of FR 4347300, to provide for easier stock movement between Bartlett and Ninebark pastures. The 4347300 is a Maintenance Level (ML) 1 road; it is closed with an earth berm and slash at MP 0.1. There is an existing pipe arch near the closure, crossing NF Calispell Creek. Although this culvert is reported to be a barrier to aquatic species passage, it is not being altered or replaced under this project. The site would be evaluated for aggregate placement on the roadbed through the crossing. The earth berm closure would be removed and a gate installed to prevent vehicular traffic. The roadway would be brushed


74

enough to allow for safe cattle movement. Minimal brushing at the entrance is desired to keep the road as camouflaged as possible.

There are four perennial stream crossings along FR 3530010, a ML 1 road currently closed via the 4347300 closure on the west end and with earth berms and re-established vegetation on the east end. All four are in need of improvements:

The first crossing has a 24” corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The inlet is plugged with sediment, but if cleaned would be functional.

The second crossing has a 24”cmp that seems to be functioning well, but above the culvert inlet there is a small pool that should be protected from cattle. The pool could be fenced and yet not interfere with the function of the road.

At the third crossing, water is flowing from a pool at the toe of the cutbank and across the road. There is no culvert or other structure in place. A ford could easily be constructed to harden the crossing for cattle, with installation of about 50’ of fencing to protect the pool.

The fourth crossing comes from a cutslope seep. In June 2010, water was flowing down the middle of the road for about 200 feet before it diverted off the road. About 75 feet of ditch and an armored ford would be constructed to redirect this water.

About 4” depth of aggregate would be placed through the area of influence of all crossings.

A gate would be installed near the junction of NFSR 3530000; the road would be brushed open enough for cattle to travel safely through. Minimal brushing at the entrance is desired to keep the road as camouflaged as possible.

A potential rock source was identified about MP 0.2 of NFSR 3530010, and it would provide the aggregate source for constructing the fords along this road. Up to ½ acre of ground would be cleared of trees and brush, material would be excavated and hauled to the two crossings. This site is only planned for use on this project. There is probably not enough rock material for future development.

The aggregate for placing on the road through the crossings would most likely come from a commercial source. This material would be weed seed free.

Alternative C No changes to the existing road system, including cattle guards, or to rock sources would occur. Existing road maintenance activities would continue.

Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects to roads under the proposed action alternative.

Special Uses Per 36 CFR 251.50(a), “All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those provided for in the regulations governing the disposal of timber (part 223) and minerals (part 228) and the grazing of livestock (part 222), are designated as “Special Uses.” A special-use authorization is a legal document such as a permit, lease, or easement, which allows occupancy, use, rights, or privileges of National Forest System (NFS) lands.

Data Collection The Colville National Forest Special Uses database and Bureau of Land Management Legacy 2000 database was reviewed in January 2011 by Kim Di Rienz, Forest Special Uses Coordinator. Additional analysis of effects to the US Air Force Survival School Special Use Permit was completed by Karen Soenke, USAF Liaison Officer.


75

Framework The National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA), October 13, 1964 (16 U.S.C.532-538) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to grant permanent or temporary easements for specified periods or otherwise for road rights-of-way over national forest lands and other lands administered by the Forest Service.

36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 251, Subpart B, provides direction on the process for granting special use authorizations.

Forest Service Manual 2700 – Special Uses Management, Chapter 2730 – Road and Trail Rights-of-Way Grants, Section 2732 – National Forest Road and Trail Act Easements delegates authority for granting FRTA easements to the Regional Forester and, with specific delegation, to Forest Supervisors.

Desired Conditions Minimize impacts to existing Special Use Permits and coordinate granting of future permits during the lifetime of the project.

Existing Conditions, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Alternative B There are 18 special use authorizations located within the analysis areas for the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment project area. All but two of the authorizations are for roads - Forest Road and Trails Act (FRTA) easements or Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) easements or permits. The remaining authorizations are one special use permit each authorizing: a military training area, and telephone lines and fiber optic cable.

There are no design elements for protection of improvements authorized under special use permits associated with the proposed range use of the project area. The project as proposed is not expected to impact the improvements or activities that are authorized under special use permits or easements and is consistent with direction provided by the Forest Plan regarding special uses. The project does not proposed to close, decommission, or obliterate any existing open roads.

The revision of the permit area to delete the 49 Degrees North Mountain Resort permit area and maintenance of drift fences and cattleguards would provide reasonable assurance that there would be no cattle movement onto the resort’s permit area and there would be no effects on resort features and structural improvements.

The project as proposed is not expected to impact mineral resources and is consistent with direction provided by the Forest Plan regarding minerals management.

Alternative C No cattle would be authorized within the allotment permit area, so cattle movement onto 49 Degrees North Mountain Resort’s permit area would not be an issue. This alternative would have no effect to existing special use permits and is not expected to impact mineral resources.

US Air Force Survival School Existing Conditions The USAF operates on the Colville National Forest under the terms and conditions of a Special Use Permit issued to the 336th Training Group, Air Education Training Command (Survival School) located at Fairchild Air Force Base.

The US Air Force Survival School conducts training in survival skills and recovery techniques within the project area. This training has occurred since 2001 under a Special Use Permit (SUP). The current SUP identifies locations, practices, and methods of training that are consistent with the


76

Standards and Guidelines of the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

The Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program is designed for approximately 3,700 Air Force personnel annually, with duties or operations that involve a high-risk of capture.

Two of the training programs taught at the Survival School involve training operations on lands administered by the Colville National Forest. One program is the basic survival course (S-V80-A) that is taught to all Air Force aircrew members. Typically, a class of 75-90, S-V80-A students are in training on or near the Colville National Forest each week of the year. The Instructor training course (S-V81-A) is a six-month long course that prepares 30–40 instructors to teach the S-V80-A course. Two S-V81-A classes are taught each year, for combined eight to ten training “phases” on the Colville National Forest.

Direct, and Indirect Effects of Alternative B The Bartlett Training Area inside the Calispell Allotment analysis area is the only area affected, and is used primarily during the summer season. The 9 year plan has the Bartlett area scheduled for 2013–2016.

Activities identified in the analysis area that would affect the Survival School training operations are: fencing and timing of use by cattle in the training area. Fencing Alternative B increases the amount of fencing in the allotment, but it is only a minor effect and would not cause problems for the Survival School operation in the Bartlett Training Area. The effects of fencing on the Survival School training are from blocking access routes for the students and blocking portions of the designated landing zones for the helicopter. This increases the potential for the students and instructors to avoid more of the area. The new fencing in the Bartlett meadow increases the area for the helicopter to avoid during landing.

Pasture Rotation (timing of use by cattle) Alternative B allows for more concentrated use of the Bartlett pasture by cattle in the Bartlett Training area during the late summer. The effects of concentrated use in the training area are more cows on the roads to avoid, more cows in the designated landing zones for the helicopter to avoid, and more cows in the instructor camps.

Alternative C This alternative would eventually provide for removing fences, allowing for better access and no areas to avoid. Removal of cattle from the area would have no effect to the Survival School operations.

Public Health and Safety There are a substantial number of health and safety hazards to Forest Service employees and private contractors involved with carrying out the proposed action. There are no hazards identified that are unusual or unique to the Calispell Creek Grazing Reauthorization proposed action. The health and safety hazards to Forest Service employees and contractors are addressed by the U.S. Forest Service Health and Safety Code (Forest Service Handbook 6709.11), and by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requirements. Analysis of these health and safety hazards are not repeated here.

The Forest Plan (pages 4-55 and 4-56) directs that the Forest provide and maintain public road and trail access to NFS lands with user safety as the primary emphasis. It also allows for seasonal or long-term road and area closures where necessary to protect public safety.


77

The United States Clean Air Act of 1963 as amended (42 USC 1857) provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation's air resources.

The Washington State Clean Air Act, revised in 1995 provides direction for State Implementation and State Smoke Management Plans. The 1995 revision exempted "emissions from silvicultural burning that is conducted in eastern Washington for the purpose of restoring forest health or preventing the deterioration of forest health" from the Clean Air Act emission reduction targets.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1996 Smoke Management Plan serves to coordinate and facilitate statewide regulation of prescribed outdoor burning on lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources, on unimproved federally-managed forest lands, and participating tribal lands to meet the requirements of the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW70.94), Forest Protection laws (RCW 76.04), and the United States Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et. seq.)

Pile Burning and Underburning The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages air quality of the State by regulating the quantity of burning throughout the year. Prescribed fire planned by the Forest Service must be approved by DNR Smoke Management before ignition. The DNR takes into account atmospheric circulation patterns to determine trajectory of smoke emissions and how quickly smoke dissipates to harmless levels. When regional haze, and, or particulate counts accumulate to predetermined limits, additional smoke emissions are prohibited.

Managing smoke from prescribed fire involves timing and cooperating with the weather to minimize the impacts of smoke. The Forest’s burning program takes place when fuels and weather conditions meet predetermined prescription parameters. Burn days are chosen when winds will move the smoke out of the analysis area and dissipate it. Ignition typically ceases by late afternoon so the smoke from burning that lingers overnight generally shows in a “mid-elevation” inversion layer within the valleys. Inversions generally break up mid-morning and the smoke dissipates upward. Smoke from prescribed fire use settling into the valley bottoms is rarely seen.

It is not expected that visibility would be reduced to the extent that driving safety would be impaired. Signing is done along roads in the vicinity of burns to alert motorists that smoke may be seen and is from a legitimate source. Additional signing and posting traffic control personnel is another option in the rare event of smoke becoming a traffic hazard. If such an event should ever occur, its duration would likely only be a matter of hours.

Valley-bottom smoke can adversely affect the breathing of a small number of susceptible individuals. The Forest Service routinely announces to the public in advance when burning is to take place, so that susceptible individuals can take the necessary precautions to avoid adverse health effects.

Cumulative Effects The proposed action is unlikely to pose adverse cumulative effects from smoke. In general, smoke emissions from prescribed fire use are occasional short-term events that disappear in the large-scale motions of daily wind and rain. Cumulative effects of the smoke in the atmosphere are negligible since natural atmospheric processes work to rid the air of particulates over time. State and national air quality regulations work to limit the rate of emissions so the production of particulates does not exceed the natural cleansing processes of the atmosphere. Permissions are granted for prescribed fire use emissions only after ambient air quality is considered. In other words, the everyday activities that produce vehicle exhaust, dust, home wood stove smoke and other emissions are taken into account before smoke from forestry and agricultural burning is permitted.


78

Required Analyses

Effects on Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups and Women (Includes Environmental Justice Analysis) The proposed action would contribute to consumers, but only in a limited capacity. It would provide meat products to one or more meat distributor, thus contributing food that would become available to consumers.

All contracts and employment offered by the Forest Service contain Equal Employment Opportunity requirements. Therefore, no adverse or discriminatory effects to Civil Rights, Minority Groups or Women are expected with regards to access to federal contracts or jobs.

Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. In examining the proposed action, the environmental effects, and public comments received, there is no indication of any disproportionately high or adverse effect to Indian tribes, low income populations, or minority populations.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in Federal program delivery, employment, and housing. It is the policy of the Forest Service that the Responsible Official review proposed actions for civil rights impacts, and either prepare a civil rights impact analysis and statement of its findings for any proposed policy or organizational action which may have a major civil rights impact, or document the determination that a civil rights impact analysis and a statement of findings are not needed. Review of the proposed action, the environmental effects, and the responses to scoping indicate no disproportionate impacts to women, minority groups, or low income people, and no major civil rights or social impacts associated with the proposed action. Therefore, a civil rights impact analysis and statement of findings are not required.

Tribal Interests The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe were contacted by letter dated June 22, 2010 and again during project scoping, and thus were informed and invited to consult on the project and the proposed actions. There was no response received from the Tribal Council or any tribal members.

Low Income Residents of Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties have some of the highest unemployment and poverty rates in the State of Washington. Scoping during the project did not reveal any negative effects to low income residents in Pend Oreille or Stevens Counties of the proposed action.

Effects on Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland Prime farmlands, rangelands, and forest land occur on the Colville National Forest (U.S. Forest Service, 1988a). Agency direction in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 65.21 is concerned primarily with conversion of prime farmland, rangeland, and forest lands to other land uses. Because this action would not result in any farmland, rangeland, or forest land conversion to other land uses, there would be no meaningful effect and further discussion of effects to prime lands is not needed.

Effects on Wetlands, and Floodplains This project meets the requirements of Executive Orders 11988, which apply to protection of floodplains. These features are protected through implementation of BMPs and Forest Plan


79

Standards and Guidelines. The riparian restoration components of the project are designed to improve condition of riparian areas and floodplain function.

This project meets the requirements of Executive Orders 11990, which apply to protection of wetlands. These features are protected through implementation of BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. The riparian restoration components of the project are designed to improve condition of riparian areas and floodplain function.

Short-term Use vs. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Neither continued livestock grazing nor the termination of livestock grazing would have any meaningful impact to long-term site productivity of these upland areas (see Soils section, page 36).

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Soil compaction due to the proposed actions is to some extent unavoidable. The areas upon which these unavoidable effects occur are very limited in size and substantially mitigated by Design Elements, and Best Management Practices.

Smoke from burning fuels is unavoidable. By burning within prescription parameters documented in project Burn Plans, potential adverse effects would be substantially reduced.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Detrimental soils conditions constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The proposed action includes water trough placement and pile burning of fuels, both of which have the potential to cause detrimental soils conditions, but not the size (less than 1/8 acre) to qualify as such. Therefore this irretrievable commitment of resources would be within Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and therefore would be inconsequential.

Conflicts with Objectives of Other Land Management Plans, Policies, and Controls There are no known conflicts with the objectives of other land management plans, policies, or controls.

Unique Characteristics of the Geographic Area The Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment project area contains no unique characteristics or features. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas, congressionally designated areas (such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation Areas), Research Natural Areas, or municipal watersheds. The area does contain steep slopes and highly erosive soils, threatened or endangered species or their habitat, floodplains and wetlands, and cultural sites; however, the effects to these resources have been examined in the Environmental Assessment, and there is nothing noted about these features that would suggest that they are unique, or that associated effects would be significant.

The Degree to which the Effects are Highly Uncertain or Involve Unique or Unknown Risks There were no highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks identified in any of the effects analyses conducted for the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment project.


80

The Degree to which the Action may Establish a Precedent for Future Actions with Significant Effects None of the actions proposed in the Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment project set precedents. The Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts have been reauthorizing grazing use for years, similar in scale and scope to this project. Recent examples of grazing reauthorizations similar to Calispell Creek include the Ruby Creek, Lost Creek, and Tiger Hill Allotment Management Plans (Lost Complex EA 2004), and the ZCanyon Allotment Management Plan (Boundary Mill Complex EA 2004) which have been in various stages of implementation since 2004.

Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment Chapter IV – Consultation with Others

81

CHAPTER IV CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS

The opportunity for public participation in the analysis of this project was initiated through a scoping letter sent to the public, including adjacent landowners, Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, and other non-Forest Service persons and interested parties on June 21, 2010; a formal 30-day comment period (June 8, 2011 to July 8, 2011); and listing in the Colville National Forest’s Projects Publication (initially listed on January 1, 2009).

The Forest Service consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes and non-Forest Service persons, including adjacent landowners, during the development of this environmental assessment. Input was received from the following groups and individuals prior to the 30-day comment period:

Eric Bakken, 49 Degrees North Mountain Resort Martin Fortin, Director of Chewelah Peak Learning Center Dan Holman, Secretary Flowery Trail Community Association Jeff Juel, The Lands Council Vern Moore Helen Yergens and Yergens Family Paul Sieracki Mike and Bev Edwards, permit-holders, Calispell Creek Cattle and Horse Grazing Allotment

Input was received from the following groups and individuals during the 30-day comment period:

Dan Holman, Secretary Flowery Trail Community Association Jeff Juel, The Lands Council Vern Moore

Letters, meeting notes, and documentation of phone conversations from the above individuals are in the public involvement section of the analysis file for this project. Letters containing specific comments from the 30-day comment period, along with the Forest Service responses, are in appendix D of the Environmental Assessment. Forest Service Contributing Personnel: Supervisor's Office Staff Kathy Ahlenslager Forest Botanist Tom Shuhda Forest Fisheries Program Manager Vaughn Hintze Forest Landscape Architect Steve Kramer Forest Archaeologist Mary Hendricks Transportation Planner Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Personnel Amy Dillon District Environmental Coordinator/ID Team Leader

Mike Borysewicz Wildlife Biologist Brian Hicks Assistant Fire Management Officer Nancy Glines Forest Soil Scientist Rob Lawler Hydrologist Chase Bolyard Rangeland Management Specialist Will Markwardt Fire/Fuels Technician Nan Berger Recreation Specialist Martha Micinski GIS Coordinator

Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment Chapter IV – Consultation with Others

82

Karen Soenke US Air Force Liaison Kim Di Rienz Resource Forester/Forest Special Uses Administrator Marcy Rumelhart Writer/Editor Travis Fletcher Acting District Ranger

Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment Chapter V – References Cited

83

CHAPTER V REFERENCES CITED

3 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 42 FR. 26951. 1977. Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management.

3 CFR. 42 FR. 26961. 1977. Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wet Lands.

36 CFR 251 – Land Uses, Subpart B.

36 CFR CFT Part 200, Section 1, 1987.

40 CFR 1502.14

40 CFR. Chapter 1 (7-1-01 Edition). 2001. §130.1-130.3.

40 CFR 1508.22.

40 CFR 130.2(J), 130.7, EPA Regulation

Ahlenslager, Kathy. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Sensitive Plant Species Biological Evaluation. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 9 pages.

Altman, B. (2000). Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Prepared for Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Corvallis, OR. Un-published.

Bamonte, Tony and Suzanne Schaffer Bamonte. (1996). History of Pend Oreille County. Tornado Creek Publications. Spokane, WA.

Bengeyfield, Pete and Dan Svoboda. (1998). Determining Allowable Use Levels for Livestock Movement in Riparian Areas. pp. 243-252 In: Proceedings for American Water Resources Association: Rangeland Management and Water Resources.

Bolyard, C. (2011a). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Noxious Weed Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 11 pages

Bolyard, C. (2011b). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Range Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 22 pages

Borysewicz, Michael A. (2011a). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Analysis of Effects to Management Indicator Species and Landbirds. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 29 pages.

Borysewicz, Michael A. (2011b). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Biological Evaluation of Effects to Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 44 pages.

Chance, David H. (1973). “Influences of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Native Cultures of the Colville District.” Northwest Anthropological Research Notes Memoir, Vol. 7, No. 1, Part 2. University of Idaho, Moscow.

Colville National Forest Stream Surveys, (1992, 1993, 1994, 2004), South Fork Lost Creek, Ruby Creek, North Fork Ruby Creek. Region 6 Hankin and Reeves Surveys, Located in the Colville National Forest Stream Survey Files in the Supervisor’s Office, Colville, WA.


84

Colville National Forest Stream Surveys, (2005-2007) Calispell Creek. Region 6 Hankin and Reeves Surveys, Located in the Colville National Forest Stream Survey Files in the Supervisor’s Office, Colville, WA.

Current Special Use Permit issued to the 336th Training Group (AETC) signed by Nora B. Rasure Forest Supervisor, Colville National Forest 3/26/2001 expires 12/31/2010.

Davis, Carl; Karver, Matt; Kovalchik, Bud; Lillybridge, Terry; Narcisco, Claudia. (2004). Landtype Associations of North Central Washington. USDA, Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests, Wenatchee, WA. 114 pages and GIS cover.

Di Rienz, Kim. (2011a). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Specialist Report for Lands and Special Uses. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 6 pages.

Di Rienz, Kim. (2011b). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Specialist Report for Minerals. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 6 page.

Glines, Nancy. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Soil Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 23 pages.

Halls, L.K., C. House, R.E. McCabe, and L.J. Jahn, editors. (1984). White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management. Wildlife Management Institute. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 870 p.

Hendricks, Mary (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Transportation Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 6 pages.

Hintze, Vaughn. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Specialist Report for Scenery. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 11 pages.

Holt, Robert C. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Transportation Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 4 pages.

Kennedy, Dorothy and Randall T. Bouchard. (1998). “Northern Okanagan, Lakes, and Colville.” Handbook of North American Indians-Plateau. Volume 12. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D. C.

Kramer, Steve. (2002). Inventory Design for Heritage Resources, Colville National Forest. Copy on file, Supervisor’s Office, Colville, WA.

Kramer, Steve. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Heritage Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 5 pages.

Lahren, Sylvester L. (1998). “Kalispel.” Handbook of North American Indians-Plateau. Volume 12. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D. C.

Lawler, R. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Hydrology Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 17 pages

Lowe, John E. (1995). Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2: Revised Interim Standards for Timber Sales on Eastside Forests. 1920 Memo from USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Forester to Forest Supervisor’s of the Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umpqua, Wallowa-Whitman, and Winema National Forests. Portland, OR.

Markwardt, Will. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Fire and Fuels Specialist input. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. email.


85

Masters, Robert A. and Roger L. Sheley (2001) Principles and Practices for Managing Rangeland Invasive Plants, Journal of Range Management, 54(5): 502-517.

Miller, F.K. (2000). Geologic Map of the Chewelah 30’ X 30’ Quadrangle, Washington and Idaho. US Dept. of the Interior, Geologic Survey. Misc. Field Studies MF-2354. 36 pages and 2 plates.

NRCS. (1982). Soil Survey of Stevens County, Washington. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 459 pages and maps.

NRCS. (1992). Soil Survey of Pend Oreille County, Washington. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

NRCS. (2001). Soil Quality Information Sheet – Rangeland Soil Quality: indicators or assessment and monitoring. USDA NRCS, 2 pages.

Platts, W. S. (1991). Livestock grazing. In: Influence of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:389-423.

Powell, M. et al. (2002). Genetic Analysis of Redband Trout and Westslope Trout Populations from the Colville National Forest. Center for Salmonid Species at Risk University of Idaho Hagerman, Idaho.

Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 250 pp.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, , S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. (2000). Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p.

Schulz, Terri Tucker, and Wayne C. Leininger (1990) Differences in Riparian Vegetation Structure Between Grazed Areas and Exclosures, Journal of Range Management, 43(4): 295-299.

Shuhda, Tom. (2011a). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Analysis of Effects to Aquatic Environment. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 14 pages.

Shuhda, Tom. (2011b). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Biological Evaluation for Bull Trout. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 21 pages.

Soenke, Karen. (2011). Calispell Creek Grazing Allotment Management Planning Specialist Report for US Air Force Special Use Permit. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 10 pages.

The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 16.24.010

Thoms, A. V. (1987). Upland Land Use and the Initial Assessment of 45PO148: The Sullivan Lake Archaeological Project, Northeastern Washington. Center of Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

US Congress. (1960). Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Washington DC

US Congress. (1963). United States Clean Air Act of 1963 (Public Law, P.L. 88-206) as amended (42 USC 1857). Washington DC.

US Congress. (1964). The National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA), October 13, 1964 (16 U.S.C.532-538). Washington DC.


86

US Congress. (1966). National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Washington DC.

US Congress. (1972). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law, P.L. 92-500), commonly known as the Clean Water Act (as amended in 1977, 1981 and 1987). Washington DC.

US Congress. (1974). Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (Public Law 106-580, amended). (16 USC 1601). Washington DC.

US Congress. (1976a). Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Washington DC.

US Congress. (1976b). National Forest Management Act of 1976. 94th Congress (Public Law 94-488). Washington DC.

US Congress. (1995). The Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law P.L. 104-19), section 504. Washington DC.

USDA Forest Service. (1979). Calispell Creek Allotment Management Plan (AMP). Colville, WA: Colville National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (1988a). Colville National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, OR.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/colville/projects/cnf-plan/

USDA Forest Service. (1988b). General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Region, 1988.

USDA Forest Service. (1988c). Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1. 1988. Chapter 10. – Soil and Water Conservation Practices Documentation. 71 pp. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (1990). Forest Service Manual 2500 - Watershed and Air Management. WO Amended. Chapter 2540-Water Uses and Development. 18 pp. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (1995). Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.

USDA Forest Service. (1997). Programmatic Agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Washington. USDA-Colville National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (1998). Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment. Colville, WA: Colville National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (1999a). Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines. Colville, WA: Colville National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (1999b). Forest Service Handbook 6709.11 - Health and Safety Code. Washington, DC

USDA Forest Service. (2000). Land Bird Strategic Plan. Washington D.C. 21 pp.

USDA Forest Service. (2004a). Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 - Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (2004b). Forest Service Manual 2700 – Special Uses Management, Chapter 2730 – Road and Trail Rights-of-Way Grants, Section 2732 – National Forest Road and Trail Act Easements


87

USDA Forest Service. (2005a). Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants EIS and ROD. Portland, OR: USFS, Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. (2005b). Forest Service Handbook 2670.22 – Sensitive Species. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (2005c). Forest Service Handbook 2670.3 – Threatened and Endangered Species. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (2005d). Forest Service Manual 2202.1 – Range Resources. Washington, DC

USDA Forest Service. (2005e). Forest Service Manual 2203.1 – Land Management Plans. Washington, DC

USDA Forest Service. (2007). Colville National Forest Environmental Management System (EMS). Colville, WA. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/ems/colville/

USDA Forest Service. (2008a). Sensitive Species List, Region 6, U.S. Forest Service, January 2008. Unpublished Report. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. (2008b). Forest Service Manual 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, Chapter 2070, Vegetation Ecology. 12 pgs.

USDA Forest Service. (2009). The Forest Service National Core Best Management Practices DRAFT. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (2010). Forest Service Manual 2500 - Watershed and Air Management, R6 Supplement 2500–98–1). Washington DC.

USDA Forest Service. (2011). Motor Vehicle Use Map. Colville National Forest, East Side. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/colville/travel-mgt/

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for Bull Trout in the Northeast Washington Recovery Unit. Region 1, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2004). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout; Final Rule.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007a). Federal Register, December 6, 2007, Volume 72, Number 23450, CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. Pages 69033-69106. Federal Register Online via GPO Access (wais.access.gpo.gov), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2007_register&docid=fr06de07-20.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007b). Bull Trout Biological Opinion.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). Federal Register, February 13, 2008, Volume 73, Number 30, Native Plant Material Policy (Forest Service Manual 2070). Pages 8265-8269.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Federal Register. Volume 74, Number 215, November 9, 2009. 50 CFR Part17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. Pages 57803-57878.


88

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout

Washington Clean Air Act (RCW70.94), Forest Protection laws (RCW 76.04), and the United States Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et. seq.)

Washington Deptartment of Ecology. (Amended July 2003). Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Chapter 173-201A WAC. 101 pp.

Washington Department of Ecology. (2006). Colville National Forest Temperature and Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Implementation Plan. 43 pp. what about 2008?

Washington Department of Ecology website for Water Quality Assessments for Washington. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (2008) 2008 Washington State Noxious Weed List, Olympia, Washington. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_list/weed_list.htm

Willms, Walter D., Orin R. Kenzie, Tim A. McAllister, Doug Colwell, Doug Veira, John F. Wilmshurst, Toby Entz and Merle E. Olson (2002) Effects of Water Quality on Cattle Performance, Journal of Range Management, 55(5): 452-460.

Zender, S. (2005). Area Wildlife Biologist (retired), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Chewelah, WA. Personal communication.

CHAPTER III ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Environmental Assessment Chapter III – Environmental Consequences 21

Documents