United States Department of DRAFT Agriculture Environmental Forest Service Assessment August 2011

Libby, Little Bridge, Newby,

and Poorman Allotment

Management Plans Revision

USDA Forest Service Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest

Responsible Official: Rebecca L. Heath Forest Supervisor 215 Melody Lane Wenatchee, Washington 98801

For Information Contact: John Rohrer Wildlife, Range and Weeds Program Lead 24 West Chewuch Road Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-4001

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-1 Background 1-1 Project Area 1-2 Management Direction and Guidance 1-4 Purpose and Need 1-9 Proposed Action 1-10 Consultation and Public Involvement 1-10

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 2-1 Alternative Formulation 2-1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 2-1 Alternative 1 2-2 Alternative 2 2-2 Alternative Comparison Chart 2-13

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-1 3.1 Range Resources 3-3 3.2 Aquatic Resources 3-39 3.3 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 3-62 3.4 Soils 3-71 3.5 Water Resources 3-76 3.6 Terrestrial Wildlife 3-88 3.7 Botanical Resources 3-121 3.8 Invasive Plant Species 3-129 3.9 Economic and Social 3-141 3.10 Cultural Resources 3-144 3.11 Other Required Disclosures 3-146

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination with Other Agencies 4-1

Appendix A: Response to Comments A-1 Appendix B: Aquatic Management Indicator Species Analysis B-1 Appendix C: Plant Species List C-1 Appendix D: Invasive Plant Species Prevention and Management Strategy D-1 Appendix E: Characteristics of Invasive Plant Species E-1

Literature Citations F-1

i LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Background

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. It discloses the resource concerns, alternatives and environmental consequences of proposed livestock grazing activities on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments of the Methow Valley Ranger District. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Methow Valley Ranger District Office in Winthrop, Washington.

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing (FSM 2203.1, USDA Forest Service 2005a). Suitable Forest Service lands that are available for livestock grazing may be designated as allotments. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) specify the actions to be taken to manage and protect the rangeland resources and reach a given set of objectives. Grazing permits authorize permittees to graze livestock on National Forest System lands. The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are four of 23 grazing allotments on the Methow Valley Ranger District.

The Congressional Rescission Act (Public Law 104-19, Section 504, U.S. Congress 1995) requires the Forest Service to identify all allotments on which a NEPA analysis is needed and to prepare and adhere to a schedule for conducting an assessment of grazing actions under NEPA. The Forest Service established a 15-year schedule for completion of this work. The AMPs for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are to be updated to reflect current management direction and to address resource concerns on the allotments.

Currently, there are active grazing permits on the selected four allotments that allow seasonal grazing. The Libby allotment has two grazing permits that allow a total of 167 cow/calf pairs to graze from May 16 to September 30. The Little Bridge allotment has two grazing permits that allow a total of 232 cow/calf pairs to graze from May 16 to September 15. The Newby allotment has one permit that allows 85 cow/calf pairs to graze from May 16 to September 15. The Poorman allotment has one permit that allows 44 cow/calf pairs to graze from May 16 to September 30.

On the four allotments, over 26 miles of fence have been constructed in recent years to improve management. There have been a total of 53 water developments constructed to improve distribution. To control livestock access to sensitive stream segments or wetlands there have been two riparian exclosure fences constructed in the Newby allotment, one in the Little Bridge allotment, and one in the Libby allotment.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--1 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Project Area

Libby is a cattle and horse allotment that contains four grazing units and totals 23,971 acres. It is located within the Libby Creek subwatershed of the Lower Methow River watershed and the Alder Creek subwatershed of the Middle Methow River watershed (T32N, R20E, R21E, and R22E; T33N, R21E and R22E). Drainages within the allotment areas include Alder Creek and Libby Creek with all of its tributaries; Mission Creek, Ben Canyon, Chicamun Canyon, Smith Canyon, Hornet Draw, and Nickel Canyon. The Libby allotment boundaries are shown on the vicinity map, next page (Figure 1.1).

Little Bridge is a cattle and horse allotment that contains five grazing units and totals 27,494 acres. It is located within the Little Bridge Creek subwatershed of the Twisp River watershed (T33N, R20E and R21E; T34N, R19E, R20E, and R21E). Drainages within the allotment include Lime Creek, Canyon Creek, Little Bridge Creek with all of its tributaries, Coal Creek, and Myer Creek. The Little Bridge allotment boundaries are shown on the vicinity map, next page (Figure 1.1).

Newby is a cattle and horse allotment that contains four grazing units and totals 17,236 acres. It is located within the Buttermilk Creek and Newby Creek subwatershed of the Twisp River watershed (T32N, R20E and R21E; T33N, R20E and R21E). Drainages in the allotment include Buttermilk Creek and Newby Creek. The Newby allotment boundaries are shown on the vicinity map, next page (Figure 1.1).

Poorman is a cattle and horse allotment that contains four grazing units and totals 6,745 acres. It is located within the Poorman Creek subwatershed of the Twisp River watershed (T33N, R21E). Drainages within the allotment include Poorman Creek and Blakely Canyon. The Poorman allotment boundaries are shown on the vicinity map, next page (Figure 1.1).

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--2 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 1.1. Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments vicinity map.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--3 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Management Direction and Guidance

Management Direction - Regional and National Forest Plans

Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

This document and analysis tier to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA Forest Service 1989a). Amendments include standards and guidelines described in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan, USDA and USDI 1994) and the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005b). The Invasives Record of Decision includes standards and guidelines that require Allotment Management Plans to include the use of prevention standards.

The Forest Plan includes designated Management Areas (MA). The goal of each MA within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments is described below. Further information about the desired future condition of each area, and standards and guidelines for each MA may be found in the Forest Plan. Management area locations are shown in Figure 1.2 and have the listed specific management emphases: • Management Area 5: Provide opportunities for recreation and viewing scenery in a roaded natural setting with a visual quality objective of retention or partial retention. • Management Area 14: Provide a diversity of wildlife habitat, including deer winter range, while growing and producing merchantable wood fiber. • Management Area 25: Intensively manage the timber and range resources using both even-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural practices. Manage to achieve a high present net value and a high level of timber and range outputs while protecting the basic productivity of the land and providing for the production of wildlife, recreation opportunities, and other resources. • Management Area 26: Manage deer winter range and fawning habitats to provide conditions which can sustain optimal numbers of deer indefinitely, without degrading habitat characteristics such as forage, cover, and soil.

Libby Little Bridge Newby Poorman MA 5 1672 (7%) 2357 (9%) 8831 (51%) 212 (3%)

MA14 11818 (49%) 1500 (5%) 2940 (17%) 3995 (59%)

MA 25 7394 (31%) 21516 (78%) 5408 (31%) 2538 (38%)

MA 26 3087 (13%) 2115 (8%) 0 0

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--4 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-2. Forest Plan Management Areas on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--5 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

The Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1989b) contains the following Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for grazing management: • 11 -1: Update range AMPs. Identify lands in unsatisfactory condition. Develop AMPs with specific objectives for these lands on a priority basis under a schedule established by the Forest Supervisor. These objectives shall meet a desired future condition based on existing and potential values for all resources. The AMP shall include: o A time schedule for improvement, o Activities needed to meet forage objectives, o An economic efficiency analysis. • 11-2: AMPs shall include a strategy for managing riparian areas for a mix of resource uses. A measurable desired future riparian condition should be satisfactory or greater. Range condition within riparian ecosystems should be in good or better condition class with a stable or upward trend. In condition classes fair or less, management shall be designed to attain an upward trend. When the current riparian condition is less than satisfactory, objectives shall include a schedule for improvement. The AMPs shall identify management actions needed to meet riparian objectives within the specified time frame. Measurable objectives shall be set for key parameters. • 11-3: When riparian resource damage is occurring, determination of the cause of the resource damage shall be made prior to taking action through the allotment management plan. Alleviate damage caused by grazing through proven means. Fencing may be used when other management approaches have not given satisfactory results in the same or similar resource conditions. • 11-4: This standard and guideline is a forage utilization table for forage outside of riparian areas that can be found in the Forest Plan. • 11-5: This standard and guideline is a forage utilization table for forage in riparian areas that can be found in the Forest Plan. • 11-6: Range structural and non-structural improvements and maintenance shall conform to the resource emphasis of the Management Area and shall be specified in the AMP. • 11-7: Range improvements and practices shall not be designed to increase livestock use in riparian ecosystems but should enhance riparian ecosystems.

Management Areas

Each management area has specific standards and guidelines for range: Management Area 5: • MA5-11A: Manage commercial livestock to reduce conflicts with recreationists. • MA5-11B: Eighty-five percent of the annual available browse on winter range shall be for wildlife and 15 percent for domestic livestock. Management Area 14: • MA14-11A: Eighty-five percent of the annual available browse on winter range shall be for wildlife and 15 percent for domestic livestock. Management Area 25: • MA25-11A: Specific allotments, and portions of allotments that will be intensively managed for transitory range shall be identified. • MA25-11B: Bring fair and poor condition suitable non-transitory rangelands to good condition. • MA25-11C: Maintain improvements on suitable rangelands.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--6 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

• MA25-11D: With improvements, meet “C” or “D” level management on suitable non- transitory rangelands where economically desirable. • MA25-11E: Transitory range structural and nonstructural improvements and grazing systems shall be designed subject to silvicultural, wildlife, and other resource objectives. Management Area 26: • MA26-11A: Livestock grazing shall be allowed as long as wildlife habitat values are maintained or are increased. • MA26-11B: Eighty-five percent of the annual available browse on winter range shall be for wildlife and 15 percent for domestic livestock.

Northwest Forest Plan

The Northwest Forest Plan contains additional standards and guidelines for key watersheds, late-successional reserves (LSRs), riparian areas, and matrix within the allotment boundaries.

Libby Little Bridge Newby Poorman LSR 934 (4%) 13,581 (49%) 1632 (10%) 0

Riparian Reserve 3799 (16%) 3949 (14%) 2735 (16%) 907 (13%)

Matrix 23,037 (96%) 13,913 (51%) 15,604 (90%) 6745 (100%)

Key watersheds and matrix have no standards and guidelines applicable to grazing. Page C-17 requires that range related management in LSRs be developed in coordination with wildlife and fisheries biologists. Grazing practices that retard or prevent attainment of LSR objectives are required to be adjusted or eliminated. The effects of livestock management and handling facilities are required to be evaluated to determine if reserve objectives are met. Where objectives cannot be met, such facilities are required to be relocated. Page C- 33 in the Northwest Forest Plan contains the following three Standards and Guidelines for grazing management in riparian reserves: • GM-1: Adjust grazing practices to eliminate impacts that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. If adjusting practices is not effective, eliminate grazing. • GM-2: Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside Riparian Reserves. For existing livestock handling facilities inside the Riparian Reserve, ensure that Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are met. Where these objectives cannot be met, require relocation or removal of such facilities. • GM-3: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, loading and other handling efforts to those areas and times that will ensure Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are met.

The Northwest Forest Plan includes an aquatic conservation strategy that designates Riparian Reserves (RRs) and Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSOs) to follow in management activities. The ACSOs establish instream and streamside habitat conditions that define good anadromous fish habitat at the landscape scale, and serve as indicators against which attainment, and progress toward attainment, of goals is measured. The amended Forest Plan requires that grazing practices be modified if they retard or prevent attainment of ACSOs. The ACSOs that are most relevant to livestock grazing are: • Maintain and restore physical integrity of the aquatic system; • Maintain and restore water quality;

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--7 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

• Maintain and restore the sediment regime; • Maintain and restore the species composition and structure of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands; and • Maintain and restore habitat to support well distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian dependent species.

Grazing practices that are not meeting ACSOs are to be suspended (Northwest Forest Plan page C-33).

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2011. The LLBNP project is within the range of the northern spotted owl and is therefore subject to the survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

Invasive Plant Program ROD

The Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005b) contains standards for preventing invasive plants. Standard 6 applies to allotment management plans and requires managers to use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in cooperation with the grazing permit holder.

Management Guidance

This EA incorporates by reference three watershed analyses providing guidance for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman area. These watershed analyses were conducted in response to the Northwest Forest Plan to document existing conditions and processes occurring within a watershed and compare them to reference conditions to make management recommendations. The Twisp River Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1995) states that range condition and trend on National Forest lands continue to improve. The analysis also recommended that allotment management planning be completed with a goal to reduce livestock grazing impacts to riparian reserves. The Middle Methow River Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service1997) stated that grazing practices were impacting the lower elevation and riparian areas, and that noxious weeds were affecting range condition. The Libby Watershed Analysis and Sawtooth Late Successional Reserve Interim Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1995) identified a concern over grazing impacts to riparian shrubs in Mission Creek, Ben Canyon and Chicamun Canyon. Recommendations included revising the allotment management plan to reduce livestock impacts on riparian areas and to manage grazing to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--8 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Desired Condition

The desired conditions within the allotment areas are derived from management direction and guidance. The desired condition includes the following elements: • Grazing would continue in the MAs described above (Forest Plan page 4-6) with updated allotment management plans (Forest Plan page 4-42) to reflect direction from the amended Forest Plan. • Grazing on the four allotments would not retard or prevent attainment of ACSOs (NWFP GM-1). • Federally endangered and threatened species would not be jeopardized and would be managed to achieve species recovery levels (FSM 2672.31). • Sensitive plant and animal species would be managed to ensure viable populations throughout their geographic ranges (FSM 2672.32). • Forage utilization by livestock would be within standards (Forest Plan 4-43, 44). • Structural range improvements would be functioning, maintained to standards, and would enhance riparian ecosystems (Forest Plan 4-45). • Allotment boundaries accurately reflect areas appropriate for livestock use.

Existing Conditions

The existing management plans for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments were prepared in 1995, 1982, 1965, and 1979, respectively. All four need to be updated with current management direction, and monitoring plans.

Range condition monitoring has been implemented on the four allotments for the last five years. Streambank alteration, utilization of upland and riparian shrubs, and utilization of upland grasses has been measured and recorded. Over the last five years values were documented at a total of 62 sites across the four allotments and were within established standards on all but a few sites (Range Report in Chapter 3). The allotment units that did not meet established standards based on recent monitoring are the Lime unit of Little Bridge allotment and the Buttermilk unit of Newby allotment. Monitoring has also indicated that the Culbertson area of the Little Bridge allotment has not been fully utilized.

Through monitoring and field analysis, multiple situations have been identified where there are adverse impacts to federally threatened and endangered species that are currently un- mitigated. This includes several specific locations where there are current or potential impacts to fish species, specifically: • an area of the Little Bridge allotment where cattle have accessed steelhead spawning areas on Little Bridge Creek and may have trampled redds. It is suspected that bull trout also use Little Bridge Creek to spawn, but there has not been sufficient monitoring to confirm this. • An area on the Libby allotment where cattle have accessed steelhead spawning areas on Libby Creek and may have trampled redds. • Several areas on the Newby allotment where cattle have access to streams, including: o the mainstem Buttermilk Creek where steelhead trout spawn and cattle may have trampled redds, o the East Fork Buttermilk Creek where bull trout spawn and may have trampled redds.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--9 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

There are unique riparian areas being accessed and impacted by cattle. The flat topography, succulent riparian vegetation, shade, and water attract cattle to the extent that utilization standards have been exceeded and ACSOs not met. The areas of concern are: • Four separate wetlands in the Buttermilk Creek drainage where populations of sensitive or rare plants exist (Newby allotment) • Abandoned beaver ponds on Little Bridge Creek (Little Bridge allotment) • An unnamed spring on the private land boundary in Chicamun Canyon (Libby allotment) • An unnamed tributary near the end of road 4415 in Little Bridge Creek (Little Bridge allotment) • The first 1/8 mile of Poorman Creek upstream of the Forest boundary (Poorman allotment)

In recent years two of the three existing water developments in the Alder unit of the Libby allotment have dried up in late summer resulting in poor distribution of cattle in the unit due to lack of water and potential for exceeding utilization standards near the few functional water sources.

Some of the existing structural range developments (fences and spring developments) on each of the allotments do not currently meet standards (list in Chapter 2, Alternative 2, and in Chapter 3.1 Range Resources).

Federally listed gray wolves and grizzly bears may inhabit the LLBNP project area. Livestock in the same area as gray wolves and grizzly bears results in the potential for livestock being killed by gray wolves or grizzly bears and the possibility of the gray wolves or grizzly bears being removed as a result.

The eastern boundary of the Libby allotment and the northern boundary of the Newby allotment encompass portions of the National Forest that are not appropriate for livestock use. These areas do not currently get used by cattle.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need is driven by the difference between the existing and desired conditions. The purpose of revising the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment management plans is to provide for grazing while: (1) reviewing and evaluating current conditions within the allotments; (2) moving current conditions towards the desired conditions stated above; and (3) ensuring the plan is consistent with Federal law, agency regulations, and the Forest Plan as amended.

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands. (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976). The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments contain lands identified as suitable for domestic livestock grazing in the Forest Plan. It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1, USDA Forest Service 2005a). By regulation, forage producing lands will be managed for livestock grazing where consistent with land management plans (36 CFR 222.2 (c)). There is a need for livestock grazing on these allotments to meet these multiple use objectives.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--10 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

There is a need to revise the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman Allotment Management Plans to incorporate current direction and improve range conditions in several areas. Specifically, there is a need to: • Improve range conditions in the Lime unit (Little Bridge) and Buttermilk unit (Newby). • Increase utilization of the Culbertson area in Little Bridge allotment. • Reduce cattle impacts to federally listed fish species in Libby Creek, Little Bridge Creek, and Buttermilk Creek. • Determine if bull trout use Little Bridge Creek for spawning habitat. • Reduce grazing impacts to protect the unique riparian areas listed in the existing condition. • Minimize late season use in the Alder unit (Libby) to prevent over-utilization. • Improve existing structural range developments to meet standards and help enhance riparian habitats.

There is a need to minimize potential for gray wolves and grizzly bears to prey on livestock.

There is also a need to modify the allotment boundaries on the Libby and Newby allotments to make them more accurately reflect areas appropriate for livestock use.

Proposed Action

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisor proposes to authorize continued livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments in 2011. The AMPs for each of the four allotments would be revised. Major components of this proposed action include: • Reducing the permitted numbers of livestock to improve range conditions on the Lime unit of the Little Bridge allotment. • Constructing approximately 4 miles of new fencing to reduce cattle access to steelhead spawning habitat, protect unique wetlands in Little Bridge Creek, and help increase utilization in the Culbertson unit (Figure 2.1). • Changing the season of use along Little Bridge Creek to decrease impact to bull trout habitat during spawning season until monitoring is completed. • Combining the Libby, Newby, and Poorman allotments into one allotment (Lookout Mountain) to increase options and flexibility for grazing plans, and to allow for changes of season of use for grazing units that have steelhead or bull trout spawning habitat (Figure 2.2). • Constructing approximately three miles of new fencing to create 14 grazing units rather than 12 in the new Lookout Mountain allotment to improve range conditions, increase options and flexibility for grazing plans, allow for changes of season of use for grazing units to avoid steelhead or bull trout habitat during spawning, and reduce cattle access to steelhead spawning habitat and bull trout spawning habitat in Buttermilk Creek (Figure 2.2). • Constructing approximately two miles of new fencing to reduce cattle access to steelhead spawning habitat in Libby Creek (Figure 2.2). • Mid-season monitoring of designated riparian areas to ensure utilization standards are not exceeded and listed fish species are not adversely affected. • Constructing approximately 0.5 miles of new fencing to protect sensitive plant sites in the Buttermilk Creek drainage.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--11 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

• Installing two guzzlers (rainwater collection devices) to serve as wildlife watering sites in the drier portions of the Lookout Mountain allotment. • Constructing one new water development in the Chicamun unit of the Lookout Mountain allotment and improving the existing developments that need reconstruction (list in Chapter 2, Alternative 2, and in Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). • Minimizing the potential for interaction between livestock with gray wolves and grizzly bears (Chapter 2, Alternative 2, and Chapter 3.6 Terrestrial Wildlife). • Removing the eastern most section of the Libby allotment and northern most section of the Newby allotment from the new Lookout Mountain allotment.

See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the proposed action.

Decision Framework

The Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest Supervisor will decide whether or not to authorize continued grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. If the decision is to authorize grazing, the Forest Supervisor will decide what, if any, mitigation and monitoring is needed to address adverse environmental effects.

Consultation and Public Involvement

A letter describing the proposed action was sent to 167 interested groups and individuals on April 14, 2010. A copy of the scoping letter and the contact list is in the analysis file. Twelve responses were received. An open house for this project was held at the Methow Valley Ranger District Office on May 7, 2010. Eleven people attended the open house, and two of them provided written comments. This EA was released for public review and comment in August 2011.

The following agencies were consulted during the analysis process: • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife • State Historic Preservation Office

Consultation on effects to Federally threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species was conducted with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries in a meeting held on January 14, 2011. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service letter of concurrence for terrestrial species was received on June 17, 2011 and their biological opinion for aquatic species was received on July 14, 2011. These documents are located in the project file at the Methow Valley Ranger District office. The biological assessment and request for a biological opinion were sent to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries on April 26, 2011 and consultation is ongoing.

On April 9, 2010, government-to-government consultation letters were sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and to the Yakama Indian Nation. Neither Tribal government expressed concerns regarding the project.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--12 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Public Concerns

As a result of public scoping, concerns were generated from public responses to the initial proposed action. Some of the concerns had already been identified by the interdisciplinary team and had already been addressed in the proposed action. Three of the concerns resulted in alternatives that were considered but eliminated from consideration (Chapter 2). Other public concerns that were raised were outside the scope of this analysis or were addressed by the no-action (no grazing) alternative, Alternative 1. These are listed along with the rationale for their dismissal in Appendix A. No unresolved conflicts with the proposed action remained that are not addressed by the no-action (no grazing) alternative.

Chapter 1—Introduction 1--13 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES

Introduction This chapter describes the proposed action and the alternative to the proposed action, the no grazing alternative. This chapter is intended to provide the public and the decision- maker the basis for choice. The proposed action was developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) based on resource concerns and direction in the Forest Plan. This chapter includes mitigation, monitoring, and a summary comparison of the alternatives as they relate to resource concerns and the purpose and need for action.

Alternative Formulation A proposed action was developed by the IDT and was designed to meet the purpose and need for action. The proposed action incorporated Forest Plan direction and recommendations made in the watershed analyses that pertain to the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

During scoping, several resource concerns were identified by the interdisciplinary team. Mitigation measures and monitoring items were developed to address these resource concerns. No comments received from the public resulted in changes to the proposed action. No unresolved conflicts with the proposed action remained that are not addressed by the no-action (no grazing) alternative; therefore, no additional action alternatives to the proposed action were fully developed.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated Continuing with current allotment management plans was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because it would not meet the purpose and need or Forest Plan standards and guidelines as described in chapter 1 for the reasons described below:

a. Recent upland utilization monitoring in the Little Bridge allotment has shown the Lime unit exceeded standards during some years and the Culbertson area of the Bridge unit not being utilized.

b. Recent upland utilization monitoring in the Newby allotment has shown the Buttermilk/Scaffold unit exceeded standards during some years.

c. Cattle have accessed areas of Libby Creek, Little Bridge Creek, and Buttermilk Creek where steelhead trout spawn. This may have resulted in the trampling of steelhead trout eggs, which would constitute an adverse affect to a Federally listed species.

d. Cattle have accessed areas of Little Bridge Creek and Buttermilk Creek that are suitable spawning habitat for bull trout and have been mapped by the USF&WS as critical habitat. This may have resulted in the trampling of bull trout trout eggs, which would constitute an adverse affect to a Federally listed species.

e. Cattle are impacting several unique riparian areas. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSO) and sensitive species direction are not being met in the following riparian areas:

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--1 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

1. Two wetlands in the East Fork Buttermilk Creek area where populations of the sensitive plant, Botrychium crenulatum are being impacted (Newby allotment) 2. Two wetlands in the west fork of Black Pine Creek where populations of Botrychium crenulatum, and Botrychium montanum are being impacted (Newby allotment) 3. Abandoned beaver ponds on Little Bridge Creek 4. An unnamed spring on the private land boundary in Chicamun Canyon (Libby allotment) 5. An unnamed tributary near the end of road 4415 in Little Bridge Creek 6. The first 1/8 mile of Poorman Creek upstream of the Forest boundary.

An alternative was considered that would have put the Smith Canyon unit of the Libby allotment on a once-in-three-years grazing rotation to allow vegetation more time to recover from grazing. This alternative was not fully developed because the interdisciplinary team determined that the rest rotation (once-in-two-years) strategy that had been used in the past for Smith Canyon unit had resulted in satisfactory range conditions.

An alternative was considered that would have required five years of rest from grazing after logging to allow vegetation to recover and to prevent noxious weeds from establishing. This alternative was not fully developed because the interdisciplinary team determined that the amount of rest required after a disturbance such as timber harvest or wildfire is dependent on the severity of the disturbance, and that non-use for resource protection can be implemented on a case-by-case basis with a temporary grazing permit modification.

An alternative was considered that would have maintained the season ending date for the Newby allotment as September 16 rather than extending it to September 30 as part of the new Lookout Mountain allotment. This alternative was not fully developed because the interdisciplinary team determined through this analysis that the combination of the Newby allotment with the Libby and Poorman allotments to form the new Lookout Mountain allotment and other components of the proposed action would adequately address resources issues and concerns in the Newby allotment.

Alternatives Considered in Detail The proposed action (Alternative 2) and the no grazing alternative (Alternative 1) were analyzed to evaluate their effects on the environment. Each alternative includes: objectives, description, mitigation measures, and monitoring. A summary of environmental effects of implementing these alternatives is available at the end of the chapter. More detailed descriptions of effects are provided in Chapter 3.

Alternative 1 Objective: Discontinue livestock grazing in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--2 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Description: This alternative would not allow grazing in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Existing grazing permits would be cancelled. It is the analyzed "no action" alternative. Structural range improvements such as fences, corrals, and water developments would be allowed to deteriorate naturally. All other activity in the analysis area not connected to grazing would continue.

Mitigation and Monitoring: No mitigation would occur. Forest Plan monitoring would continue for the analysis area with no project-specific monitoring.

Alternative 2 Objective: Allow grazing in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments and revise the allotment management plans (AMPs) to address the resource concerns.

Description: Develop new AMPs that reflect current management direction and address resource concerns as listed below.

The permit(s) associated with each of the allotments would be modified to allow for a May 1 turn-on date on years when range readiness indicators are reached by May 1. This would not result in a longer grazing season; earlier turn-on would result in an earlier off date and later turn-on would result in a later off date. Range readiness indicators are defined in the Range section of Chapter 3.

There would be 7 critical Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) with “move triggers” of 15% bank alteration; 2 in Little Bridge Creek, 3 in Buttermilk Creek, 1 in Libby Creek, and 1 in lower Poorman Creek (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). These DMAs would be monitored during the grazing use periods and when bank alteration reached 15% the cattle would be required to be moved to another unit or fenced out of the impacted riparian area.

Little Bridge Allotment The Little Bridge allotment would be managed on its own, rather than in conjunction with the other allotments. The permitted use would be for the equivalent of 200 cow/calf pairs from May 16 to September 16 (dates may be adjusted two weeks the same direction depending on range readiness and range conditions). The use could be with one or more permits that total 200 cow/calf pairs.

Table 2.1. Specific components of Alternative 2 on the Little Bridge allotment. Area of Concern Alternative 2 The existing fence that excludes cattle from Little Cattle have accessed areas of Bridge Creek would be extended from the 100 road Little Bridge Creek where crossing (where it currently ends) approximately 2 steelhead trout spawn. This may miles upstream to Vetch Creek to reduce cattle have resulted in livestock impacts to steelhead spawning habitat in Little trampling of steelhead eggs Bridge Creek (Figure 2.1). The effectiveness of new which would be an adverse affect fencing would be monitored by surveying for cattle to a Federally listed species. use each year.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--3 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Area of Concern Alternative 2 To reduce cattle impacts to bull trout spawning habitat in Little Bridge Creek, cattle will be moved out of the upper Bridge unit and Midnight unit by Aug 31 for 2 years until bull trout spawning surveys Cattle have accessed areas of are completed. Bull trout spawning surveys will be Little Bridge Creek that are conducted for 2 years in upper Little Bridge Creek. suitable spawning habitat for bull If bull trout spawning is documented in areas that trout and have been mapped by are accessible to cattle then the Aug 31 move date the USF&WS as critical habitat. for upper Bridge and Midnight units would become This may have resulted in permanent. If no bull trout spawning is documented livestock trampling of bull trout then the off date for upper Bridge and Midnight units eggs which would be an adverse would be Sept 15. If no bull trout spawning is affect to a Federally listed documented after the initial 2 years, bull trout species. surveys will then be done every other year. If bull trout spawning is documented then the cattle move date for upper Bridge and Midnight units would be Aug 31.

Abandoned beaver ponds on The fence that excludes cattle from Little Bridge Little Bridge Creek. The flat Creek would be extended from the 100 road topography, succulent riparian crossing (where it currently ends) approximately 2 vegetation, shade, and water miles upstream to Vetch Creek (Figure 2.1). This attract cattle to the extent that would exclude cattle from the abandoned beaver utilization standards are often pond area. exceeded. An unnamed tributary near the Ten to fifteen trees would be felled across the end of road 4415 in Little Bridge stream to reduce cattle trailing. Creek has had evidence of high

cattle use in recent years. See above for reduction in numbers for permit that Recent upland utilization uses Lime unit. monitoring has shown the Lime unit exceeding standards and the The Culbertson area would be separated from the Culbertson area of the Bridge unit Bridge unit with fencing and natural topographic not being utilized. barriers and managed as a separate grazing unit (Figure 2.1).

The following range improvements would be reconstructed: Bridge Creek Saddle unit division fence Elbow spring development Bridge Creek Saddle spring development Lime Creek spring development (#4) Lime Creek spring development (#5)

Libby, Newby, and Poorman Allotments The Libby, Newby, and Poorman allotments would be combined into one allotment called Lookout Mountain and would be managed as one allotment (Figure 2.2).

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--4 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

There would be 14 grazing units within the Lookout Mountain allotment with several divisions and combinations of existing units: Divide the current Smith unit into 2 units, Smith and Elderberry Divide the current Chicamun unit into 2 units, Chicamun and Hornet Draw. Divide the current Mission unit into 2 units, Mission and Ben. Maintain the Alder, East, and West grazing units with no changes. Divide the current Buttermilk and Scaffold units into 3 units, Buttermilk, Scaffold, and Shady. Combine the Blakely and Grouse grazing units into 1, Blakely/Grouse. Combine the Blackpine and Powderhouse grazing units into 1, Poorman.

This combination of allotments and increase in grazing units would allow: Grazing strategies to be designed to alternate the season of use to provide for proper deferment in each unit, avoid repetitive grazing of a unit in the hot dry season, and to take advantage of better utilization of the earlier season grasses by grazing units earlier in the season. If monitoring indicates that rest is needed in any of the units, new rotations may be developed and scheduled annually through the flexibility gained by combining the three allotments.

The timing, duration, and intensity of grazing would be flexible for all units to provide the best management opportunities to reduce impacts to riparian areas and listed fish.

The permitted use for the Lookout Mountain allotment would be equivalent to 296 cow/calf pairs from May 16 to Sept. 30. There could be 1, 2, or more permits that total 296 cow/calf pairs.

The eastern boundary of the allotment would be shifted west to the ridgeline that separates Smith Canyon from Puckett Creek and Booth Canyon (Figure 2.2) from the current allotment boundary line on the Forest boundary. This would reduce the size of the Libby allotment by approximately 3600 acres.

The northern boundary of the allotment would be modified to exclude the lower 1 mile of Buttermilk Creek (Figure 2.2) from the current allotment boundary line on the Forest boundary. The new boundary would be located on an existing fence and cattleguard. This would reduce the size of the Newby allotment by approximately 400 acres.

Table 2.2. Specific components of Alternative 2 on the Lookout Mountain allotment. Area of Concern Alternative 2 Cattle have accessed areas of Libby Creek in the Mission unit Rotations would be scheduled for use of the Mission that are suitable spawning habitat unit to be after July 15. Approximately 2 miles of for steelhead trout. This may new fence would be constructed and 1 new have resulted in livestock cattleguard installed to keep cattle from drifting into trampling of steelhead trout eggs the Mission unit from the adjacent Ben and Hornet which would be an adverse affect Draw units (Figure 2.2). to a Federally listed species.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--5 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Area of Concern Alternative 2 The Libby, Newby and Poorman allotments would Alder unit water sources. be combined for greater flexibility and more options In the recent past 2 of the 3 to avoid grazing the Alder unit late or provide an developed springs have dried up option to move cattle to another unit if water sources late in the season dried up. A new water development would be constructed An unnamed spring on the private near the spring. Approximately 200 feet of fence land boundary in Chicamun would be constructed to exclude cattle from the Canyon is currently divided by a spring source and water would be piped to a trough fence and cattle are impacting the outside the fence. spring on the Forest side.

Approximately 3 miles of new fence would be The Buttermilk/Scaffold unit of the constructed and 3 new cattleguards would be Newby allotment is used late in installed to convert the Buttermilk/Scaffold unit into 3 the season every year and use units (Buttermilk, Scaffold, and Shady) that can be has exceeded utilization better managed to reduce late season impacts by standards on some years. rest or deferral (Figure 2.2). Cattle have accessed areas of Rotations would be implemented to schedule use of Buttermilk Creek where steelhead the Buttermilk unit to after July 15. The new fence trout spawn. This may have proposed above would keep cattle from drifting into resulted in livestock trampling of the Buttermilk unit from the adjacent Shady and steelhead eggs which would be Scaffold units. This would keep cattle from an adverse affect to a Federally accessing steelhead spawning areas. listed species. Cattle have accessed areas of Rotations would be implemented to schedule use of East Fork Buttermilk Creek where the Buttermilk unit prior to August 31. The new bull trout spawn. This may have fence proposed above would keep cattle from resulted in livestock trampling of drifting into the Buttermilk unit from the adjacent bull trout eggs which would be an Shady and Scaffold units. This would keep cattle adverse affect to a Federally from accessing bull trout spawning areas. listed species. Botrychium crenulatum Approximately 1/8 mile of new fence would be population in west fork of Black constructed to exclude cattle from using this wetland Pine Creek being impacted by site. cattle. Botrychium montanum population in west fork of Black Pine Creek being impacted by cattle. Cattle are accessing area from an The unauthorized trail will be blocked to keep cattle unauthorized trail that allows from moving along it and accessing the wetland. them to move from the Libby Lake trail in the Mission unit into the Black Pine Creek area of the Buttermilk unit. Botrychium crenulatum Approximately ¼ mile of new fence construction populations in the East Fork would exclude cattle from the wetlands where these Buttermilk Creek being impacted 2 populations occur. by cattle.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--6 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Area of Concern Alternative 2 The first 1/8 mile of Poorman Poorman and Blakely/Grouse units would not be Creek upstream of the Forest scheduled for season-long use. boundary. The flat topography, A designated monitoring area (DMA) would be succulent riparian vegetation, established in lower Poorman Creek (see shade, and water attract cattle to description above). the extent that utilization standards are often exceeded. In recent years two of the three Two guzzlers (rainwater collection devices) would existing water developments in be installed to serve as wildlife watering sites in the the Alder unit of the Libby drier portions of the Libby allotment. allotment have dried up in late

summer.

The following range improvements would be reconstructed: YCC Spring development Blakely spring development (#1) Blakely spring development (#2) Powderhouse spring development Chicamun-Smith unit division fence Lookout Draw spring development Lower Elderberry spring development Upper Elderberry spring development Alder-Lookout spring development

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--7 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 2.1. Locations of Proposed Actions in the Little Bridge Allotment.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--8 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 2.2. Locations of Proposed Actions in the proposed Lookout Mountain Allotment.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--9 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Mitigation Measures for Alternative 2 In order to implement Alternative 2, the following mitigation measures would be applied. These mitigation measures respond to concerns raised by the interdisciplinary team during scoping.

1. Bears can be attracted to and scavenge on livestock carcasses. Scavenging bears may aggressively “defend” a carcass which provides the potential for a bear/human interaction. To avoid this, any livestock carcass within ¼ mile of a road, facility, or developed trail will be moved or destroyed. In addition, all human and prepared livestock and pet foods and human refuse associated with the livestock operation on the Little Bridge and Lookout Mountain allotments will be stored in a manner that makes them unavailable to bears. This will be added to the permittees’ annual operating instructions and discussed with permittees every year by the District Range Management Specialist.

2. Cattle use of the Little Bridge and Lookout Mountain grazing allotments will increase the potential for wolf/livestock interaction, increase the potential for human disturbance to a wolf den or rendezvous site, and may result in wolves having to travel further to hunt deer. Therefore, the following conservation measures will be implemented to reduce effects of the grazing allotment to gray wolves:

a) Livestock carcasses found on areas of the allotment where they will attract wolves to a potential conflict situation with other livestock, (such as a salting ground, water source, or holding corral) must be removed, buried, or otherwise disposed of such that the carcass will not attract wolves. b) Obviously sick or injured livestock must be moved from the allotment, so they are not targeted by wolves. c) Allotment management activities by humans will not be allowed near active wolf den sites during the denning period (late April to late June), to avoid human disturbance of the site. The distance will be determined on a site-specific basis and will depend primarily on topography around the den site. d) Salt or other livestock attractants will not knowingly be placed near wolf dens or rendezvous sites, to minimize cattle use of these sites. If a new den or rendezvous site is discovered, any previously established salt or attractant location may need to be relocated.

Invasive plant species prevention standards from the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005b) will be implemented. Herbicide applications are implemented under the Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessments (USDA Forest Service 1997 and 2000), or the Okanogan-Wenatchee Invasive Plant Management EIS when it is completed, and are not a part of this project analysis, although such treatments are considered in the cumulative effects sections in Chapter 3. Prevention standards that will be applied to this project include: If the permittee needs to use straw or mulch, it is required to be weed-free. If the permittee needs to use feed, it is required to be pelletized or certified weed free feed.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--10 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Monitoring for Alternative 2

Proposed Allotment Monitoring Plan We will employ implementation monitoring, including several Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) with move triggers (Figures 2.1 and 2.2), and effectiveness monitoring to determine compliance with Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) and resource objectives as well as be consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Okanogan Forest Plan range standards and guidelines. All of the monitoring would be done by the district range management specialist, fisheries biologists, or hydrologists through administration of the grazing permits. Implementation Monitoring Riparian monitoring will be at 20 DMAs placed throughout the two allotments. These will be the 19 established sites (Appendix B) plus one new site to be established on the mainstem of Buttermilk Creek. We will have 7 Critical DMA sites, one located on each critical habitat for bull trout and steelhead across the allotments, as described below. A new Critical DMA will be established on the mainstem Buttermilk Creek and the existing Critical DMA on Poorman Creek will be moved down the stream to the hotspot just above the allotment boundary fence. The existing Critical DMA in Little Bridge Creek, below rivermile 5.2, will be moved to above where the proposed exclosure fence would be located.

Critical DMAs for the 2 Allotments

Little Bridge Allotment Upper Little Bridge Creek – above natural fish barrier (existing DMA) Lower Little Bridge Creek – above proposed exclosure fence, around RM 5.2 (new DMA would replace the one below RM 5.2). Lookout Mountain Allotment Buttermilk Creek - below confluence with EF and WF Buttermilk (new DMA). EF Buttermilk Creek – above FS road 4300500 (existing DMA) WF Buttermilk Creek – below FS road 4300550 (existing DMA) Poorman Creek – lower portion on FS land (new DMA) Libby Creek - above FS road 4300100 (existing DMA)

Each of these Critical DMA sites will have streambank alteration move triggers of 15% alteration. This will ensure the 20% indicator standard will be maintained. These sites will be monitored during the season at least once to determine if livestock use is approaching the standard. If the standards are being approached, weekly monitoring would occur on these sites at the end of the season to assist management in making decisions for the following year’s operation instructions.

As identified in the AOIs, permittees are responsible for moving cattle to the next unit if move triggers are reached. If the move trigger is not reached, cattle would be moved on the expected move dates. If move triggers have not been reached by the expected off date, the permittee may request an extension for additional use subsequent to verification with the project Fish Biologist that effects to critical species life-history phases are being avoided. Rangeland Management Specialists or fisheries personnel will verify move triggers have not been exceeded, or are not likely to be exceeded before the expected off date, and make a decision whether to grant the additional use. The move triggers are the basis for move decisions.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--11 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Other implementation monitoring proposed for the Little Bridge and Lookout Mountain allotment is summarized in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Implementation monitoring for Alternative 2.

Monitoring Monitoring Action When and Where Who Objective Range To determine if plants are ready for One to two weeks Range readiness grazing and that the soil is dry enough to before turn-on in the Personnel surveys withstand grazing. spring Upland utilization inspections. To make sure no more forage is grazed Annually within than what is allowed in the Forest Plan season and/or end of Range and to watch for when grazing season. At least Personnel preference changes from grass to 1inspection in each shrubs. Measure utilization if unit of each allotment. approaching allowable use standards. Range structural improvement Check 15% of checks. Inspect improvements to improvements that Range determine that required range include all that are 1 Personnel improvement maintenance is completed identified as critical by prior to turn-on. ID Team. AMP/ AOI compliance Spot check level of use within riparian areas. Ocular estimate of percent Streambank alteration and riparian shrub Each riparian non- use and if approaching utilization critical DMA, end of standard, measure percent utilization. season, every year. Range

Total DMAs Personnel, If ocular estimate is < 10%, estimate by Libby – 4 Fisheries ocular method again the following year. Little Bridge – 5 Personnel If 10-20% then schedule to be measured Newby – 4 the following year, if > 20% measure that Poorman - 1 year, change grazing strategy and measure again the following year.

7 Critical DMAs sites Annual end of season monitoring using monitored at end of Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM)2 season, every year4. Range Meet AMP protocols, monitor Streambank Alteration Total DMAs Personnel, stream/ and Woody Browse at Designated Libby – 1 Fisheries riparian obj. Monitoring Areas (DMA)3. Little Bridge – 2 Personnel on Critical Newby –3 DMAs Poorman - 1 Trigger monitoring Streambank alteration Throughout -season Fisheries at Critical DMAs. Monitor DMAs for for trigger, every year. Personnel,

1 Range improvements include fences, water developments, and corrals. 2MIM = Multiple Indicator Monitoring (Burton et al. 2008) 3DMA = Designated Monitoring Area (Burton et al. 2008)

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--12 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Monitoring Monitoring Action When and Where Who Objective livestock use and ensure compliance Critical DMA will be Range with standard as a move trigger. If the located along each Personnel, alteration is 15%, livestock would be stream with moved early. designated critical habitat, total of 7. Prevent bull trout redd Survey in 2011 and Conduct second year of redd surveys. If trampling in every three year Fisheries no redds found, survey for redds every Little Bridge following, if no redds Personnel third year. Creek detected.

Cattle moved After August 31, as off of Permittee, Actively seek any lingering livestock after needed until all Buttermilk Range livestock are moved out of unit. livestock are removed Unit by Personnel by September 15. August 31

Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring for resource objectives will be done with the MIM technical reference or other best available science as it becomes available. Effectiveness monitoring will include monitoring Greenline Composition ( a measurement of riparian vegetation), Streambank Stability and cover, Woody Species Age and Height, and Greenline-to- Greenline Width as described and supported in the 2008 Draft MIM guide (Burton et al. 2008). Conduct MIM monitoring at riparian DMAs so all sites would be monitored at least once every 5 years (4 DMAs per year for total of 20 DMAs). The DMAs are representative of grazing use specific to the riparian area being accessed and reflect what is happening in the overall riparian area as a result of on-the-ground management actions. From the data, consistency should be determined to be within the NWFP and the Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines.

Table 2.4 summarizes the proposed Little Bridge and Lookout Mountain AMP effectiveness monitoring plan.

Table 2.4. Effectiveness monitoring for Alternative 2. Monitoring When and Monitoring Action Who Objective Where Permittee, Effectiveness of Check for livestock presence along Little Once every 2 Range fence along Little Bridge Creek within the area fenced to weeks after turn- Personnel, Bridge Creek protect steelhead spawning habitat. out until July 15. Fisheries Personnel Annually at Follow Forest Plan Follow Forest Plan direction on upland existing sites and Range Standards and range conditions, which include trend new sites as Specialist Guidelines assessments. identified by IDT. Using MIMs long-term monitoring 4 DMA sites per Range Meet ACS protocols, monitor Greenline Vegetation, year rotation Personnel, objectives* Streambank Stability, Woody Species across allotment. Fisheries Age and Height, and Greenline to With 20 sites, Personnel Greenline Width at DMAs. each site would

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--13 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Monitoring When and Monitoring Action Who Objective Where be monitored every 5 years.

Conduct noxious weed surveys to detect new invaders and document changes in Range Minimize noxious areas of existing populations. If found Annually Specialist, weed spread implement treatments under existing or Botanist noxious weed decisions.

Due to limited resources and the fact that most riparian use indicators have been well below standards, the MVRD proposes an adaptive monitoring strategy that involves mid-season and end of season observations every year and a manageable MIMs monitoring frequency.

1. In non-critical DMAs that have had grazing use consistently below indicator standards, conduct and document annual mid- and end-of-season spot checks that look at streambank alteration and shrub use. If spot checks indicate streambank alteration is below 10%, the frequency of measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring would be once every 5 years. The DMAs that have exceeded standards in the past will have measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring annually and for any site where the spot check indicates bank alteration is above 10%, they will receive measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring that year. 2. For critical DMAs, measure streambank alteration and woody browse use for two consecutive years. After two years of monitoring, if results indicate streambank alteration is well below the standard (i.e. 10% or less bank alteration), these sites would receive measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring every other year. Fisheries and range personnel would conduct documented annual mid- and end-of-season spot checks that look at streambank alteration and shrub use every year for these sites to ensure standards are met. Any critical DMA that has greater than 10% bank alteration from the spot check monitoring or have exceeded this in the past will receive measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring every season.

The spot checks entail walking the DMA site and completing a rapid ocular estimate of the streambank alteration along with shrub use. This would be done once during mid-season and once at the end of the season for each DMA on every unit. The results would be documented and presented in the annual monitoring report.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--14 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative Comparison Chart The following table displays the purpose and need and issues and summarizes the environmental effects discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Table 2.5. Alternative comparisons for the LLBNP allotment management plan revision project. Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Component Provide grazing on the LLBNP Does not meet Meets component. 496 cow/calf allotments in accordance component. pairs. with multiple-use mandates. Update AMPs to provide for Meets component. AMPs will be grazing practices in Does not meet updated to meet current accordance with current component. management direction. direction. Resource Concerns Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Recent upland utilization Little Bridge Creek would monitoring in the Little Bridge Potential for exceeding utilization not be grazed. Cattle allotment has shown the Lime standards in Lime unit reduced by would not access the unit exceeding standards during reduction in cattle numbers on the Lime unit or the some years and the Culbertson allotment. Use of Culbertson area Culbertson area. area of the Bridge unit not would be increased by development Utilization standards being utilized. of a water source. would not be exceeded.

Recent upland utilization Potential for exceeding utilization The Newby allotment monitoring in the Newby standards in Buttermilk/Scaffold unit would not be grazed. allotment has shown the reduced by reduction in cattle Cattle would not access Buttermilk/Scaffold unit numbers, fencing to create a new the Buttermilk/Scaffold exceeded standards during grazing unit in Newby and thus unit. Utilization standards some years. better control of cattle distribution would not be exceeded on the allotment. Libby, Little Bridge, and Buttermilk Creek would Cattle access possible but potential Cattle accessing steelhead not be grazed. Cattle substantially reduced by new fence spawning habitat on Libby would not access construction and by scheduling Creek, Little Bridge Creek, and steelhead spawning grazing in units with steelhead Buttermilk Creek. habitat. No damage to spawning areas after to July 15. redds. Buttermilk Creek would Cattle access possible but potential Cattle accessing bull trout not be grazed. Cattle reduced by fence construction and spawning areas on Buttermilk would not access bull by scheduling grazing in units with Creek. trout spawning areas. No bull trout spawning areas prior to damage to redds. August 31. Cattle accessing proposed Little Bridge Creek would Cattle access possible but potential critical habitat for bull trout on not be grazed. Cattle substantially reduced from existing Little Bridge Creek. would not access condition by new fencing and

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--15 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

proposed critical habitat moving cattle out of units with for bull trout. critical habitat after Aug 31. Riparian/wetland areas Cattle access substantially reduced would not be grazed. Cattle impacting unique wetlands by constructing new improvements, Areas would slowly and rare plant habitats. reducing cattle numbers, fencing, recover from past grazing and expanding upland grazing area. impacts.

Environmental Effects Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Threatened and Endangered

Species Potential for slight negative effects to bull trout habitat, but less than the existing condition due to the proposed fencing, monitoring, and Bull trout No effect grazing rotation changes. Slight potential for trampling of bull trout redds. May affect, likely to adversely affect Potential for slight negative effects to Chinook habitat that is downstream of the project area, but less than the existing condition due Chinook salmon No effect to the proposed fencing, monitoring, and grazing rotation changes. May affect, not likely to adversely affect Potential for slight negative effects to steelhead habitat, but less than the existing condition due to the proposed fencing, monitoring, and Steelhead No effect grazing rotation changes. Slight potential for trampling of steelhead redds. May affect, likely to adversely affect Cattle use of the LLBNP grazing allotments would result in the potential for wolf/livestock interaction, the potential for human disturbance to a wolf den or rendezvous site, and may result in Gray wolf No effect wolves having to travel further to hunt deer. The potential would be less than the existing condition due to proposed conservation measures. May affect, not likely to adversely affect Cattle use of the LLBNP grazing allotments would result in the potential for bear/livestock Grizzly bear No effect interaction, the potential for human disturbance to a grizzly bear, and may impact important bear forage

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--16 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

areas. The potential would be less than the existing condition due to proposed conservation measures. May affect, not likely to adversely affect Cattle use of the LLBNP grazing allotments would result in a slight reduction in summer foraging Canada lynx No effect habitat for snowshoe hares, lynx primary prey species. May affect, not likely to adversely affect Grazing and/or trampling of individual plants would occur. Beneficial impact. No May impact individuals or habitat, Sensitive plant species sensitive plants impacted but will not likely contribute to a by cattle. trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species No introduction or spread Introduction of new infestations by of invasive plants by cattle possible. Soil and vegetation cattle or associated disturbance by cattle increases management. potential for spread of existing

Invasive plant species populations.

New infestations may go New infestations likely to be undetected for longer detected sooner due to more time due to less management activity. management activity. Economic Considerations Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No grazing permits. 3 grazing permits. No AUMs. 2132 AUMS. No new fencing. Approximately 10 miles of new No new water fence. developments. One new water development.

Detailed environmental consequences of both alternatives on other resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

Chapter 2—Alternatives 2--17 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter displays the expected effects to the environment that would occur with the implementation of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The scientific and analytical basis for the alternative comparison at the end of Chapter 2 is presented here.

Environmental consequences are described in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are those caused by the action, occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action occurring later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably predicted. Cumulative effects are the incremental effects of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby and Poorman AMP alternatives when considered with the overall effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Past Actions In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past action. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions on natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

The cumulative effects analyses do not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century and beyond, and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, residual effects of past human actions and natural events are captured, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest of need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.”

The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (36 CFS 220.4(f)) July 24, 2008, which state in part: CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions.”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in the cumulative effects analysis is based on current environmental conditions.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--1

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Past actions affecting resources are described as part of the existing condition information. A summary of certain types of past actions known to have occurred in the analysis area is available in the analysis file.

Present (On-going) Actions Fire Suppression: In the lower elevations of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments near private land, active fire suppression will continue because these areas are part of the wildland urban interface where emphasis is on protection of life and property. Suppression activities have contributed to changing the natural fire cycle from frequent, low-intensity fires that kept the forest structure in a more open type structure to much less frequent fires with a denser canopy closure. The increased canopy closure reduces upland forage production.

Weed Treatment: The 1997 and 2000 Okanogan National Forest Noxious Weed Integrated Weed Management EAs covered portions of the Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments. Various weed populations are treated annually by spot-spraying with herbicide, hand-pulling, or bio-control agents. Reduction in the rate of noxious weed spread is now occurring. Noxious weeds in those analyzed areas would continue to be treated. Population levels would be substantially reduced or eliminated, helping reestablish native vegetation and increase soil stabilization.

Recreational Activities Recreational activities are on-going in the area and include: camping in the Black Pine Lake Campground, camping in dispersed recreation sites, hiking (developed trailheads for Libby Lake, East Fork Buttermilk, West Fork Buttermilk, and Lookout Mountain trails), mountain biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and hunting. Livestock often use dispersed campsites for loafing and may use lower portions of hiking and biking trails. Cow pies on trails and in camping sites can be a nuisance to some users. Livestock are excluded from Black Pine Lake Campground.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The future projects not covered by a decision at this time will be thoroughly analyzed and documented in separate environmental documents. Since the effects of many of the other projects are unknown at this time, the interdisciplinary team made assumptions about the environmental effects of the future projects. The basic assumption for every project is that it will meet amended Forest Plan standards and guidelines. These assumed effects were used in the cumulative effects analyses at the end of each resource section. The reasonably foreseeable future actions used in this analysis, and the environmental effects (assumed or based on previous planning documents) are listed below:

Fuels treatments associated with the TPR Project in Little Bridge Creek are planned for completion within the next few years. The Deer unit of TPR is a landscape burn approximately 770 acres in size. Approximately 270 acres have been burned and 500 remain. Treatments would reduce slash levels and cause mortality of some small trees. Prescribed burns typically rejuvenate grasses, forbs, and shrubs and enhance forage production. The grazing rotation patterns may need to be adjusted to allow burned areas to revegetate without grazing.

The Mission Forest and Fuels Project is scheduled for planning in 2012 and includes commercial timber harvest, timber stand improvement activities, fuels reduction activities, and

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--2

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

road management. Removal of trees allows more sunlight exposure to the ground, allowing increased levels of grasses and forbs. This would increase the amount of transitory range, which helps attract cattle to upland areas, increasing distribution and lessening impacts to riparian areas.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Forestwide Site-Specific Invasive Species Treatment EIS would authorize the treatment of currently existing invasive species across the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and would allow for treatment of infestations that are not currently inventoried through an early detection/rapid response (EDRR) strategy. The proposed invasive species treatments would begin within the next 2 years and continue for 15 years. Invasive plants would be treated using one or a combination of manual, mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical methods. Priorities for treatment and selection of treatment methods would be consistent with those described in the R6 2005 FEIS/Record of Decision (ROD). This would increase the number of weed treatment options available and increase the area of infested lands that may be treated within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman Allotments. Early detection, rapid response to newly discovered infestations would increase treatment effectiveness and reduce the potential for spread of new populations. The Forestwide EIS is considering alternatives that use a variety of herbicides that may be more effective and cause less environmental effect than those currently approved in the two Forestwide EAs.

The Forest is conducting an environmental analysis for travel management planning that will designate motorized public access routes on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. It will change the current policy of motorized access being open unless designated closed, to closed unless designated open. This project is scheduled to be implemented in 2012.

The Forest has released the proposed action for Revising the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--3

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.1 RANGE RESOURCES

The LLBNP Allotment Management Plan is required by and tiered to the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989), as amended by the standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994, 2001, 2011 Settlement Agreement). Standards and guidelines for grazing management are described in Chapter 1.

Allotment History Newby Allotment Grazing started about 1900 and the first permitted use on record is for the 1917 season. Prior to this date, the cattle range was limited to a very small area at the lower end of Newby Creek. The upper part of Newby Creek was included in a sheep grazing area. From 1917 to about 1926, there was drift between cattle and sheep range and dual use of the same areas was more or less the accepted practice. The season of use was 4/15 to 11/15 between 1917 and 1924 and gradually shortened to 6/1 to 9/30 by 1958. Between 1917 and 1924, numbers were as high as 138 cow/calf pairs. Records show that from 1964 to 1981 the permitted use was 52 cow/calf pairs from 6/1 to 9/30. By this time the grazing area included some of the East and West Forks of Buttermilk Creek. In 1983 the Buttermilk Sheep allotment boundaries were changed and the cattle numbers were increased to 100 cow/calf pairs with the addition of the Scaffold pasture.

The last allotment management plan (AMP) was completed in 1965. In 1990-91 resource protection nonuse was implemented on the allotment due to permittee concern over forage production in the East unit and riparian allowable use standards in Buttermilk Creek. During these two years, a production study was conducted which found that forage production matched stocking rate with the exception of the East unit, which was overstocked. The term permit animal unit months (AUMs) were 528 and the total available AUMs determined from the production study was 600. In 1992, it was determined that the management system was not working under the existing stocking levels and a grazing rotation was developed to combine the management of both the Newby and Little Bridge allotments. The objective was to insure that allowable use standards were not exceeded on the Lime and Canyon Units in Little Bridge and on the East unit in Newby (Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). The new grazing system combined permitted numbers for one of the Little Bridge permits and the one permit on the Newby allotment into 1 herd which grazed Little Bridge early with 225 cow/calf pairs from 6/1 to 8/10 and then moved to the Newby allotment‟s Buttermilk/Scaffold pastures from 8/11 to 9/30 which provided adequate rest for Lime and Canyon and Meyers pastures in Little Bridge. The permitted numbers and season of use for the Newby allotment were then reduced to 85 cow/calf pairs from 5/16 to 9/15 in 1999.

Little Bridge Allotment Like the Newby allotment, grazing started about 1900 with the first permitted cattle in 1906. At that time the described cattle allotment was much smaller than it is today. The cattle use area was limited to lower Little Bridge Creek and lower Canyon Creek and sheep were permitted on Canyon Creek ridge, Midnight Mountain, and Thompson ridge. One band of sheep was permitted at the head of Little Bridge Creek and one was permitted on Thompson ridge. The stocking rate was very heavy considering the size of the area in the cattle range, and there was much trailing of sheep over the area and use by sheep as well as cattle. The season of use in the earliest years was 4/15 to 11/15 and the permitted numbers were as high as 393 cow/calf pairs. In the 1940s, the permitted use was 300 cow/calf pairs with a 5/16 to 10/15 grazing season. Records show that by 1959 the permitted use had been reduced to 275 pairs with a season of use from 6/1 to 9/30 which was the stocking rate in the 1983 AMP, the last one completed for this area.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--4

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.1.1 Allotment and pasture (unit) boundaries and existing range improvements in the Little Bridge allotment.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--5

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.1.2 Allotment and pasture (unit) boundaries and existing range improvements in the Libby, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--6

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

At that time the allotment had 2 permittees; one with 175 cow/calf pairs and one with 100 cow/calf pairs. A rest rotation grazing system was used with 5 pastures where 2, Lime and Canyon, were rested one year and the other 3, Meyers, Bridge, and Midnight, were rested the next (Figure 3.1.1). The 275 cow/calf pairs were grazed in Lime from 6/1 to 7/31 and then in Canyon from 8/1 to 10/15. The following year the cattle were grazed in Meyers unit from 6/1 to 7/31 and then split 175/100 between Bridge and Midnight units from 8/1 to 10/15. In 1986 the numbers were increased to 299, with the two permits split 187 and 112 with the same season of 6/1-9/30 under the same grazing strategy. This increase was consistent with the planned increase in the 1983 AMP. In the early 90s when the Lime unit was grazed early and Canyon unit was grazed late, allowable use standards were reached by August 1 due to lack of a adequate distribution of available water sources and the cattle were moved to Meyers, Bridge, and Midnight pastures that were scheduled to be rested that year. In 1992, it was determined that the management system was not working under the existing stocking levels and a grazing rotation was developed to combine the management of both the Newby and Little Bridge allotments. The objective was to insure that allowable use standards were not exceeded on the Lime and Canyon Units in Little Bridge and on the East unit in Newby. The new grazing system combined permitted numbers for one of the Little Bridge permits and the one permit on the Newby allotment into 1 herd which grazed Little Bridge early with 225 cow/calf pairs from 6/1 to 8/10 and then moved to the Newby allotment‟s Buttermilk/Scaffold pastures from 8/11 to 9/30 which provided adequate rest for Lime and Canyon and Meyers pastures in Little Bridge. The other Little Bridge permittee continued to graze full numbers (112 cow/calf pairs) on the Little Bridge allotment for the full season.

In April 1998, through informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, it was determined that the lower 4 miles of Little Bridge Creek provided suitable spawning habitat for upper Columbia River steelhead trout and the grazing rotation was modified to prevent cattle from accessing the creek prior July 15. End of season monitoring in 1998 found that there had been heavy cattle use on Little Bridge Creek and it appeared that more grazing pressure was placed on the riparian areas later in the season because of the way the cattle had to be shifted to keep them out of the stream before July 15. Also in 1998, the permit for the Libby allotment was cancelled. In 1999, to help reduce impacts on spawning areas on Little Bridge Creek, the numbers for one of the Little Bridge permits were reduced from 187 to 120 pairs and a new grazing system was implemented that utilized the vacant Libby allotment. The Libby allotment permitted numbers of 167 cow/calf pairs were split with 84 pairs on the Chicamun and Mission units and 83 pairs on the Smith and Alder units. Through the grant process the 84 pairs on the Chicamun and Mission units were granted to the permit holder who had one of the Little Bridge permits and the Newby permit. The 83 pairs on the Smith and Alder units were granted to the livestock operator who had the permit for the Poorman allotment. The livestock operator with permits for Little Bridge, Newby, and Libby allotments combined his cattle into one herd with the exception of grazing the Newby East and West pastures separately with fewer numbers. The combined numbers were grazed exclusively early season on the Lime and Canyon units of the Little Bridge allotment on even years and early season on the Libby allotment on odd years. The Buttermilk/Scaffold pastures on the Newby allotment were always grazed late season with both rotations. This provided rest for the Lime and Canyon pastures and helped to reduce late season impacts to steelhead in Little Bridge Creek.

Monitoring of the new grazing system found that livestock impacts on Little Bridge Creek had been reduced with the level of use far below allowable use standards; however there was always some level of cattle drift from the early season pastures into Little Bridge Creek before July 15 and the risk of cattle stepping on steelhead redds was unavoidable. To reduce the drift out of the Lime unit, the construction of a fence was started in 2005 on the ridge just east of Canyon Creek with the plan to tie the fence in with the existing Bridge Creek saddle fence. In 2006, the Forest Service secured a grant from Bonneville Power Administration to exclude the primary spawning area on the lower

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--7

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

2¼ miles of Little Bridge Creek. The exclosure fence was completed in 2007, however additional spawning area has since been inventoried above the current exclosure fence.

Libby and Poorman Allotments The Libby allotment has been used by commercial livestock operators since the late 1800s. Prior the mid 1900s, large bands of sheep trailed through the allotment from Chelan to what is now the Pasayten Wilderness. Cattle permits were issued in 1912 for smaller allotments now combined within the current boundaries of the allotment. The allotments were Booth Canyon, Libby Creek, Smith Canyon, and Alder Creek. Cattle numbers between 1916 and 1924 averaged about 600 cow/calf pairs with the season of use 4/16 to 11/15. The season of use was shortened to 5/1 to 10/31 between 1927 and 1950 with cattle number averaging 430 cow/calf pairs. From 1951 to 1962 the season was shortened to 5/16 to 10/15 with cattle numbers averaging 318 pairs. There were as many as 13 different permittees on the allotment between 1941 and 1960 and by 1976 there was only one permit. In 1962 Poorman Creek was excluded from the allotment and the season of use was reduced to the current season of 5/16 to 9/30. The grazing season in the Poorman allotment was established in 1962 at 5/16 to 9/30 with cattle numbers at 39 cow/calf pairs. Cattle numbers were increased to 44 pairs in 1976. In 1999 livestock numbers from the Smith and Alder units of the Libby allotment (83 pairs) were combined with the 44 pairs bringing the total up to the current 127 pairs. The 127 continue to be grazed for a portion of the season on both the Libby and Poorman allotments.

The Alder, Smith, and Chicamun pastures have scattered tracts of private land situated in the center of each pasture and completely surrounded by National Forest (Figure 3.1.2). As homes were developed on the private land, fences were constructed by land owners to exclude cattle, either on the Forest boundary or along ownership boundaries. Not all ownerships or Forest boundaries were fenced and cattle have always had access to some of the private land. As recent as 2004, cattle had access to unfenced private ownerships including the private land portion of Libby Creek. Private land owners continue to work on the completion of private land boundary fence and by 2009 much of the developed land had been fenced on boundary. Over the years, the Forest Service has installed cattleguards on Forest roads through Forest/private boundary fences. Permittees have constructed drift fences on Forest land to aid in keeping cattle on the Forest portion of the allotment.

Existing Condition

Range Vegetation Much of the lands within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are forested and do not provide a substantial amount of forage for livestock. The majority of forage is in old clear cuts, wildfires, south facing slopes, meadows, and areas along roads. Livestock have varying levels of access to streams and the associated riparian communities. Parameters such as gradient, valley form, geologic substrate, vegetative structure, and forage availability can greatly influence livestock movement, use patterns, and distribution. Elevations range from around 2200 feet to about 7400 feet. Topography is generally moderate to steep terrain with small narrow valleys. Vegetative sites vary from open ponderosa pine stands on southerly facing slopes to mixed conifer over story stands on all other slopes and at the higher elevations. The primary forage type within the allotment is transitory range (a temporary increase in available forage due to past timber harvest). Much of the rangeland within the allotment is dominated by pinegrass under a conifer overstory. Fescue is mixed in with the more open forest pinegrass habitat and on the margins of the bluebunch wheatgrass habitat. Bluebunch wheatgrass is found primarily on the drier south and west facing slopes. Upland dry sedge species and needlegrass are also scattered or in small patches

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--8

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

throughout the range. Nonnative seeded grass species are common in revegetated roadsides and in past timber harvest areas. Most of the timbered areas support shrubs and grasses for forage in varying quantities depending on canopy closure. There are pockets of open hill sides and scablands scattered throughout the allotment. The high elevation portions of the allotment are considered secondary range (range that livestock will not use until other areas are heavily utilized) due to dense timber stands, accessibility, distance to water, and/or steep slopes. Most of the uplands are considered to be in mid-seral stage of succession in fair to good condition.

Range Capability and Suitability Grazing capability depends upon conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology. For this analysis, capable acres are those less than ½ mile from water, less than 60% tree canopy cover, and slope less than 60%. For this analysis, nonsuitable areas are where fences have restricted cattle access and placement of cattle within these areas would likely result into cattle drift onto Federally listed fish habitat.

Table 3.1.1. Range capability and suitability in acres for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments by pasture. Allotment/Pasture Name Existing Pasture Boundaries Capable Acres Suitable Acres Difference (Capable-Suitable) Little Bridge Allotment

Meyers 5197 5195 2 Midnight 1421 1421 0 Bridge 3637 3637 0 Canyon 1468 1468 0 Lime 2568 2563 5 Total 14291 14284 7 Newby Allotment

Buttermilk 1199 1199 0 Scaffold 3110 3058 51 East 1074 949 125 West 873 864 9 Poorman Allotment

Blackpine 352 352 0 Lookout 1564 1562 2 Poorman 1059 1059 0 Libby Allotment

Alder 1184 1184 0 Chicamun 2476 2452 25 Mission 3977 3977 0 Smith 1624 1623 2 Total 18492 18279 214 Grand Total 32784 32563 221

Current Rotation The current class of livestock is only cattle; cow/calf, yearlings (over 6 months old), and bulls. Typically the class of cattle is cow/calf pairs. The ratio of bulls to cow/calf pairs should not exceed what is reasonable for breeding purposes, roughly 1 bull per 25 cow/calf pairs. Any request by the permittee to substitute yearlings for cow/calf pairs is agreed on through Annual Operating

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--9

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Instructions. There are no AUM conversions from cow/calf pairs to yearlings; 1 cow/calf pair = 1 yearling.

Currently there are 3 permittees; Christianson, Prewitt, and Maxwell, that graze cattle on the 4 allotments within the project area. Christianson has permits on Little Bridge, Newby, and Libby allotments, Prewitt has a permit exclusively on the Little Bridge allotment, and Maxwell has permits on Libby and Poorman allotment (Table 3.1.2).

Table 3.1.2. Current permitted numbers as shown on grazing permit. Permittee Number Kind Class From To Allotment Christianson 120 Cattle Cow/calf 5/16 9/15 Little Bridge Christianson 85 Cattle Cow/calf 5/16 9/15 Newby Christianson 84 Cattle Cow/calf 5/16 9/30 Libby Prewitt 112 Cattle Cow/calf 5/16 9/15 Little Bridge Maxwell 83 Cattle Cow/calf 5/16 9/30 Libby Maxwell 44 Cattle Cow/calf 5/16 9/30 Poorman Total: 528

The Christianson permitted cattle numbers from their three allotments have been combined into one herd for a portion of the permitted use period with the combined herd managed in a two year rotation across the three allotments. The Christianson have chosen to graze 90% of permitted numbers which is the allowable reduction without penalty. The combined cattle herd for Christianson is 289 cow/calf pairs and at 90%, the total is 260 cow/calf pairs. The management of the Little Bridge and the Libby allotment (Chicamun and Mission pastures) is currently contingent upon using the Newby allotment in conjunction with these allotments. Both Little Bridge and Libby (Chicamun and Mission pastures) allotments are used early season and then the cattle are rotated to the Newby allotment in the late season.

Similarly, the Maxwell permitted cattle numbers are combined into one herd and rotated across his two allotments. The combined cattle herd for Maxwell is 127 cow/calf pairs.

For this analysis, the number of cattle and the period of use within a grazing rotation are converted to head months in order have a common denominator to compare and contrast the occupancy of cattle within a pasture as the intensity and duration are adjusted for management purposes. Head month (HM) is defined as a month's use and occupancy of range by one animal over 6 months of age with disregard for the class of cattle - whether cow/calf pair, bull, or a yearling. HM is not synonymous with Animal Unit Month (AUM) which is the amount of dry forage required by a 1000 pound dry cow (cow without a calf) for one month (1 cow/calf pair is 1.32 AUMs, 1 yearling is 0.7 AUMs, 1 bull is 1.5 AUMs).

Table 3.1.3. Current allotment/pasture rotations between Little Bridge, Newby, Poorman, and Libby allotments. Odd years Allotment Pasture Season of use Cow/calf pairs Days HM Little Bridge Lime Rest Canyon Rest Meyers/*lower Bridge 5/16-7/16 101 62 206 Upper Bridge 7/17-8/21 101 36 120

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--10

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Midnight 8/22-9/15 101 25 83 Total 409 Newby East 6/1-7/10 30 40 39 West (Newbutter) 7/11-8/13 30 34 34 Buttermilk/Scaffold 8/7-8/13 (from Libby 7 53 allot.) 230 Buttermilk/Scaffold 8/14-**9/30 (30 from West 48 410 pasture) 260 Total 536 ***Poorman Powderhouse 5/16-5/30 127 15 63 Blakely 6/1-6/8 127 8 33 Blackpine 6/9-6/22 127 14 58 Grouse 6/23-7/2 127 10 42 Total 196 Libby Smith Rest Alder 7/3-9/22 (from Poorman) 82 342 127 Chicamun (Chicamun 5/16-6/24 115 40 151 Canyon) Chicamun (Hornet 5/16-6/24 115 40 151 draw) Mission 6/25-8/6 230 43 325 Total 969 *Cattle use Spring, Cow, Dry, and Deer Creek drainages in lower Bridge pasture in conjunction with the Meyers pasture by a relatively small percentage of the total 101 cattle. ** Permitted off date is 9/15, but frequently authorized extension to 9/30. ***There are no pasture division fences within the allotment and drift occurs between the “pastures”.

Even years Allotment Pasture Season of use Cow/calf pairs Days HM Little Bridge Lime/Canyon 5/16-7/15 176 61 353 Culbertson/Canyon 5/16-7/15 101 61 203 Midnight/Bridge 7/16-9/15 (**66 from 62 340 Lime) 167 Meyers Rest Total 896 Newby West (Newbutter) 5/16-6/15 84 31 86 East 6/16-7/15 84 30 83 Buttermilk/Scaffold 7/16-*9/30 (110 from Little 77 491 Bridge) 194

Total 660 Poorman Blakely 7/22-8/19 57 30 56 Grouse 7/22-8/19 57 30 56 Blackpine 8/20-9/30 57 42 79

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--11

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Powderhouse Rest Total 191 Libby Smith 5/16-7/14 114 60 225 Alder Rout through 114 7 26 to Poorman (7 days) Alder 8/20-9/30 (from Poorman 42 79 allot.) 57 Chicamun Rest Mission Rest Total 330 *Permitted off date is 9/15, but frequently authorized extension to 9/30. **After the completion of the exclosure fence on lower Little Bridge Creek, there was an increase of 66 c/c pair in Midnight and Bridge units in late season. ***There are no pasture division fences within the allotment and drift occurs between the “pastures”.

During any year, the number, kind, and class of livestock and the period of use may be modified for resource protection (Term Grazing Permit – Item 8-b). In order to allow for Endangered Species Act compliance with listed steelhead in Little Bridge Creek, the Christianson permitted livestock numbers for Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments were combined. The number of livestock was increased and the period of use was shortened from what is described in the grazing permits for each of the 3 allotments. This modification was made in 1999. By shortening the permitted period of use by approximately ½ and by increasing a proportional amount of the permitted numbers, the combined herd of cattle is rotated between two separate allotments each year.

Under the combined rotation for Little Bridge, Newby, and Libby allotments the permitted head months (HM) are not consistent with the actual HM. The actual use on the Little Bridge allotment is much less than permitted at only 70% of permitted use and the actual use on the Newby allotment is considerably higher than the permitted use at 175%. Table 3.1.4 displays the actual use for each allotment and, for the Newby allotment, each of the pastures are displayed. As this is a two year rotation, even and odd year rotations are displayed and then the average of the two years are determined for each allotment. For the combined Little Bridge/Libby/Newby rotation and the Poorman/Libby rotation, the actual use is slightly less than the permitted use. The actual use reflects that the Christiansons and Prewitts have chosen to graze at 90% of the permitted numbers for all three allotments for the past 10 years and that a 14 day extension has been granted for in the Newby allotment each year since 2001. The permittee has requested a two week extension in the Buttermilk and Scaffold units since 2001 and the Forest Officer has approved the request based on field inspections finding a surplus of forage at the end of the use period. If actual forage use within a pasture is projected to be less than the allowable use standards by the scheduled move date, the permittee may request approval to remain in the pasture for additional time. The two week extension lengthened the period of use from September 15th to September 30th which matches the season of use for Libby and Poorman allotments and is typical of most grazing allotments on the Methow Valley Ranger District. End of season monitoring after the extension indicated that use levels were within standards and fisheries management objectives were being met on the Newby allotment with the exception of a localized area of high use on upper Black Pine Creek, a tributary to East Fork Buttermilk Creek.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--12

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.1.4. Permitted use and actual use under current rotation on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Allotment/Pasture Even / Number c/c Pair Days Head Months Odd Permit Actual Permit Actual Permit Actual Year Little Bridge (Chris.) Even 120 176 123 61 492 358 120 66 123 62 136 120 120 avg 123 123 total 494 Total Little Bridge (Chris.) Odd 120 0 123 0 492 0 Little Bridge (Chris.) Average 247 Little Bridge (Prewitt) 112 101 123 123 459 414 Little Bridge Allotment 232 123 123 951 661 (70%) Newby East/West Odd 85 30 123 74 74 Newby East/West Even 85 84 123 61 171 Newby East/West Average 123 Newby Btrmilk/Scaf Odd 85 260 123 48 416 Newby Btrmilk/Scaf Odd 85 230 123 7 54 Newby Btrmilk/Scaf Even 85 194 123 78 504 Newby Btrmilk/Scaf Average 487 Newby Allotment 85 123 *138 349 610 (175%) Libby – Chicamun / Even 84 0 138 0 386 0 Mission Libby – Chicamun / Odd 84 230 138 90 386 690 Mission Libby – Chicamun / Average 345 Mission Total for Little Bridge, Newby, Libby combined rotation 1686 1616 Libby – Smith / Alder Even 83 127 138 67 382 284 Libby – Smith / Alder Odd 83 127 138 82 382 347 Libby – Smith / Alder Average 315 Libby Allotment 768 660 (86%) Poorman Even 44 127 138 79 202 **334 (closer to 202) Poorman Odd 44 127 138 48 202 202 Poorman 202 202 (100%) Total for Little Bridge, Newby, Libby combined rotation 970 862 *Includes extension **Move a portion of the cattle from Poorman to Libby – Alder pasture

Summary of Head Months for Each Allotment Allotment Head Months Permit Actual Little Bridge 951 661 (70%) Newby 349 610 (175%)

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--13

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Libby 768 660 (86%) Poorman 202 202 (100%)

Allotment Descriptions Little Bridge Allotment The Little Bridge allotment consists of 27,494 acres and is located in the Little Bridge Creek, Canyon Creek, Coal Creek, and Meyer Creek drainages. The current grazing system is a deferred, rest rotation grazing system using 5 units. Three pastures are rested every other year and two are deferred.

On even years, the Meyers pasture is rested and the Christianson cattle graze the Lime pasture for 2 months and then move to the Newby allotment in mid July. The Prewitt cattle start in the Canyon pasture and move to Midnight pasture by mid July. As there is no physical barrier between Midnight and Bridge pastures, cattle use the upper Bridge pasture in conjunction with the Midnight pasture. By early September the cattle are well distributed throughout the Bridge pasture until turnoff. Typically there is some drift into the Bridge pasture before mid July with most of the drift from the Canyon pasture.

On odd years the Lime and Canyon pastures are rested with no Christianson cattle grazing the allotment. The Prewitt cattle are turned on to the Meyers pasture then moved to lower Bridge by mid July. In late August, most of the cattle are moved to upper Bridge and Midnight pastures until turnoff. Typically there is some drift out of Meyers pasture into lower Bridge well before mid July.

Drift fences have been constructed and cattleguards have been installed on lower Lime Creek road, lower Little Bridge Creek road, and lower Coal Creek road by the permittee and Forest Service. These fences were designed to stop drift off the allotment and greatly reduce the potential of cattle access to the Twisp River.

Lime This pasture is used exclusively as an early season pasture and is rested on odd years. The prominent forage is bluebunch wheatgrass and water is more limited in the late season. The lower 2 miles of Canyon Creek is located within the east side of this pasture with very light cattle use on the lower 1.5 miles of stream. Cattle access to the stream is very limited with steep topography and high riparian shrub densities. There is some cattle access to the upper reaches of the Canyon Creek tributary streams within this unit. There are 3 riparian designated monitoring area (DMA) locations within the pasture. The West Fork tributary of Canyon Creek slightly exceeded streambank alteration standards in 2008 (Table 3.1.8). Upland utilizations standards were exceeded in 2006 and 2008 but were met in 2010 with a range readiness delay in turn-on, and exceptional water and forage production year, and the District establishing and enforcing a move trigger (Table 3.1.17). No observable cattle use occurs within this unit on rest years. There are 3 water developments in the uplands that help draw cattle out of Canyon Creek.

Canyon This pasture is also used exclusively as an early season pasture and is rested on odd years. The forage is bluebunch wheatgrass and pinegrass. The primary foraging area is associated with the road system on the east side of the pasture. There is a stock trail up Canyon Creek that provides cattle access to the upper west side of the pasture with light to moderate use associated with this stock trail. Cattle access to upper reaches of Canyon Creek is similar to the access in the Lime unit with very high riparian shrub densities. One DMA is located on Canyon Creek near the 130-140 road junction. There are 2 water developments in the uplands that help draw cattle out of lower

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--14

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Canyon Creek.

Midnight This pasture is used as a mid and late season pasture. The forage is primarily pinegrass with some bunchgrass habitat. There are no roads within the pasture with two stock trails accessing foraging areas on the north side and south side of the pasture. Due to the steep topography and the lack of fencing, cattle tend to drift out of this pasture. There are no water developments and a DMA is located on Little Bridge Creek about ¾ miles up from the pasture boundary. There is an open Douglas fir park with pinegrass and Idaho fescue understory in the upper half of the West Fork trail but very little indication of grazing.

Bridge This pasture is used as a mid and late season pasture with the period of use delayed until after July 15 since 1999 with the listing of steelhead in 1998. With the completion of the Little Bridge Creek exclosure fence in 2007 and the construction of an additional water development in upper Dry Creek in 2009, some limited use has been authorized in the adjacent uplands of lower Little Bridge Creek prior to the July 15. The exclosure fence has been effective in excluding cattle from Little Bridge Creek. There are 4 water developments located in the uplands on the east side of Little Bridge Creek and 2 located on the lower west side. There are DMAs located on Cow Creek and on Little Bridge Creek. Both upland and riparian allowable use levels are within standards at representative monitoring locations (Tables 3.1.8, 9, and 17). There are pockets of high use within the most accessible points on Little Bridge Creek and in pockets within the canyon bottoms of the lower Little Bridge Creek tributaries. A tributary that comes in at the end of FS road 4415 has received high cattle use in the past. The portion of Little Bridge Creek between the existing fence and the Vetch Creek confluence is relatively flat with more open cattle access, although dense riparian vegetation makes access difficult with very little evidence of cattle impacts on the west side of the creek. Nearly all the area along upper Little Bridge Creek has dense conifer and shrub populations and the creek has ample down wood making cattle access difficult. Cattle access above RM 5.2 is very low, with only a few trails crossing the creek. There is a series of abandoned beaver ponds on Little Bridge Creek near the confluence of Sheep Creek where there is localized high cattle use within the old ponds that are now primarily wet meadows.

Meyers This pasture is used exclusively as an early season pasture. The prominent forage is bluebunch wheatgrass and pinegrass. Water is more limited in the late season. There are 4 water developments with surface stream water normally very limited. There are 2 upland monitoring locations within the pasture and no riparian DMAs due to the limited surface water. There are pockets of high use within the north end of the unit typically associated with forest openings and seeded domestic grasses.

Newby Allotment The Newby allotment is 17,236 acres with 4 pasture units, East, West, Buttermilk, and Scaffold. The grazing system is a deferred rotation. Currently there is one permit on the allotment allowing 85 cow/calf pairs to graze from 5/16 to 9/15. This rotation is in conjunction with the Libby and Little Bridge allotments where the permitted numbers of the three allotments are combined to graze 260 c/c pairs from 8/14 to 9/30 (with an extension) on odd years and 194 cow/calf pairs from 7/16 to 9/30 (with an extension) on even years. Only a portion of the herd graze the East and West units with 30 cow/calf pairs on odd years and 84 pairs on even years.

Cattleguards have been installed along with the construction of drift fences on lower Newby Creek road, lower Newbutter (West unit) road, and lower Buttermilk road by the permittee and Forest

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--15

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Service. These fences were designed to stop drift off the allotment and greatly reduce the potential of cattle access to the Twisp River. The Newby Creek fence, completed in 2009, excluded the northeast portion of the East pasture from the rotation (Figure 3.1.1). A total of 13 upland water sources have been developed on the allotment.

East and West The East and West units are used exclusively as early and mid season pastures with the season of use alternated each year. There are 2 water developments in each unit. There are no streams within the West unit. Surface water availability is variable in the East unit but there is always some early season water in Newby Creek. Upland cattle use is within allowable use standards in both pastures with the higher use levels in the West unit. There is a riparian DMA on Newby Creek in the West unit that receives light to moderate use levels. There are pockets of high use within the more moderate topography within the Newby Creek drainage in the East unit.

There has been some cattle drift out of the East unit with some cattle accessing the Twisp River. A cattleguard was installed in 2004 with a drift fence completed in 2009 to keep cattle in the unit. There were no reports of cattle drift to the Twisp River in 2010. The completion of the drift fence excluded the northeast portion of the unit where one water development is located.

Buttermilk and Scaffold The Buttermilk and Scaffold units are grazed late each year. The Scaffold unit has been used primarily as the last pasture in the rotation. There are 4 water developments in the Buttermilk unit and 5 in the Scaffold unit that help distribute cattle in the uplands. There is a riparian DMA located on both West Fork Buttermilk Creek and East Fork Buttermilk Creek in the Buttermilk unit. Streambank alteration has been measured at 0 to 1% use by both the range monitoring crew and the Forest ecology crew over the past 4 years (Table 3.1.10). Both upper and lower Black Pine Creek slightly exceeded the allowable use standard in 2008 and 2009. The standard was exceeded by only one or two percentage points (Table 3.1.10). These two DMAs are the highest use areas on the stream and are not representative of the whole stream where there is virtually no cattle use outside of these areas. There are 2 upland monitoring areas in the Buttermilk unit and 1 in the Scaffold unit with all areas receiving a moderate level of use. Riparian shrub use was recorded at 20.5% on the East Fork in 2009 (Table 3.1.12).

Exclosure fences have been constructed to protect the Shady Nook and Black Pine beaver pond wetlands. The Shady Nook fence has had partial exclusion and needs to be completed on the south end. The Shady Nook area has received high use within the past 10 years but the level of use has decreased to a moderate level in the past 4 years. The highest use documented in this area was in 2003 on YoYo Creek. This was identified as a loafing area and improvement in management reduced the level of livestock concentration in this area. Management changes were a reduction in season of use by 29 days between 2003 and 2005 and more active riding by the permittee.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--16

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.1.3. Small, wet meadow system in the Buttermilk unit of the Newby allotment.

With the completion of a hard fence in 2007 the Black Pine beaver pond and associated wet meadow were excluded. This likely shifted some cattle use to the smaller wet meadow systems near the 4300-400 road junction and another about ½ mile to the southwest (Figure 3.1.3). There is an open aspen stand adjacent to Black Pine Creek below the meadow near the 4300-400 road junction that has received heavy use. The level of use in this meadow was consistent with the level of use in the Shady Nook area in 2003. By shortening the season of use within this pasture by 29 days between 2003 and 2005, monitoring in 2006 showed that allowable use standards were slightly exceeded and by 2007-2008 were well within standards. Then in 2009 this the level of use in this meadow had increased again based on an informal field inspection. This wet meadow was identified as a specific monitoring area for the permittee in 2010 to ensure allowable use standards were met. In 2010 the meadow received very light use with virtually no use in much of the meadow.

Some cattle access the mainstem Buttermilk, East Fork Buttermilk, and West Fork Buttermilk Creeks. Cattle access surveys in 2010 observed 14 access points on the mainstem of Buttermilk Creek over about 1.3 miles length and 19 access points over the 3 mile stretch of creek along West Fork Buttermilk Creek and 14 on the 3.1 mile stretch of East Fork Buttermilk Creek.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--17

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Libby Allotment The Libby allotment is 23,971 acres with 4 pasture units, Mission, Chicamun, Smith, and Alder. The grazing system is a rest rotation (each pasture is rested for one year after a season of use). Currently there are two permits on the allotment allowing 84 cow/calf pairs to graze from 5/16 to 9/30 in the Mission and Chicamun pastures and 83 cow/calf pairs from 5/16 to 9/30 in the Smith and Alder pastures for a total of 762 animal unit months. The Mission and Chicamun pastures are rested on even numbered years. This rotation is in conjunction with the Newby and Little Bridge allotments where the permitted numbers of the three allotments are combined to graze 230 cow/calf pairs. These cattle graze in Chicamun and Mission from May 16 to mid August on odd numbered years. The Smith and Alder pastures are on a rest rotation grazing system in conjunction with the Poorman allotment where the numbers are combined (44 on Poorman and 83 on Libby) to graze 127 cow/calf pairs. On even-numbered years the Smith unit is grazed with the 127 pairs from 5/16 to 7/14, then the cattle are moved to the Poorman allotment. On odd numbered years the cattle start on the Poorman allotment them move to the Alder unit, with the 127 pairs in Alder from 7/3 to 9/22.

Alder Two of the 3 water developments in the Alder unit dried up in summer 2009 concentrating use to the area of surface water on Alder creek. More intensive management of grazing in this unit in 2009 resulted in meeting allowable use standards but there is a potential that the carrying capacity will be less if the water availability continues to decline. There is an area of undeveloped private land in the center of the Alder unit that receives the highest use. There are 2 upland monitoring areas for grass utilization and one monitoring area for aspen and all were well within allowable use standards. There is 1 riparian DMA on Alder Creek to monitor riparian utilization.

Smith The Smith pasture includes the Smith Canyon and the Elderberry Canyon areas which are always grazed early. There are 6 water developments that provide virtually all the available water within the unit. Additional fencing constructed in 2009 (see Libby/Poorman history above) excluded an area of surface water in lower Smith Creek. Maintenance of water developments is more critical in the Smith pasture with no available surface water in streams. High use levels have occurred at some of the water developments when used to capacity. Heavy grazing and trailing has occurred near the water developments but the level of impacts are typically in pockets and decrease rapidly away from these water sources to where allowable use levels are meeting standards within 100 yards of the water. In 2009 water flow was measured at 5 water developments in the Smith unit.

Table 3.1.5. Water flow at water developments in the Smith pasture on 5/21/2009. Water Development Gallons / hour Gallons / Day *Number of cattle capable of supporting for 1 day Upper Elderberry 69 1656 92 Lower Elderberry 32 768 43 Deke 90 2160 120 Echo 8.57 206 11 Government Springs 43 1032 57 Total 323**

*Based on18 gallons/day peak requirement for c/c pairs ** Much less than the total daily flow would be available for consumption as much would run over the overflow. A conservative estimate of ½ the flow would be available.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--18

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.1.6. Water flow at water developments in the Smith pasture on 6/2/2009 Water Development Gallons / hour Gallons / Day *Number of cattle capable of supporting for 1 day Upper Elderberry 42.8 1028 57 Lower Elderberry 35 830 46 Deke 75 1800 100 Echo 8.1 194 11 Government Springs 38 900 50 Total 264**

*Based on18 gallons/day peak requirement for c/c pairs ** Much less than the total daily flow would be available for consumption as much would run over the overflow. A conservative estimate of ½ the flow would be available.

Chicamun The Chicamun pasture includes Chicamum Canyon and Hornet Draw and is always grazed early. There are some localized areas of high use within the uplands but overall grazing standards are being met. The area with the potential to have the highest livestock use is in the Chicamun Canyon bottom. The primary grazing area is within the bunchgrass forage type on the relatively steep slopes. The cattle then prefer to use the bottom to loaf in the flat shady areas. The forage production in the bottom is very low but the cattle do utilize small pockets of seeded domestic grasses and some pinegrass. The cattle prefer the seeded grasses and consequently the small pockets may be utilized to a level of 80% in and adjacent to the loafing areas. The dense conifer understory is not grazed with very light cattle impacts. Diffuse knapweed is dense in patches in the open roadside areas and the cattle will graze this invasive plant in the early summer. To reduce the level of loafing in the Chicamun Canyon bottom, the permittee has increased the level of riding and improved the maintenance of existing upland water developments. In 2003 the Chicamun Canyon bottom received high use while the Hornet Draw area was lightly used. There is fenced private land that separates these two grazing areas. Since 2005, cattle numbers have been split between these two areas to ensure more equal distribution of cattle and as a result use levels have decreased in Chicamun Canyon.

There are 2 functioning water developments, one in mid Chicamun Canyon and one in upper Hornet Draw. There are 2 upland monitoring areas in Chicamun Canyon and one in Hornet Draw. There is one riparian DMA on Chicamun Creek. The Chicamun DMA met standards for both streambank alteration and shrub use (Table 3.1.13).

There is a spring on the private land boundary on the south end of the pasture that needs to be protected. The boundary fence divides the spring and cattle are trampling the spring on the National Forest System land side.

Mission The Mission pasture is always grazed mid season. There are 3 water developments, 2 in upper Ben Canyon and one in Nickel Canyon in the southeast corner of the unit. The tributary streams of Libby Creek provide water throughout much of the west portion of the unit where cattle typically drink at road crossings. Cattle access to the North and South Forks of Libby Creek is very sparse to non- existent. These streams are high gradient, cascading, bouldery and shrubby and provide very little cattle access except at road crossings. There are 2 upland monitoring areas and both show a moderate level of use at 40%. Similar to Chicamun Canyon, the roadside openings in the Ben

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--19

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Canyon bottoms have received high use in the recent past but the level of use decreases rapidly away from the road. There are 2 riparian DMAs, one on Ben Canyon Creek and one on lower Libby Creek. Streambank alteration levels are low at both of these areas and shrub use is low to moderate (Table 3.1.13 and Table 3.1.14). Cattle access to Libby Creek is very limited until rivermile 6.0, about 1/2 mile above the confluence with Hornet Draw. From there up to the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork Libby Creek, surveyors observed cattle trails from the previous year with some bank trampling and shrub browse. Cattle access to the North and South Forks of Libby Creek is very sparse to non-existent. Mission pond has received high use in the past. A fence was constructed in 2009 to exclude cattle from the beaver dam which functioned well and the entire pond area was fenced out in 2010 including the lower 2 beaver dam and wet meadow areas. There is some cattle drift into the Mission pasture from the Buttermilk units in late season.

Poorman Allotment The Poorman allotment is 6,745 acres. There are 4 grazing areas within the Poorman allotment, Blakely Canyon, Grouse Canyon, the Black Pine area (upper south side of Pooman Creek) and the area on the north side of Poorman Creek known as the Powderhouse pasture. There are only limited physical barriers separating the grazing areas and drift occurs between all four grazing areas. The grazing system is a deferred rotation which means the allotment is grazed early one year and late the next. Currently there is one permit on the allotment. This rotation is in conjunction with the Libby allotment where the permitted numbers of the two allotments, 44 pairs on Poorman and 83 on Libby, are combined to graze 127 cow/calf pairs on the Poorman allotment from 7/14 to 9/30 on even numbered years and from 5/16 to 7/2 on odd numbered years.

This allotment has been mostly in nonuse since 2004. A temporary permit was issued in 2007 and 2008 to graze 50 cow/calf pairs in Grouse and Blakely units of Poorman and in the Alder unit of the Libby allotment. This was only 40% of the permitted number. The allotment was then grazed at 90% of permitted numbers in 2009 with yearlings where the level of use was mostly light with some moderate use and very few localized areas of high use.

At the end of the grazing season, a portion of the Newby and Libby allotment cattle are actively herded off of the allotments through the Poorman allotment. There are provisions in the annual operating instructions to allow this.

There are 8 water developments within the allotment, 3 in Blakely Canyon, 1 in Grouse Canyon, 3 in upper Poorman creek area, and one near the top of the ridge on the west side of the allotment. These water developments function well to distribute cattle out of the Poorman Creek bottom. There are upland monitoring areas in each of the 4 units associated with the primary range in each pasture, typically associated with the water developments (Table 3.1.21). The highest use documented in 2009 was associated with the two water developments in upper Blakely Canyon, and the one water development in upper Grouse Canyon, but were still within standards. There are pockets of high use within a low gradient section of stream in mid Grouse Canyon.

Historically, lower Poorman Creek received heavy use, but monitoring showed light to moderate use in 2009 with the exception of lowest 1500 feet of stream where there was some high use documented. The Poorman drainage has steep valley walls with a moderate gradient on the valley floor. With the exception of a drift fence on lower Blakely Canyon, there are no unit fences to contain cattle and some concentrated cattle use has occurred on the lower 1 mile of the stream. Dense riparian vegetation makes cattle access difficult in all but the lower 1 mile of Poorman Creek. There is some perennial flow in the tributary streams in Blakely and Grouse Canyons and cattle have some access. Typically the access is limited to the north side of the stream where the cattle access for water from the open south facing slopes that have the forage.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--20

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Monitoring To ensure management direction as outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI, annual management instructions to the permittee) is followed, range management staff conduct allotment inspections throughout the grazing season. The inspections allow for verification that the instructions are being followed. Resource condition monitoring takes place throughout the grazing season. This day-to-day monitoring allows for adjustments to the instructions, if necessary, as a response to a change in resource conditions. End of season monitoring is completed on allotments as a measure of compliance with the allowable forage use standards and is also an indicator of successful management. Allotment inspections, resource condition and end of season monitoring will continue on the allotment.

Range Readiness surveys are conducted prior to livestock entry on to the allotments or into a specific pasture to determine if there is sufficient forage present and grazing can begin without permanent damage to vegetation or soil. Range readiness indicators for common species are listed in Table 3.1.7. Standards are outlined in the FS Record of Range Readiness Checks form (FS Form R6-2210-22 (4/79)).

Table 3.1.7 Range readiness indicators for range allotments on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Common Name Scientific Name Indicators Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spp. About 6 inches in height Green Fescue Festuca viridula Leaves 5 inches in height, seed heads showing Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis Leaves 3 inches in height, seed heads showing Pinegrass Calamagrostis spp. Foliage 3-4 inches in height Western Yarrow Achillea lanulosa Flower stocks beginning to show Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza spp. Leafage about ½ developed Grounsel Senecio spp. Leafage about ¾ mature Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Leafage developed, full bloom Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Part of blossoms out Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata Flower buds conspicuously swollen Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus 7-8 pairs of leaves unfolded from each bud

Applicable monitoring protocols developed in the 2004 Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM), by Burton et al. (2004), were adopted by the MVRD in 2005 for use in the LLBNP Allotments. The most recent version of MIMs that the District now follows is Burton et al. (2008). From the MIMs protocols, the MVRD developed a monitoring and adaptive management strategy designed to increase effectiveness of range management and support grazing management decisions. Our monitoring strategy is interdisciplinary and based on Adaptive Management guidance contained in Forest Service Handbook (R-6) 2209.13 Chapter 90 (Part 95), and Forest Service Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook (R-6) 2209.21. The strategy considers ecological condition of riparian areas, aquatic habitat, and risk of effects to listed fish based on measurable conditions that affect vegetation, stream banks, and water quality among other things.

The MVRD uses both implementation and effectiveness monitoring to determine if current management is producing the desired results. Implementation monitoring determines if livestock management is being applied as prescribed and if annual grazing use indicator standards are being met. This type of monitoring occurs yearly and provides information that helps make short, year-to- year adjustments to livestock grazing management practices necessary to meet management objectives. Implementation monitoring consists of monitoring end-point indicators after cattle are removed from an allotment and is conducted by District staff and permittees. The riparian

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--21

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

associated end-point indicators adopted by the MVRD are Streambank Alteration, Woody Species Use, and Stubble Height/Utilization of riparian grasses/grasslikes. Streambank Alteration is the measurement of disturbance to the streambank by trampling and shearing of large herbivores. Trampling is when a track caused by a large herbivore exposes at least ½ inch of bare soil. Streambank shearing is the physical displacement of part of the streambank downward toward the stream channel. Woody Species Use is an ocular estimate of woody species use based on the general appearance of the woody species rooted within a plot along the stream. Estimates are based on a range or class of use of the available current year‟s growth on the plants. Five utilization classes describe the relative degree of use of the available current year‟s leader growth for riparian shrubs and trees (Burton el al. 2008). Incidence of use of woody species is a random sample of the percentage of leaders browsed on shrubs rooted along the riparian area. The complete indicator standards and guidelines used by MVRD are as follows:

All four allotments are managed at a “C” Range Resource Management Level (ONF LRMP 11-4 and 11-5), which has the following forage (grass) utilization standards: 45% in upland forested environments 55% in upland grasslands 45% in riparian meadow areas

Riparian shrub browse standards: Not to exceed a Moderate level of Riparian Shrub Use or 45% of current years leaders browsed

Streambank alteration by livestock standards: Not to exceed 20% altered banks

Riparian Implementation Monitoring The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments have established riparian/stream designated monitoring areas (DMA) across the allotments where streambank alteration and streamside shrub use is monitored. Monitoring is conducted in the areas of highest use. Our range specialist and trained technicians monitored all sites except in 2009 the Forest ecology crew monitored some of the riparian DMAs. Stability of 20% percent or less was found to be close to optimal bank stability from an extensive literature review (Cowley 2002).

Table 3.1.8. Little Bridge allotment streambank alteration monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Streambank Alteration No. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Bridge 1 Cow Creek ** 7% 9% ** ** Lime 2 W. Fork Canyon Cr. ** Rest 22% Rest 10% Canyon 3 Canyon Creek 9% Rest 4% Rest 5% Midnight 4 Little Bridge Creek 2% 2% 0% ** .5% Bridge 5 Little Bridge Creek (lower) 2% 3% 4% *16% ** Lime 6 Canyon Creek 2% Rest ** Rest ** Lime 7 Lime Creek 4% Rest ** Rest ** Bridge 8 Little Bridge Creek (mid) ** ** ** ** 16% Bridge 9 Little Bridge Creek (upper) ** ** ** ** 4.8% *ecology crew MIM monitoring. **No monitoring completed that year.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--22

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.1.9. Little Bridge allotment riparian shrub monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Key Species Shrub Use No. 2009 2010 Little Bridge Cr. 5 Little Bridge Riparian Mix *25.3% ** Canyon 3 Canyon Creek Alder/dogwood ** 2.9% Midnight 4 Little Bridge Creek Alder/dogwood ** 2.5% Bridge 8 Little Bridge Creek (mid) Alder/dogwood ** 10.7% Bridge 9 Little Bridge Creek (upper) Alder/dogwood ** .75% Lime 2 W. Fork Canyon Cr. Alder/dogwood Rest 13.3% *ecology crew MIM monitoring. **No monitoring completed that year.

Table 3.1.10. Newby allotment streambank alteration monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Streambank Alteration No. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 East 1 Newby Creek 16% 7% 0% ** ** Buttermilk 2 ****W Fork Buttermilk 1% *<5% 0% ***0% .5% Buttermilk 3 ****E Fork Buttermilk *<5% *<5% 1% ***0% *<2% Buttermilk 4 Upper Black Pine Creek ** ** 22% ** 20% Buttermilk 5 Upper Black Pine Creek ** ** 17% ** 13% Buttermilk 6 Lower Black Pine Creek ** ** 5% ***21 ** % West No perennial riparian Scaffold *****Limited riparian *Ocular estimation with photo documentation **No monitoring completed that year. ***ecology crew MIM monitoring. ****Both East Fork and West Fork Buttermilk have been identified through Fisheries inspections since 1999 to have virtually no cattle impacts other that a few head of cattle accessing the stream in a few localized areas. West Fork Buttermilk was sampled for streambank alteration in 2006, 2008, and 2009 with less than 1% alteration measured. East Fork Buttermilk was sampled in 2008 and 2009 with less than 1% alteration measured *****There are a few short reaches of perennial stream that are accessible to cattle but not enough for and adequate sample.

Table 3.1.11. Newby allotment riparian utilization monitoring. Pasture Key DMA Riparian Utilization Species 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Newby Riparian Black Pine 60% 50% 33% 32% *60% **37% Sedge Meadow *Ocular estimation with photo documentation **Very light use except around perimeter – sampled utilization in perimeter area

Table 3.1.12. Newby allotment riparian shrub monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Key Species Shrub Use No. 2009 2010 Buttermilk 6 Lower Black Pine Creek Alder/dogwood 37.3% **

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--23

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Buttermilk 3 E Fork Buttermilk Alder/dogwood *20.5% ** Buttermilk 2 W Fork Buttermilk Alder/dogwood ** 0% Buttermilk 3 E Fork Buttermilk Alder/dogwood ** ***<2% Buttermilk 4 Upper Black Pine Creek Alder/dogwood ** 14% *ecology crew MIM monitoring. **No monitoring completed. ***Ocular estimation with photo documentation

Table 3.1.13. Libby allotment streambank alteration monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Streambank Alteration No. 2009 2010 Alder 4 Alder Creek 12% Rest Chicamun 5 Chicamun Canyon Cr. 10% Rest Mission 3 Ben Canyon Creek 11% Rest Mission 2 Libby Creek 0% Rest *ecology crew MIM monitoring.

Table 3.1.14. Libby allotment riparian shrub monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Key Species Shrub Use No. 2009 2010 Alder Creek 4 Alder Creek Alder/dogwood 3.6% Nonuse Chicamun 5 Chicamun Canyon Cr. Alder/dogwood 16.5% Rest Mission 3 Ben Canyon Creek Alder/dogwood *13.8% Rest Mission 2 Libby Creek Alder/dogwood *26.1% Rest *ecology crew MIM monitoring.

Table 3.1.15. Poorman allotment streambank alteration monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Streambank Alteration No. 2006 2008 2009 2010 Blakely 1 Lower Poorman Creek Rested 8% 13% Nonuse ***<2% Blakely 1 Lower Poorman Creek Rested ** *7% Nonuse *ecology crew MIM monitoring. **No monitoring completed. *** Ocular estimation

Table 3.1.16. Poorman allotment riparian shrub monitoring. Pasture DMA Stream Key Species Shrub Use No. 2009 2010 Blakely 1 Lower Poorman Creek Alder/dogwood 15% Nonuse Blakely 1 Lower Poorman Creek Alder/dogwood *15.5% Nonuse *ecology crew MIM monitoring.

Upland Monitoring The upland forage within the allotments is meeting Forest Plan utilization standards on all capable range with the exception of the few highlighted in blue in the table below, and a few hot spot areas

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--24

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

where these localized high use areas may exceed 60%. These areas are typically seeded domestic grasses. Road placement, past timber harvest activities, and fence locations combined with water access and steep topography can result in the virtually unavoidable concentration of animals. These infrequent hot spots occur in spite of Forest Service range managers and permittees effort to implement best management practices and the terms of the AOI. A good portion of the native bunchgrass and pinegrass range within the allotments typically receives light to moderate use or may not be grazed at all. This is primarily due to the relative distance from water, the timing of grazing and the narrow window of palatability of these forage species.

Utilization of upland herbaceous vegetation was estimated by measuring stubble height of plants and plotting that on height-weight curves to come up with percent utilized (Reese 1991).

Table 3.1.17. Little Bridge allotment upland grass monitoring. Pasture Key Species DMA Utilization No. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Bridge Grasslands AGIN 1 ** 27% 26% 2% 5% Bridge Forested CARU 1 ** ** ** 1% ** Midnight Forested CARU/FEID 2 ** ** ** 5% 45% Myers Grasslands AGIN 3 ** ** 18% Rest Rest Myers Grasslands AGIN 4 ** ** 45% Rest Rest Bridge Forested CARU 5 ** 5% 5% ** 5% Canyon Transition AGIN/CARU 6 Rest ** Rest 62% ** Myers Grasslands FEID 7 ** *25% ** Rest Rest Myers Grasslands AGIN 7 52% *0% ** *2% Rest Canyon Forested CARU 8 Rest 18% Rest ** 13% Lime Grasslands AGIN 9 Rest 61% Rest 62% 53% *rested pasture – any use recorded may have been wildlife or drift from another pasture. **No monitoring completed.

Table 3.1.18. Newby allotment upland grass monitoring. Pasture Key Species DMA Utilization No. 2005 2006 2007 2008 Buttermilk Grasslands AGIN 1 ** ** 29% 27% Buttermilk Grasslands AGIN 2 ** ** 38% 20% Buttermilk Forested CARU 2 ** ** 0% ** Buttermilk Grasslands AGIN 3 ** 30% 8% 21% West Grasslands AGIN 4 51% 30% 26 48% East Grasslands AGIN 5 ** 21% 20% 1% Scaffold Grasslands AGIN 6 ** 25% 23% 25% **No monitoring completed.

Table 3.1.19. Libby allotment upland grass monitoring. Pasture Key Species DMA Utilization No. 2004 2005 2009 2010 Alder Forested CARU 1 ** Nonuse 10% Nonuse

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--25

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Smith Grassland AGIN 2 ** Nonuse 22% Nonuse Alder Grassland AGIN 3 ** Nonuse 13% Nonuse Mission Forested CARU 4 Rest ** 40% Rest Mission Grassland AGIN 5 Rest ** 40% Rest Smith Grassland AGIN 6 ** Nonuse 7% Nonuse Smith Grassland AGIN 7 ** Nonuse 31% Nonuse Smith Grassland AGIN 8 48% Nonuse 17% Nonuse Smith Grassland AGIN 9 45% Nonuse ** Nonuse Smith Forested CARU 10 45% Nonuse ** Nonuse Chicamun Grassland AGIN 11 Rest 37% 33% Rest Smith Grassland AGIN 12 ** Nonuse 38% Nonuse Chicamun Grassland AGIN 13 Rest ** 40% Rest (Hornet Draw) **No monitoring completed.

Table 3.1.20. Libby allotment upland shrub monitoring. Pasture DMA Key Species Shrub Use No. 2009 2010 Alder Creek 1 Upland Aspen 31% Nonuse Elderberry 2 Upland Mix 14% Nonuse

Table 3.1.21. Poorman allotment upland grass monitoring. Pasture Key Species DMA Utilization No. 2007 2009 2010 Grouse Grassland AGIN 1 ** 23% Nonuse Grouse Forested CARU 1 ** 23% Nonuse Blakely Grassland AGIN 2 ** 40% Nonuse Black Pine Forested CARU 3 Rest *<25% Nonuse Powderhouse Grassland AGIN 4 Rest *<25% Nonuse Blakely Grassland AGIN 5 52% ** Nonuse * Ocular estimation **No monitoring completed.

Table 3.1.22. Poorman allotment upland shrub monitoring. Pasture DMA Key Species Shrub Use No. 2009 2010 Blakely 2 Upland Mix 28% Nonuse

Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is designed to address the question of whether or not management practices currently applied to the area are achieving the desired results. The strategy is to measure changes in vegetation and streambank stability over time (e.g. trend) at least once every five years on all riparian DMAs within the allotments.

Riparian photopoints have been established at several locations on Little Bridge Creek.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--26

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Photopoints will be read at least once every 5 years. The objective of these monitoring sites is to monitor response and effectiveness of cattle exclusion to the riparian habitat. The MVRD is currently refining the Effectiveness Monitoring strategy within the project area relating to aquatic and riparian resources. The effectiveness monitoring strategy will focus on streambank stability and vegetative cover.

Riparian photopoint on Little Bridge Creek Range Improvements Range improvements, including water developments, fences, corrals, and stock driveways are an integral part of maintaining livestock control and distribution in the analysis area. Distribution is beneficial as it spreads the grazing use from concentrated points, reducing impacts to riparian areas, and increasing forage availability for livestock weight gain (Taylor, 1984).

Some of the improvements in LLBNP allotments have met or exceeded their life expectancy and are no longer fully functioning. The range improvements known to exist and needed for allotment management, and their condition are listed below in Table 3.1.23 through Table 3.1.32.

Table 3.1.23. Little Bridge allotment fences. Name Pasture Length Condition East Boundary Meyers .25 Good, well maintained. Fence is about ¼ mile. Thompson Ridge Boundary Bridge 4 Fair Bridge Creek Saddle Canyon/Bridge 2.50 Good. Fence is not continuous, there is an unfenced portion. Little Bridge Drift Bridge/Meyers 2.5 Fair – west ½ is old and needs to be replaced but still functions, east ½ in good condition Lime Creek Drift Lime 2.5 Fair Bridge Creek Exc. Bridge 2.5 Good - new in 2006

Table 3.1.24 Little Bridge allotment water developments (Christianson). *No Name Pasture Condition . 1 Spring Creek Bridge Fair, good spring, one corner of spring fence burned and needs replacing, box needs cleaning. 2 Elbow Meyers Poor, located on WDF&W boundary, trough needs to be moved out of draw. 3 Meyers Meyers Good.

4 Meyers Meyers Fair.

7 Double Trough Lime Fair, good spring.

8 Gilso Culbertson Functioning, Low volume of water

Table 3.1.25. Little Bridge allotment water developments (Prewitt). *No. Name Pasture Condition 1 Meadow Lark Meyers Fair, spring box is across road from trough.

2 Bridge Creek Canyon Fair, good flow to trough, large riparian exclosure fence

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--27

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Saddle is mostly down and needs a portion removed and a portion rebuilt. 3 Canyon Canyon Good condition.

4 Lime Creek Lime Poor, both a cattle trough and trough for fire trucks. Cattle trough dry, cattle drinking at water holes below trough. Spring box fence needs to be reconstructed. Fire truck trough no longer needed. 5 Lime Creek Lime Fair, a cattle trough and a trough for fire trucks. Cattle trough dry, cattle drinking from engine trough, large exclosure fence down and needs to be reconstructed. 6 Coal Creek Meyers Fair, shrubs around spring have overgrown the fences and are excluding cattle from spring source. 7 Oxeye Culbertson Good, dry in late summer.

8 Dry Creek Bridge New WD, completed in 2009.

Table 3.1.26. Newby allotment fences. Name Pasture Length Condition Twisp River Boundary West 1.75 Fair Buttermilk Boundary Buttermilk .5 Good Horse Gulch Boundary East .25 Fair Blackpine Boundary Buttermilk 1.25 Fair Buttermilk/Newby Buttermilk/Newby 2 Good – fence is old but well Division maintained

Table 3.1.27 Newby allotment water developments. *No. Name Pasture Condition 1 Elbow East Fair, construction of Newby drift fence made this WD inaccessible to cattle. 2 Horse Gulch East Good, trough is functioning well with adequate water in fall of 2010, often dry by midsummer, recent heavy maintenance on spring fence. 3 Newbutter 1 West Fair, spring often dry.

4 East Scaffold Scaffold Fair, spring not fenced but opposite the road and with little cattle impacts, needs new box, light use. 8 YCC Spring Scaffold Fair, three spring boxes at spring, smooth wire fence down and needs to be reconstructed. 9 Emergency Scaffold Good, WD was installed next to a preexisting exclosure fence that needs removing, fence is down but cattle not getting in, no box, pipe placed in creek. 10 Jerry Buttermilk Good, spring across road from trough, box reset in 2009.

11 Bear Draw Buttermilk Good, two spring boxes.

12 Tony Buttermilk Good, low flow, no fence around spring but light cattle disturbance, overflow needs maintaining, typically only flows early season.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--28

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

13 Newbutter 2 West Fair, good water, a diversion from creek, need to improve diversion box with perforated pipe. 14 Ber Spring Buttermilk Good, new in 2004.

15 Scaffold Scaffold Fair, functioning, not in current permit, add to new permit.

Table 3.1.28. Libby allotment fences. Name Miles Condition Chicamun-Smith 1.5 Upper end is beyond repair and overgrown with vegetation. This was temporarily electric fenced in 2009. The permanent wire fence will need replacing. Lower end in fair condition. Maintenance is joint with both permittees Meadow Boundary .75 Fair Chicamun Drift .5 Two short fences off of each of the two north corners of Larson‟s private property, good condition. Alder/Smith 1.5 Fair Lookout ridge 1.5 Fair Alder Creek Wing .25 Fair

Table 3.1.29. Libby allotment water developments (Elderberry, Chicamun). No. Name Condition 4 Nickel Canyon Good, excellent water development with easy cattle access. 5 Chicamun Central Excellent, recently developed, large spring fenced. 6 Hornet draw Good, recently developed.

Table 3.1.30. Libby allotment water developments (Alder, Smith Canyon). No. Name Condition 1 Cabin Fair, spring dry in 2008 and 2009. 2 Echo Good, fence and spring box maintained in 2009 and light flow to trough. 3 Lookout Draw Fair, trough has a triangular hole in bottom but can be mended with a patch, light flow to trough, trough needs resetting, spring fence should be made smaller as fence is much larger than spring source. 4 Government Springs Excellent, new fence around spring and pond in 2010, a second trough installed in 2009, good flow. 5 Elderberry-Mud Good, spring fence needs extended, trough needs some braces replaced. 6 Deke Good, new spring fence, new box installed and trough stabilized in 2009. 7 Elderberry (upper) Fair, need to replace trough and move it out of draw, good spring early but dried up by July in 2009. 8 Alder-Lookout Poor, needs reconstructing. Needs new trough and fence. Box may be functional if cleaned out. 9 Smoke Jumper Fair, spring fence in good condition, spring dry in 2008 and 2009, may not be adequate water in spring, look at potential to develop spring down road from current WD. Driveways

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--29

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Name Miles Condition Smith Canyon 1 Good

Table 3.1.31. Poorman allotment fences. No Name Miles Condition and Maintenance 1 Blakely Canyon Drift .5 Good 2 North Blakely Drift .25 Good – not in existing permit

Table 3.1.32. Poorman allotment water developments. No Name Condition 1 Blakely #1 Fair, good spring, good flow from box, trough needs replacing 2 Blakely #2 Fair, good spring, good flow from box, spring fence needs improving 3 Blakely #3 Good, new spring box and fence in 2009 5 Grouse Spring Fair, both a log and a steel trough, large spring area fenced 6 Jud Good, new trough and box in 2009

Environmental Consequences Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1 This alternative would discontinue grazing on the allotments. The three Term Grazing Permits (issued 2004, 2005, and 2009) would be canceled upon implementation of the decision and resolution of any appeals process where the decision is upheld. Pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 part 16.24, this alternative could not be implemented until two years have passed following notification of the affected permittee (36 CFR 222.4 (4) (1)). No permit could be issued for the allotment until a subsequent NEPA decision to re-stock the allotment was made.

No grazing or browsing of forage by livestock would occur in the project area with only forage utilization by wildlife occurring. Vegetation and soil disturbance within the project area would only occur due to natural mechanisms (wind, water, wildlife, wildfire), ongoing projects, and public and administrative activity. No livestock grazing on upland grasses (predominately bunchgrasses) would increase litter accumulation and decrease bare ground. Litter accumulation would insulate the ground, provide some increase in the capture and storage of precipitation, and decrease surface soil movement and erosion. Annual seed production of grasses would increase cover potential depending on the site and environmental conditions. Upland bunchgrass habitat may initially improve but may lose vigor since the positive benefits of cattle foraging on and removing the old vegetation would only happen in the event of fire.

Riparian shrub and herbaceous vegetation, where deficient in seeps, springs, and streams, would increase in density and cover and provide an increase in stream bank stabilization. Due to the dynamic nature of stream systems and natural hydrologic processes, however, this trend may not remain stable through time.

No new range structural improvements would be constructed. Existing improvements such as fences, corrals, and water developments would deteriorate naturally, soon becoming non-functional. Wood components of fences and corrals would eventually decompose, metal components would not. Barbed wire fence strands would lose tension, become more hazardous for wildlife (Chapter

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--30

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.6 Terrestrial Wildlife), and eventually fall to the ground remaining a hazard for certain wildlife species.

Alternative 2 Capable and suitable range acres would be changed with new pastures and fencing.

Table 3.1.33. Range capability and suitability for proposed allotments and pasture boundaries. Allotment/Pasture Name Proposed Pasture Boundaries Proposed Proposed Difference Capable Acres Suitable Acres (Proposed Capable-Suitable) Little Bridge Allotment

Meyers 3405 3226 179 Midnight 1512 1512 0 Bridge 4392 4310 82 Canyon 1601 1601 0 Lime 2384 2384 0 Culbertson 993 993 0 Total 14287 14026 261 Lookout Mt. Allotment

Alder 1190 1190 0 Ben 1205 1205 0 Blakely-Grouse 1418 1262 156 Buttermilk 1468 1431 37 Chicamun 1490 1406 84 East 1076 774 302 Elderberry 466 466 0 Hornet 1272 1244 28 Mission 2892 2892 0 Poorman 1557 1557 0 Scaffold 1181 1141 39 Shady 2008 2008 0 Smith 1116 1116 0 West 422 422 0 Total 18761 18114 646 Grand Total 33049 32140 907

Acre difference between Existing and Proposed Little Bridge. Capable Acres Suitable Acres Little Bridge Existing 14291 14284 Little Bridge Proposed 14287 14026 Difference -4 -258

Acre difference between Existing and Proposed Lookout Mountain. Capable Acres Suitable Acres Newby, Poorman, Libby Existing 18492 18279 Lookout Mountain Proposed 18761 18114 Difference +269 -165

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--31

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

The following tables compare alternative 2 to the current condition. The current condition is the level of livestock use under modified rotation as described in the Existing Condition section above – generally, cattle are grazed at a higher intensity with a shorter duration. Under the current condition, for the past 10 years, the permittees chose to graze 90% of permitted numbers which is the minimum allowed without penalty under the current permit with the exception of Poorman and Smith Canyon and Alder units of the Libby allotment that were grazed with full numbers in 2002-2004. The Smith Canyon within the Libby allotment and the Poorman allotment have been rested under nonuse more than grazed over the past 10 years and the level of head months (HM) are based on when these allotments/pastures were actually grazed. The numbers within the table for alternative 2 are assuming that 100% of permitted livestock are grazed. The permittees may choose to graze 90% under Alternative 2.

Under Alternative 2, the pastures within the Newby allotment area would be grazed with the equivalent of 85 cow/calf (c/c) pair for 138 days which is 386 HM; the pastures within the Libby allotment area would be grazed with the equivalent of 167 c/c pair for 138 days which is 758 HM; and the Poorman allotment area would be grazed by the equivalent of 44 c/c pairs for 138 days which is 200 HM.

Table 3.1.34. Current livestock use and proposed livestock use. Allotment Head Months Alternative 2 Current Condition Odd Even Average years years Little Bridge Allotment 815 409 896 661 Newby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 386 536 660 610 Libby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 758 969 335 660 Poorman (within Lookout Mt.) 200 196 194 202 Proposed Lookout Mt. Allotment Total 1344 1701 1189 1472 Little Bridge and Lookout Mt. Total 2181 2110 2085 2133

Table 3.1.35. Current livestock numbers and proposed livestock numbers. Number of cow/calf pairs Allotment Alternative 2 Current Condition Little Bridge Allotment 200 277 Newby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 169 260 Libby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 296 (169+127) 357 Poorman (within Lookout Mt.) 127 to 169 127

The level of livestock forage use in each pasture would be moderated compared to current condition where HM in the late season pastures in the current Newby allotment would be greatly reduced each year and forage use in the current Chicamun and Mission pastures of the Libby allotment would be greatly reduced from the level of use on even years to a more moderate level each year. There would be some variability in the level of use under alternative 2 but not to the extent of the management in the current condition.

The grazing strategy under alternative 2 would provide for proper pasture rest or deferment, splitting numbers of cattle between pastures and for concentrating cattle in pastures if needed. The grazing strategy would be flexible to provide variability in the level of use in each of the pastures from year to year.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--32

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Under Alternative 2, the permits associated with each of the allotments would be modified to allow for a May 1 turn-on date on years when range readiness indicators are reached by that date. This would not result in a longer grazing season; earlier turn-on would result in an earlier off date. This change would provide more flexibility to graze an early season pasture at the time that the range is ready. By shifting more use to the early season, this alternative would match the best timing of use of the upland vegetation in early May when it is highly nutritious. Conversely, in the late summer the upland forage has grown old and is lower in quality than the riparian vegetation and livestock will shift forage consumption to riparian shrubs with the potential for streambank damage. When possible, a shift of some grazing use from the late season to early season would result in improved riparian condition throughout the allotment.

The permit(s) associated with each of the allotments would allow only cattle or horses as the permitted livestock. This would include cow/calf pairs, yearlings (over 6 months old), and bulls. Typically the class of cattle is cow/calf pairs. The ratio of bulls to cow/calf pairs should approximate 1 bull per 25 cow/calf pairs. When yearlings are substitued for cow/calf pairs, there would be no Animal Unit conversions. 1 cow/calf pair would equal 1 yearling (over 6 months old).

There would be 7 Critical Designated Monitoring Areas with “move triggers” of 15% bank alteration; 2 in Little Bridge Creek, 3 in Buttermilk Creek, 1 in Libby Creek, and 1 in lower Poorman Creek (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The 7 Critical DMAs were selected solely to monitor effects to habitat for Federally listed fish species. These Critical DMAs would be monitored during the grazing use periods and when streambank alteration reaches the trigger point of 15%, cattle would be required to be moved to another unit, to an alternate area of lighter use, or fenced out of the riparian area. Critical DMAs are not representative of the level of use on the entire stream, or representative of the level of use in the uplands, the higher level of use at the Critical DMA may be the highest level of use within the entire pasture. Moving cattle when the 15% trigger point is reached at Critical DMAs would ensure the long-term sustainability of the riparian resource at the Critical DMA site and also other riparian and upland areas within the pasture which would be consistent with fisheries goals and objectives; Under this scenario, livestock may need to be moved to the next pasture well before the scheduled pasture move date and before allowable use standards are reached on available riparian and upland forage outside the Critical DMA location. In early and mid season pastures, early removal from a pasture would put more grazing pressure on the later season pastures that would benefit from lighter grazing use during a time when there is a higher potential for cattle to concentrate near riparian areas. When trigger points are reached in Critical DMAs within early season pastures, moving cattle to an alternate area of lighter use within the affected pasture or temporarily fencing out the riparian area would be an ecological benefit to the late season pastures. Ultimately, there is potential for early cattle removal from the allotment when the trigger point is reached in an early season pasture. Effectively excluding cattle from the DMA site with fencing would potentially meet both objectives.

Effects Specific to Little Bridge Allotment The Little Bridge allotment would be managed on its own as a stand-alone allotment rather than in conjunction with the other allotments. The permitted use would be for the equivalent of 200 cow/calf pairs from May 16 to September 16. The number of livestock currently permitted would be reduced by 32 c/c pair which is a 145 HM reduction. As a stand-alone allotment, no more than 200 c/c pairs would be grazed on the allotment. There would no longer be permitted cattle numbers from the Newby and Libby allotments combined in with the Little Bridge numbers for the early portion of the use period. Grazing a maximum of 200 c/c pairs would be a 77 c/c pair reduction from the highest number of cattle grazed on the allotment under the current rotation (277 on even years).

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--33

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

All of the steelhead trout spawning habitat on Little Bridge Creek would be excluded by extending the existing riparian exclosure fence on lower Little Bridge Creek approximately 2 miles upstream. With the entire area of critical steelhead spawning habitat excluded from cattle access, the rangeland along both sides of the creek could be grazed before July 15th. This would provide more opportunities for grazing the uplands early season without the risk of cattle stepping on steelhead redds. The exclusion would include the entire Little Bridge Creek riparian area including the abandoned beaver pond area near the Sheep Creek confluence with Little Bridge Creek. Protecting these areas would improve the riparian vegetation, streambank stability, and beaver dams. Exclusion fencing may be the most practical approach for initiating rapid riparian recovery or improving highly sensitive areas (Wyman et al. 2006). The potential negative impacts would be that the livestock impacts could be shifted to areas outside the exclosure to the tributary streams and to the riparian area above the exclosures. The tributary streams outside of the exclosure and Little Bridge Creek above the exclosure, are higher gradient, less accessible to cattle, and less sensitive to cattle impacts. The exclusion of cattle from the mainstem Little Bridge Creek is unlikely to increase impacts to the tributary streams and would have a net benefit to the riparian resources.

The construction of the riparian cattle exclusion fence in upper Little Bridge Creek would provide new opportunities to graze the proposed Culbertson pasture (west side of lower L. Bridge Cr.) and lower Bridge pasture (Spring and Cow Creek areas) early – prior to July 15. The fence would stop early season drift into the critical steelhead spawning habitat.

In the early season of use – May, June, and early July, monitoring found that forage in the Lime pasture exceeded allowable use standards in 2006 and 2008 and while this grazing rotation provided a strategy to protect ESA listed fish (see existing conditions), the stocking rate exceeded allowable use standards. The 145 HM reduction in conjunction with combining Newby and Libby numbers in the early season would provide adequate opportunities for reducing the level of grazing use in the Lime pasture. On odd years the 200 c/c pair would be grazed in the early season with approximately 100 c/c in the Meyers unit and 100 c/c in the lower Bridge (Spring and Cow Creek areas). On even years the cattle would be split between Lime and Canyon unit with fewer cattle in any one pasture so the stocking rate would be reduced in the Lime pasture from 176 down to 100. The new Culbertson unit could be used with the Lime and Canyon pastures or with the Meyers and the lower Bridge area. The combination of reducing permitted livestock, not combining permitted cattle numbers from the Newby and Libby allotments, and shifting early season grazing use from Lime pasture to other pastures would benefit the rangeland by matching the best timing to graze with early season grasses.

Late season pastures would be upper Bridge, Midnight, and lower Bridge and Canyon units which could be grazed late on a deferred rotation on years when they are not grazed early. If spawning surveys document bull trout in upper Little Bridge Creek then the cattle move date to upper Bridge and Midnight units would be August 31. In order to graze cattle on the allotment until September 15th, cattle would be moved to either the Canyon unit or the west side of lower Bridge unit to graze from August 31 to September 15, provided there was adequate late season forage available. There is limited water in Meyers and Lime pastures during this time and these pastures are not likely suitable as an alternate late season pasture. If there is no available alternate late season forage cattle would be removed entirely from the allotment two weeks early. The grazing strategy would provide for proper deferment or rest in all pastures used.

Felling 10 to 15 trees on the unnamed tributary near the end of road 4415 in Little Bridge Creek would limit cattle access to the riparian area and reduce the potential for streambank alteration and riparian shrub browse by cattle. Cattle don‟t usually move across lands with heavy down wood.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--34

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Maintenance and reconstruction of the existing water developments within the allotment would provide consistent water and would be effective in redistributing cattle in the uplands. Livestock prefer to drink from a tank rather than from a stream or pond. They do not have to stretch their heads below their feet to drink and they prefer the tank because of problems with depth perception and behaviors adapted for predator avoidance (Wyman et al. 2006). Completing the unfenced portion of the Bridge Creek Saddle fence would reduce the potential for cattle drift into Little Bridge Creek if bull trout are found in Upper Little Bridge Creek when the Canyon pasture is needed as a late season pasture.

Effects Specific to Lookout Mountain Allotment Combining the Libby, Newby, and Poorman allotments into one allotment with 14 grazing units would greatly increase management flexibility by making all the units available for use under one grazing system. The increased flexibility would provide the management opportunities to reduce direct and indirect impacts to listed fish and to best manage riparian areas. The proposed action would simplify the management of the allotments under the complex current rotation (described in existing conditions). Grazing strategies would be designed to alternate the season of use to provide for proper deferment in each unit. Repetitive grazing of pastures in the hot dry season would be reduced, and the construction of fences creating new pastures would create opportunities for new grazing strategies to better use the earlier season grasses. The current rotation limits the use of some pastures to be grazed only in the hot dry season after July 15th to avoid conflict with the spawning period of steelhead trout. The early season range in the current Buttermilk and Scaffold units could be grazed before July 15th under the proposed action. In 2010, with the listing of steelhead in Libby Creek, Ben Canyon and Hornet Draw would also be made available to early season grazing with the proposed fencing. Fence construction to eliminate cattle access to streams in early season rangelands within the proposed Lookout Mountain allotment would provide opportunities to graze these pastures early and better match the best timing of use for that forage resource.

There would be an overall reduction in HMs under Alternative 2 from the existing condition. There would be a large reduction in the number of livestock authorized to graze the Lookout Mountain Allotment compared to the current rotation in the Libby, Newby, and Poorman allotments. The total numbers authorized for these allotments would drop from the previously authorized 357 cow/calf pairs to 296 pairs on the Libby Allotment and from 260 to 169 on the Newby allotment. There would not be a reduction in numbers from the current rotation on the Poorman allotment and numbers would actually increase in some years. The overall grazing strategy on the proposed Lookout Mountain allotment would result in fewer numbers and more flexibility.

Under past grazing rotations cattle used the Chicamun pasture (Figure 3.1.2) early every other year (May 15 to June 24, Table 3.1.3) then moved into the Mission pasture. This put cattle in the area of Libby Creek where steelhead spawn prior to July 15 (end of spawning period). Under the proposed alternative 2, Ben Canyon, Elderberry Canyon, Chicamun, Hornet Draw, Smith Canyon, and Poorman (Blakely/Grouse) would be available as early season pastures in a rotation with 169 cow/calf pairs or cattle could be split between pastures at a lower grazing intensity. Grazing systems would be developed to ensure the best timing and duration in each pasture for the 296 cow/calf pairs. Alternative 2 would provide more pasture rotation opportunities so Hornet Draw and Chicamun pastures could be grazed under a shorter duration rotation or until July 15 at a lower intensity.

If monitoring indicates that rest is needed in any of the units, new rotations may be developed and scheduled annually through the flexibility gained by combining the three allotments. The timing, duration, and intensity of grazing would be flexible to the extent possible for all units to provide the

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--35

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

best management opportunities to reduce impacts to riparian areas and listed fish.

In 2009, 2 of the 3 developed springs in the Alder unit dried up late in the season which is an indication that water availability can be very limited in this pasture. As the proposed Poorman and Blakely/Grouse units (current Poorman allotment) have adequate late season water and cattle can be moved directly between these pastures, the flexibility gained from Alt 2 would provide a means of constantly grazing cattle to the permitted off date without early removal.

An unnamed spring on the private land boundary in Chicamun Canyon would be developed with construction of cattle exclusion fence to provide livestock water without the potential to impact the spring. The development of a water trough at this location is not expected to change the management of the pasture but would protect the spring while continuing to make the associated forage available to cattle. Making the water available would retain the current level of livestock distribution.

The level of use that would be authorized to graze in the current Buttermilk/Scaffold unit of the Newby allotment would be greatly reduced under alternative 2 with the construction of approximately 3 miles of pasture division fence and not combining livestock numbers from the Little Bridge allotment. Authorized use in the current Newby allotment would be reduced from 610 HMs down to 386 HMs in Alternative 2 with all of the HM reduction in the Buttermilk/Scaffold unit. Approximately 1.5 mile of division fence would be constructed to prevent access to the Buttermilk streams within the current Buttermilk/Scaffold unit and creates the proposed Shady pasture. While in the Shady unit, cattle would not have access to steelhead habitat and the alternative provides for maximum flexibility in the season of use for the rangeland on the eastside of East Fork Buttermilk (including the lower mainstem Buttermilk Creek) because early season forage previously precluded from grazing before July 15 would be available as soon as the range is ready – likely June 1. This would better match the best timing of use for that forage resource. Shifting the timing of use earlier in the season on some years and reducing authorized use to well below current levels would reduce use in riparian areas, including the wet meadow/beaver pond systems.

The construction of fence on the west side of West Fork Buttermilk Creek would create suitable range that would otherwise not be suitable to be grazed after August 31 with designation of bull trout critical habitat within the proposed Scaffold unit. The fence would be constructed in segments tied into steep slopes and dense vegetation to provide an effective barrier to cattle accessing bull trout spawning areas on East Fork Buttermilk Creek after August 31.

The eastern boundary of the current Libby allotment would be shifted west to the ridgeline that separates Smith Canyon from Puckett Creek and Booth Canyon. The current line matches the Forest boundary where the topography is mostly very steep and the area is unfenced and mid-slope against private land. Cattle have never been intentionally placed in this area of the allotment. Cattle permitted to use the Libby allotment are physically limited from moving east of the ridgeline, however some limited drift does occur. Once drift occurs, cattle tend to move on down to private land. This boundary shift would reduce the size of the Libby allotment by approximately 3600 acres but would better reflect the capacity of the allotment. The northern boundary of the current Newby allotment would be shifted upstream to where an existing fence and cattle guard prevent cattle from accessing the lower 1 mile of Buttermilk Creek. This would reduce the total area by ~550 acres and would reflect where cattle can currently access. The reduction in the size of the allotment would not reduce the amount of forage available for grazing as most all of the forage in the areas eliminated from the allotments are not within capable range.

The Poorman allotment was grazed season long (5/16-9/30) as a stand-alone allotment with 44 c/c

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--36

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

pair from 1976 to 1998 (see existing condition section above). The current rotation is combined with the Libby allotment with higher numbers under a much shorter period of use. The Poorman allotment has no pasture division fences with only limited physical barriers separating the existing delineated grazing units (Figure 3.1.1) with some level of livestock drift throughout the allotment. Under Alternative 2 the Poorman allotment would be managed with two more defined pastures. The pasture boundary would be on the most logical physical barriers with Blakely and Grouse Canyons grazed together as these pastures are currently connected by a main cattle trail.. The remainder of the allotment, the old Powderhouse and Black Pine pastures would be grazed as a separate unit. There would be some drift across the boundary, but this configuration would be more manageable than trying to manage the original 4 pasture delineation as separate grazing units. The proposed Poorman and Blakely/Grouse units would not be scheduled for season-long use and would be grazed at a higher intensity for a much shorter duration. A season long grazing strategy of 44 c/c pairs for a full season of use (138 day) would potentially encourage localized passive continuous grazing adjacent to the riparian areas. The shorter season of use would take advantage of cattle‟s seasonal preferences for upland forage in the rotation with Blakely/Grouse being early season forage which would be grazed early to mid season and the Poorman unit with more late- season forage being grazed later in the year. The current Powderhouse unit within the proposed Poorman pasture is an exception because of its predominantly early season forage, but no physical barrier separates this unit from the Poorman unit. Some forage would be grazed in this area from drift out of the Grouse Canyon area or cattle may be moved to this pasture. The water developments that are functioning to facilitate cattle distribution in the uplands would be maintained.

Managing the Libby, Newby, and Poorman allotments under the old stand-alone management plans is no longer feasible with limited pasture rotation opportunities because of Federal listing of steelhead and bull trout, and would not provide enough flexibility to avoid livestock access to streams with active steelhead and bull trout spawning every year. The proposed action would allow flexible rotations to schedule grazing in the Buttermilk and Mission units after July 15 to avoid use during the steelhead spawning period and rotations in the Buttermilk unit only prior to August 31 to avoid the bull trout spawning season.

Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects analysis considers effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the LLBNP allotments. The geographic boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the entire LLBNP allotments project area plus the adjacent Wolf and Buttermilk allotments. The temporal boundary is approximately 100 years in the past when livestock grazing in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again.

Past and Present Actions The existing condition information serves as a proxy for the impacts of past actions in this analysis. Past actions that have affected range resources and their effects are summarized here. Transitory range is currently available for forage within most of the grazing units of the analysis area from past timber sales. As time passes, the forage availability would be reduced as the tree canopy closes. Shade tolerant species would out-compete less shade tolerant species. Over time (20 years), trees would again dominate, resulting in the associated shrubs, herbs and grasses becoming less abundant due to the corresponding increase in canopy cover and associated increased shading (Naumburg and DeWald 1999, Host 1988, McConnell and Smith 1970).

The permitted number of cattle would be reduced by 32 c/c pairs from 232 down to 200. Looking at this reduction from a historical perspective, this is a 46% reduction from the level of use in the

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--37

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

1940s when the the permitted use was 300 c/c pair from 5/16 to 10/15. There has not been a stand- alone grazing strategy since 1991 and, as stated above, the rotation at that time was not meeting resource objectives. The stocking rate in the early 1990s was 33% higher than the proposed action stocking rate, and the most limiting factors were the lack of adequate water distribution in the Lime and Canyon units for that many cattle. The very large stocking rate reductions in the past, combined with the stocking rate reduction of the proposed action would bring the management of the allotment in line with the resource objectives.

Past and present noxious weed treatments within the LLBNP allotments include manual, chemical, mechanical, cultural and bio-control methods. Treatment sites occur in each allotment where weed populations exceed damage thresholds. Lower rates of noxious weed spread are now occurring as a result of these treatments. Noxious weed treatments would result in improved range conditions.

On-going and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Fuels treatments associated with the TPR Project in Little Bridge Creek are planned for completion within the next few years. The Deer unit of TPR is a landscape burn approximately 770 acres in size. Approximately 270 acres have been burned and 500 remain. Treatments would reduce slash levels and cause mortality of some small trees. Prescribed burns typically rejuvenate grasses, forbs, and shrubs and enhance forage production. The grazing rotation patterns may need to be adjusted to allow burned areas to revegetate without grazing for awhile. Overall, burning would allow better distribution of livestock because of new forage production.

The Mission Forest and Fuels Project is scheduled for planning in 2012 and includes commercial timber harvest, timber stand improvement activities, fuels reduction activities, and road management. Removal of trees allows more sunlight exposure to the ground, allowing increased levels of grasses and forbs. This would increase the amount of transitory range, which helps attract cattle to upland areas, increasing distribution and lessening impacts to riparian areas. Proposed road decommissioning and road relocation would reduce levels of sediment reaching streams.

Timber harvest and prescribed burning are expected to have an added net benefit to the livestock grazing effects of the AMP revision by increasing available transitory range and improving cattle distribution.

Ongoing grazing on national forest system lands would continue on the adjacent Forest Service Wolf allotment. Past inspections have found a few late season stray cattle in the Little Bridge allotment from the Wolf allotment due to drift across the boundary which has contributed to a slight increase in the level of forage utilization and disturbance. Changes in management of the Wolf allotment have reduced the level of drift. The low level of drift is not expected to add to the livestock grazing effects of the AMP revision. The adjacent Buttermilk Sheep allotment is currently vacant with no drift potential.

Fire suppression continues to reduce the amount of transitory range. Active fire suppression has changed the natural fire cycle from frequent, low-intensity fires that kept the forest structure in a savanna type structure to much less frequent fires resulting in the development of dense ponderosa pine stands and reduced forage production (Borman 2004). Fire suppression will continue to reduce upland forage production and would add to the effects of the AMP revision by limiting optimal livestock distribution and concentrating livestock use in the primary foraging areas. 2000). When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall affect will be better distribution of livestock and improved range conditions.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--38

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES This section describes the condition of the aquatic habitat and lists the associated sensitive aquatic species along with the environmental consequences of the proposed action to those species and their habitats.

Regulatory Framework The Okanogan Forest Plan provides direction for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman project area (USDA Forest Service 1989a). The desired condition (DC) is for habitat that supports fish rearing, spawning, and migration will be in an improved state; riparian areas will continue to display riparian ecosystem values; aquatic habitat to support threatened and endangered species will be protected in accordance with recovery plans; and water yield and quality will be substantially the same (USDA Forest Service 1989a page 4-5). Fish habitat management objectives that apply to this project are: to maintain and improve fish habitat capability, and integrate fish and riparian habitat management into other multiple use activities. Pertinent goals to the proposed activity under the Okanogan Forest Plan are for fish habitat to be managed to maintain or enhance its biological, chemical, and physical qualities. The structural and functional properties of aquatic systems will be managed to promote bank and channel stability and riparian areas will be managed to provide a continuing supply of large wood for fish habitat (USDA Forest Service 1989a page 4-2).

Okanogan Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that apply to this project include: 1) maintain biological, chemical, and physical qualities of Forest fish habitat; 2) manage activities to not result in exceeding current Washington State water quality standards; and 3) sediment in fishery streams shall be maintained at levels low enough to support good reproductive success of fish populations as well as adequate instream food production by indigenous aquatic communities to support those populations1 (USDA Forest Service 1989a pg 4-30-32).

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) amended the Okanogan Forest Plan in 1994 (USDA and USDI 1994). The NWFP includes an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) with four components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. In addition, the ACS includes nine objectives to guide management of National Forest System lands at the watershed scale that focus on maintaining and/or improving conditions and processes associated with streams and adjacent riparian areas (section 3.3 of this chapter). Standards and Guidelines in the NWFP for Riparian Reserves of particular relevance to the project include: adjust or eliminate grazing practices to eliminate impacts that reduce or prevent attainment of ACS objectives; ensure existing livestock facilities inside Riparian Reserves meet ACS objectives; limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, loading, and other handling efforts to those areas and times that will ensure ACS objectives are met; (USDA and USDI 1994:C-31 to C-33).

All the watershed analyses for the project area were reviewed and statements regarding grazing are summarized in Chapter 1 (page 1-7).

As part of the overall ACS, Key Watersheds were established to act as refugia and provide high

1 Okanogan Forest Plan standard for fines (<1.0mm) in spawning areas (pool tail-outs and glides) should be maintained at less than 20 percent as the area weighted average.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--39

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

quality habitat for aquatic species. Priorities within Key Watersheds include maintaining and recovering at-risk fish stocks (USDA and USDI 1994:B-19). Tier 1 Key Watersheds contribute directly to the conservation of at risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout and resident fish species in the Methow Sub-basin. The Twisp tier 1 Key Watershed does not overlap exactly with USGS 5th field watersheds used elsewhere in this document.

The Endangered Species Act, Okanogan Forest Plan direction, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require that consultation be completed with respect to effects of proposed activities on Endangered, Threatened, Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 directs the Forest Service to analyze effects of projects on Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Forest Plan, and to maintain viable populations of Sensitive Species identified by the Regional Forester. The species and habitats of concern in the project are described later in this section. An aquatic Biological Assessment was completed as part of this analysis and for consultation purposes. The entire Biological Assessment is incorporated by reference and is located in the project record, located at the Methow Valley Ranger District. The analysis and conclusions of the assessment are summarized below. Consultation was conducted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Methods for Analysis Information used to establish baseline conditions, fish population trends, and fish distribution in the project area came from several sources. The Middle Methow, Twisp River, and Lower Methow River watershed baseline updates included in the Biological Assessment (BA) (USDA 2010) provided information on the status of fish habitat and populations in the project area. Forest Service and Bureau of Reclamation Level II stream survey reports on major fish-bearing streams in the project area between 1996 and 2010 (USDA 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011; USDI 2008, 2009), the above watershed baselines, field observations, consultation with other sub-basin professionals, and analysis of aerial photos identified baseline aquatic habitat conditions. Geographic Information System data identified baseline miles of streams. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) spawning ground surveys (Snow et al. 2008) provided data on spawning distribution and abundance of spring Chinook and steelhead. Bull trout spawning distribution and relative abundance came from the most recent Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest‟s Methow Sub-Basin Bull Trout Redd Survey Report 2008 (USDA 2009c).

Existing Condition The proposed project is located primarily in the Twisp and Lower Methow River 5th-field watersheds with a small piece in the Middle Methow watershed. The Little Bridge and Buttermilk Creek drainages are within the Twisp River Tier 1 Key Watersheds (USDA and USDI 1994) (Northwest Forest Plan). For analysis purposes, unless otherwise noted, the scale of analysis includes the following drainages which total about 75,000 acres: Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Twisp River (lower), Poorman Creek, Methow River (between Twisp and Carlton), and Libby Creek.

Limiting factors for fish habitat and fish populations in the analysis area are low base flows, excessive summer water temperatures, moderate to high fine sediment in fish bearing tributaries, and habitat loss on private lands in the lower Twisp River, Buttermilk Creek, and Libby Creek. Water quality throughout the Twisp and Lower Methow Watersheds is variable. Individual reaches may not meet one or more of the minimum habitat objectives such as pools per mile, water temperature, large woody material (LWM) per mile, and/or width-to-depth ratios.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--40

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Past management activities, such as timber harvest within riparian areas, road construction, and livestock grazing, have impacted streams by reducing shade, altering streamside vegetation and increasing sediment input.

Fish Species and Habitat The project analysis area contains habitat for fish species listed under the ESA, Regional Forester‟s Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), and species for which Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Table 3.2.1).

Table 3.2.1: Fish species present in the project analysis area by category. ESA R6 Sensitive MIS EFH Spring Chinook Chinook Spring Chinook Westslope Westslope (Endangered) Cutthroat Coho Cutthroat Summer Steelhead Interior Redband Interior Redband (Threatened) Rainbow Rainbow Bull Trout Steelhead (Threatened) Bull Trout Eastern Brook Trout

All three 5th-field watersheds contain designated critical habitat and federally endangered Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook, threatened Upper Columbia River steelhead, and Columbia River bull trout. Spring Chinook occur in the Methow and Twisp rivers, and in the lowest reaches of Little Bridge and Buttermilk Creeks, and lower Libby Creek. No Chinook have been documented directly within actively grazed areas or areas proposed for grazing, though Chinook occur downstream of allotment boundaries including lower Libby Creek within the allotment boundary. Steelhead spawn and rear in the Methow and Twisp Rivers, as well as in multiple smaller streams in the project area, including Little Bridge, Buttermilk, and Libby creeks, and possibly Poorman Creek. Bull trout are present in the Methow and Twisp Rivers and Buttermilk Creek. They have also been documented in low numbers in Little Bridge and Libby creeks over the last two decades. This creates the potential for direct effects to individual juvenile, sub- adult, and adult fish, as well as to redds (fish egg nests).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated the Methow and Twisp rivers as well as short reaches of lower Buttermilk and Poorman creeks as spring Chinook critical habitat. With the exception of lower Buttermilk Creek, where terrain and thick vegetation restrict cattle access, proposed pastures do not overlap, nor occur directly adjacent to, spring Chinook critical habitat. Spring Chinook are also a management indicator species for the Okanogan National Forest.

NMFS designated the Methow and Twisp Rivers, as well as about one-half mile of Little Bridge Creek and the lower mile of Libby Creek as steelhead critical habitat. Actual distribution of steelhead spawning and rearing in the analysis area is much broader. Known overlap of steelhead spawning/rearing habitat and grazing occurs in Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, and Libby Creek. Steelhead are also a management indicator species for the Okanogan National Forest.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--41

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout in the Twisp River, all of the Methow River where project area streams enter, and Little Bridge and Buttermilk creeks throughout the project area. Bull trout spawning occurs in both forks of Buttermilk Creek, and individual adult and sub- adult fish have been documented in Little Bridge and Libby creeks in recent years. Two bull trout were observed in Little Bridge Creek in 1992 and a single bull trout was observed in Libby Creek in 2005; however, no other bull trout have been documented in these creeks in the last few years. Bull trout use may be limited and may include only feeding, migrating, and overwintering (FMO). Bull trout is also an Okanogan Forest Plan Management Indicator Species.

The interior redband rainbow trout (IRRT) is both a Forest Service Regionally Sensitive Species and a management indicator species. Genetically pure IRRT are found in Little Bridge Creek and Buttermilk creeks, with particularly good examples in West Fork Buttermilk Creek. Rainbow trout occur in many other streams within the analysis area, including Libby Creek and Twisp River, but these populations show introgression with coastal rainbow trout strains as well as with cutthroat. Rainbow trout also occur in Poorman Creek and Canyon Creek, though no genetic data are available to categorize these fish.

The westslope cutthroat trout (WSCT) is a Forest Service Regionally Sensitive Species and a management indicator species. Streams within the allotment with WSCT include Buttermilk and NF Libby creeks (Proebstel et al. 1998). WDFW continues to stock many mountain lakes in the sub-basin with WSCT, which has artificially increased WSCT‟s range in the sub-basin. Cutthroat trout likely occur elsewhere in the analysis area, though genetic data are not available for all streams.

The eastern brook trout are present in some analysis area streams. They are not native to the Columbia River Basin; however, as they are resident fish, they are considered a MIS species. See Appendix A for a detailed analysis of aquatic MIS species.

River Lamprey, Umatilla Dace, and Pygmy Whitefish are each Forest Service Regionally Sensitive Species located on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. None are known to occur in the Methow Sub-basin.

Table 3.2.2: Summary of fish distribution in LLBNP Allotment streams and designated critical habitat (CH). SCS O.m. BT WSCT EBT Species1 Dist.2 CH Dist.2 CH Dist.2 CH Dist.2 Dist.2 Twisp River 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 Little Bridge Cr. 30-feet - - 7.7 5.1 2.13 7.7 - - - - Canyon Cr. - - - - 2.7 ------Buttermilk Cr. 1.1 1.1 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 - - WF Buttermilk Cr. - - - - 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - - - - EF Buttermilk Cr. - - - - 5.5 - - 5.5 5.5 2.2 - - Poorman Cr. 0.2 0.2 2.4 ------2.4 Libby Creek unk. - - 6.0 3.4 6.03 - - 3.0 1.03 1 SCS - spring Chinook; O.m. – O. mykiss, includes IRRT, steelhead and resident rainbow trout of unknown genetics; BT - bull trout; WSCT - westslope cutthroat; EBT – eastern brook trout 2 Known distribution in miles.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--42

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3 Based on limited data

Allotment Descriptions The analysis area includes all of the watersheds within the grazing allotments, boundaries activities, and downstream reaches that may be affected indirectly. There are approximately 216 miles of streams within the boundaries of the LLBNP Allotments, including about 149 miles of intermittent streams and about 62 miles of fish-bearing perennial streams.

Elevations range from about 1,700 feet at the bottom of the Libby Allotment to about 7,600 feet on the slopes of Midnight Mountain, on the edge of the Midnight Pasture (Little Bridge Allotment). Topography is generally moderate to steep terrain with small narrow valleys. The terrain and dense vegetation limit cattle access to just a few locations on streams and at road crossings. Vegetation communities across the allotments vary from open ponderosa pine stands and open grass/shrub steppe on southerly slopes, to mixed conifer overstory stands, to dense conifers at the higher elevations. Sixty-nine wetlands are identified across the four allotments.

A total of 16 pastures occur across the four existing allotments. These are described in Table 3.2.3, along with stream and known fish distribution information.

Table 3.2.3: Current LLBNP allotment pastures with streams and fish species Stream Mileage Pasture Acres Sub-watershed (1°, 2°, 3°)1 Perennial Intermittent Fish species2 3

Little Bridge Little Bridge 7229 Little Bridge Cr. 8.4 18.0 Om, BT Allotment Canyon 3590 MUTR, Little Bridge Cr. 4.3 8.0 None Lime 5235 MUTR 11.0 5.8 None 3

Midnight 3315 Little Bridge Cr. 6.7 3.4 Om, BT Myers 8129 Little Bridge, MLTR, LMMR 5.4 20.3 Om, SCS3, BT3 Allotment total 27498 35.8 55.5

Allotment Alder 3714 LMMMR, MLTR 4.6 12.5 EBT Libby Libby Chicamun 5815 Libby Creek 9.3 11.7 Om, BT Mission 7634 Libby Creek 11.6 16.8 Om, WCT, BT3 Smith 6808 Libby Cr., LMMMR, MRTC 5.2 23.6 Om Allotment total 23971 30.7 64.6

Allotment Buttermilk 3906 Buttermilk Creek 3.9 10.5 Om, BT, WCT Newby Newby East 3746 MLTR 3.2 10.8 None Scaffold 6872 Buttermilk Creek, MUTR 9.7 18.9 Om, BT, WCT West 2711 MLTR, Buttermilk Creek 4.8 7.8 None Allotment total 17235 21.6 48.0 Poorman Poorman Allotment Blackpine 1899 MLTR 0.0 6.3 None Lookout 2986 MLTR 2.2 7.0 None Poorman 1860 MLTR 2.8 9.1 Om, EBT Allotment total 6745 5.0 22.4 1MLTR - Mainstem Lower Twisp River; MUTR – Mainstem Upper Twisp River; LMMMR – Lower Mainstem Mid Methow River; MRTC – Methow River Texas Creek; LMMR – Lower Middle Methow River 2BT-bull trout; Om-rainbow/steelhead; SCS-Spring Chinook; WCT-westslope cutthroat; EBT-brook trout

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--43

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3 Based on small number of encounters or minimal information/speculation

Aquatic Habitat Indicators Improper livestock management can affect riparian-stream habitats by five primary habitat types: streambank stability; riparian vegetation; stream temperature; fine sediment levels; and nutrient levels (Platts 1991, Meehan 1991, Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Existing impacts from grazing on these main habitat indicators are included in the following discussions, except the nutrient level discussion, which is discussed in the Water Resources discussion.

Streambanks: Improper livestock grazing on riparian areas in good condition are usually first evident along streambanks (Platts 1990, Cowley 2002). Livestock grazing along streambanks can affect the stream in two main ways: first by changing, reducing or eliminating deep-rooted riparian vegetation; and second, by directly altering the streambank by bank shearing and trampling (Platts 1991).

There is no designated standard for streambank stability in the ONF Forest Plan (1989) so the interdisciplinary team adopted the PACFISH (USDC and USDI 1995) standard for streambank stability of >80% stable.

Existing streambank erosion in surveyed tributary streams and the project area is generally below 10% (i.e. 90% stable). Stream surveys on the major streams demonstrate this with bank stabilities greater than 95% in all fish-bearing streams and >80% in all non-fish-bearing streams, with very few localized exceptions. Ten percent or less of unstable banks throughout a stream is considered to be optimal bank stability (Cowley 2002) and the analyzed adopted guideline of 20%. Exceptions exist for some localized areas where natural erosion is occurring, cattle are accessing the riparian areas at road crossings, or where past timber harvest have either directly caused erosion via vegetation removal or via opening up access to cattle and/or dispersed recreation. Nearly all areas are Rosgen Aa+, A, and B channels, characterized by steep, v- shaped channels, heavy timber cover, thick shrub vegetation, many downed trees, and boulder/cobble-dominated substrates, all factors which combine to deter cattle from nearly all fish-bearing streams. The high level of bank stability across the project area suggests the level of grazing use along fish streams are not reducing bank stability, except in a few small areas described below.

Intermittent channels typically have dense upland type vegetation such as snowberry or dry-site willows. All of these features provide good bank stability and deter cattle access onto banks and into creeks. Based on stream surveys, field visits, aerial photography, and topographic map analysis, estimated at less than 1% of all streams across the allotment are currently being damaged under existing use.

Notable locations in the analysis area where cattle do access and have impacted stream habitat include an approximately one-mile reach of Little Bridge Creek and an approximately 1/8 mile reach of Poorman Creek. In each of these locations, access is easy for cattle due to flat- bottomed valley bottoms, parallel roads, and other topographic factors.

In Little Bridge Creek, bank erosion averages about 2% along the eight miles of surveyed creek (USDA 2006); however, active streambank erosion was elevated in the two-mile reach above FS Road 4415-100 from cattle use. Some shorter reaches within this area exceeded values considered properly functioning, due to cattle impacts. A range fence at this location excludes cattle from below and possibly concentrates cattle above this location. The entire length of known steelhead spawning habitat above the existing exclosure consists of about 2.1 miles of

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--44

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

stream.

The lower reaches of Poorman Creek, immediately above the range fence include a short hotspot where streambank erosion approaches the adopted PACFISH standard and is elevated (but within that standard) for about one mile upstream.

Buttermilk and Libby creeks and their fish-bearing tributaries have very stable banks, well within accepted standards. Areas used by cattle were limited to small, dispersed locations where access is gained at road crossings or from historic timber harvest areas, and amount to less than 1% of the linear distance of the creeks. Adopted streambank alteration standards were exceeded in non-fish-bearing Blackpine Creek (Buttermilk tributary) and West Fork Canyon Creek (Twisp River tributary). Exceedences are indicative of small areas of high use on these streams (aka hotspots), which are generally reflect that thick vegetation, steep terrain, and other factors make cattle stream access difficult elsewhere. The only exception in the Libby Creek sub-watershed is the shores of Mission Pond, where cattle exclusion fencing was recently completed.

Riparian Vegetation: There are no quantitative standards for monitoring riparian vegetation in the project area. The qualitative standard followed is from the Northwest Forest Plans ACS which states, “Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.”

Across the remaining allotments, most riparian areas lie in steep terrain and/or have dense, mature vegetation, which limits livestock use and, subsequently, impacts from livestock are little to none, or spatially distant from streams. These areas have mature or mid-seral aged conifer and hardwood trees along streams that provide functioning shade and bank stability or are inaccessible due to steep terrain. Therefore, most riparian areas are either properly functioning or on a positive trend, typically in previously harvested areas where vegetation recovery and seral stage advancement is still occurring. Livestock are not retarding their condition or development.

Common impacts in heavier-use areas include physical damage to vegetation by rubbing, trampling, and browsing, soil compaction, and reductions in riparian soil litter layer (Kauffman and Krueger 1984, Green and Kauffman 1995). Based on monitoring, field observations, and aerial photo and topographic map analysis, these areas combine to equal only a small proportion of the project area.

Existing impacts to Riparian Reserve from grazing, such as reduced riparian vegetation and compaction, are minimal across the allotment and immeasurable against the larger drivers of riparian condition (roads and historic timber harvest).

Riparian vegetation along fish-bearing streams consists of three dominant community types: conifer, mixed deciduous/conifer woodland, and shrub. Streams occurring in conifer-dominated forests naturally have large quantities of large wood in the channel which provides channel structure and fish habitat. Streams within mixed deciduous/conifer woodlands and shrub generally do not have high quantities of large wood. Instead, boulders, cobbles, and bedrock provide the dominant channel structure and cover for fish.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--45

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Riparian vegetation, especially hardwoods and conifers, aids in maintaining stream temperatures by providing shade, and tends to keep streams warmer in the winter, reducing formation of anchor ice that can cause fish mortality. Streambank vegetation also provides hiding cover for fish and provides nutrient and food input.

Outside of existing roads and clear cuts, the majority of the Riparian Reserves within the analysis area are in good condition or are improving from past disturbances. A small proportion of the reserves are at-risk due to roads or past timber harvests. In these areas, cattle and dispersed recreational use in Riparian Reserves result in impacts to habitat quality. Improved riparian management has led to improving trends to habitat quality.

Activities such as the Respect the River program, road decommissioning, and current management direction from the original and Northwest Forest Plan provide protection to riparian areas. This has largely led to the restoration or improvement of most riparian areas. Riparian areas with previously higher impacts, such as along Little Bridge Creek, are improving and beginning to provide good riparian function, including providing natural large wood recruitment.

Grazing related impacts to riparian vegetation consist of vegetation browsing and trampling in localized areas along Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, upper Canyon Creek, Poorman Creek, Libby Creek and some locations along small, upland tributaries across the allotment. Much of the landscape is steep with dense vegetation that limits livestock access to streams and riparian areas. Consequently, livestock effects are primarily restricted to road crossing areas and old clear-cuts and impacts do not reach levels sufficient to be measurable at sub- watershed or watershed scales. The Riparian Reserves along about one mile of Little Bridge Creek, a portion of lower Poorman Creek, and around Mission Pond in the Libby Creek sub- watershed are the areas with the greatest impacts from livestock across the allotment.

Overall, the Riparian Reserves in the project area are considered on an upward trend but functioning at risk due to localized impacts associated with past timber practice, road densities, and cattle and dispersed recreation infiltration within riparian reserves. Most impacts are not associated directly with cattle, but are a synergistic effect of roads, past timber harvest and dispersed recreation these are all on an improving trend.

Temperature: Water temperature influences the metabolism, behavior, and health of fish and other aquatic organisms. In general, juvenile salmonids have approximate preferred temperature ranges of about 54° F (12°C) to 59°F (15°C) (Ferguson 1958, Countant 1977, Jobling 1981, McCullough, 1999). Bull trout are one of the temperature dependent fish species and require some of the coldest water. They prefer temperatures below 50°F (10°C) and are typically rare where maximum temperatures exceed 59°F (15°C) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1997; Rieman et al. 1997; Haas 2001).

The Forest Plan water temperature standard directs the Forest to meet state water quality standards and prevent measurable increases in water temperature (1989 Forest Plan Watershed S&G-2-19). According to the Washington Department of Ecology this would mean maintaining maximum water temperatures at or below 64°F (18°C) within migration and rearing habitat and below 61°F (16°C) within spawning habitats (DOE 2008).

Stream temperatures are generally low in higher elevation streams and higher at lower elevations, ranging from functioning at risk to not properly functioning based on ESA standards. Natural climatic and physical conditions are likely major factors for higher temperatures in the project area. The primary natural summertime temperature driver in forested streams such as

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--46

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

those in the Methow Sub-basin is solar radiation (Meehan 1991) and effects can be most prevalent in small streams (Poole and Berman 2001). Riparian vegetation removal increases solar radiation reaching the water surface and activities that compact soil and develop additional drainage features can accelerate water transport and reduce storage. Road construction, riparian timber harvest, and cattle grazing can create these conditions.

The lower Twisp River and several tributaries often exceed ESA temperature standards for not- properly-functioning and DOE water quality standards. Water temperature exceeded the DOE standard of 61°F (16°C) in lower Little Bridge Creek in 2006. Water temperatures are considered functioning at risk for steelhead rearing (NMFS; 57°F(14°C)) in the lower three miles of Little Bridge Creek and exceeded the standard for properly functioning steelhead rearing habitat almost two months at the creek‟s mouth during summer 2006.

The lower Methow River is the collector for all streams in the Methow Sub-basin and combined effects and natural characteristics culminate in this section of the river. Direct solar radiation and warm temperatures in upstream tributaries are likely the primary factors influencing summer temperatures in the mainstem. The combined effects of wildfires throughout the sub-basin, clearing and development of the riparian areas along the sub-basin‟s streams, and a naturally high baseline result in high summer temperatures that exceed tolerance ranges for many sensitive species in the lower Methow River mainstem. The lower Methow River mainstem, near the mouth, is a listed by the DOE as impaired under the Clean Water Act section 303(d) reach due to elevated temperature (DOE 2008).

Steelhead spawning occurs in the spring with peak spawning around mid April. According to data obtained from the Fish Passage Center, spring Chinook and bull trout migrate upstream each spring with most fish migrating past Wells Dam by mid to late-June, prior to occurrence of the warmest temperatures (2011). Observations of bull trout throughout the sub-basin suggest that migrations occur prior to the warmest temperatures in the lower Twisp and Methow rivers.

Based on established standards, the Lower Methow River and lower Libby Creek each are not properly functioning for bull trout, steelhead and spring Chinook migration, rearing, and spawning; however, these species each migrate during parts of the year when temperatures are much cooler.

Overall, temperatures on National Forest reaches are considered functioning at risk for sensitive salmonids but largely due to natural conditions. Effects of the primary mechanism for solar warming and related temperature increases, riparian timber harvest, are improving as a result of cessation of streamside harvesting and regrowth of riparian trees and shrubs. Investigations found that both Libby and Buttermilk creeks‟ physical habitat provide excellent natural deterrence to cattle infiltration. Steep terrain and v-shaped channels, and heavy timber cover along nearly all of both streams maintain shading levels to near-historic values.

Stream surveys and more recent reconnaissance indicate that the only substantial areas in the project area where vegetation clearing and increased solar warming is occurring in association with cattle is the one-mile section of Little Bridge Creek and a 1/8 mile stretch of lower Poorman Creek, immediately upstream of the lowest range fence crossing. Warming was likely occurring at Mission Pond (NF Libby Creek); however, exclusion fencing was completed around the pond complex in 2010.

Small, upland streams that are more prone to solar warming due to proportional shade loss were investigated in 2009 and 2010 (USDA 2010). Shade reduction and potential warming was

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--47

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

determined to be of discountable magnitude since most stream shading is generated by large, mature conifers that are not affected by cattle. In the most accessible upper elevation streams, the magnitude of impacts by grazing to riparian vegetation is unsubstantial. In small higher elevation tributaries, most are intermittent and dry when livestock are present, resulting in lack of an attractant to stream channels during late summer, the most sensitive period for vegetation. Nearly all other perennial stream channels are well vegetated with mature conifers and deciduous trees. Cattle have browsed and trampled understory vegetation in a few areas across the allotment. However these areas are localized and sparsely distributed across the allotment. Overall, the existing level of browsing and trampling of vegetation has not appeared to have measurable changes in water temperature in small order streams within the allotment nor in critical habitat downstream.

Hydrologic function of beaver dams include increased water storage, which can provide flow and temperature benefits in late summer when they are most important. There are three locations across the allotment where potential exists for grazing to impact beaver habitat. These include the approximate one mile reach of Little Bridge Creek, Ben Canyon Creek, and Mission Pond. Potential for negative effects to beaver food source via over-browse or trampling of dam/lodge in Ben Canyon Creek was investigated and considered possible but not likely. The proposed action would likely benefit beaver reintroduction efforts in Little Bridge Creek by excluding cattle from low gradient historic beaver habitat, eliminating potential for trampling of dams/lodges and allowing recovery of preferred food source plants; as was recently done with an exclosure fence at Mission pond.

Sediment: Composition of the stream substrate is an important feature of aquatic habitat. Cobble and gravel substrates provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of aquatic invertebrates as well as eggs and early life stages of numerous fish species. Aquatic invertebrates represent a substantial portion of the diet available to various fish species, particularly stream dwelling salmonids.

Assessing the potential effects of livestock grazing on in-stream sediment levels is complex. Sediment, including fine sediment, is a natural part of all water body environments. It is difficult to distinguish sediment from natural sources and the various management activities in a drainage. Research by Kondolf (1994) attempted to discern what portion of the sediment yield was caused from grazing and he noted at the end of his study that available sediment data were inconclusive regarding effects of livestock grazing. It was not possible to state what percentage of the sediment measured in his study resulted from livestock grazing.

Overland flow is very rare on forest floors with ground cover vegetation. According to the project soils scientist, livestock induced overland flow only occurs around road cutbanks and ditches, provided vegetation cover remains intact across the pastures (Annie Greene, Soil Scientist, personal communication). Therefore, the aquatic resources analysis assumes sediment effects from livestock occur only from streambank trampling. Livestock impacts to stream sediment levels generally result from compacting soils that can increase runoff and erosion and by trampling streambanks (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Within the project area, bank trampling is the primary mechanism for sediment effects from livestock. Livestock-related trampling and bank shear does occur in areas across the allotment, increasing sediment delivery to the stream system. However, field inspections show these effects occur in a very small proportion of the analysis area (<1%) in isolated hotspots interspersed among much larger extents of un-impacted area. Streambanks across the allotment are generally well armored with vegetation and coarse substrates and protected by thick brush, downed trees, and rugged terrain; as a result, cows find access difficult along the vast majority of stream length.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--48

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Although fine sediment levels range from properly functioning to not properly functioning in project area creeks and the primary receiving waters, the Twisp and Methow rivers, impacts from livestock are a small contributor. Each of these drainages has road densities between about 1.5 and 3.5 miles per square mile and most roads are within Riparian Reserves. Bank stability is generally excellent at the sub-watershed scale in the project area. With one exception, directly addressed in the proposed action, all fish-bearing creek streambanks are >90% stable, considered to be optimal bank stability (Cowley 2002). Nearly all non-fish-bearing tributaries are >80% stable, which is within established guidelines for streambank stability. Grazing cattle are not expected to have measurable impacts on to sediment levels in the project area or downstream.

Fine sediment levels in the Twisp River fluctuate from year to year, but in general range from low to moderate and no surveyed reaches exceed the Forest Plan standard of 20%. Little Bridge Creek is functioning at risk for amounts of surface fine sediments in all five surveyed reaches, based on NMFS guidelines; however the natural condition of the stream may exceed standards since some of the highest fine sediment values are found in the upstream-most surveyed reach, above management activities and roads. High riparian road densities across the sub-watershed likely exacerbate natural sediment delivery to the creek.

Fine sediment levels in Buttermilk Creek do not currently present a problem to fish habitat in Buttermilk Creek; however, these fine sediments may be being flushed out to the Twisp River during high flows. Areas of high road density likely exacerbate naturally high background sediment levels.

Fine sediment levels are high in the lower reaches of Libby Creek, on National Forest. Sediment input to the mainstem appears to be related to roads, past timber harvest in Riparian Reserves, and from natural causes. Based on very stable streambanks, sediment input does not appear to be sourced from cattle activity. Road density in the Libby Creek sub-watershed is fairly high and likely exacerbates naturally high background sediment levels.

Although fine sediment levels are functioning at risk in Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Poorman Creek, and Libby Creek, impacts from livestock are a small contributor, not measurable against naturally high background levels and/or the magnitude of road-related fine sediments. Each of these drainages has a history of timber harvest management and associated road densities that are above optimum levels according to USFWS and NMFS. Most roads are within Riparian Reserves and concentrated within those areas frequented by cows since upper elevations have neither roads nor cattle grazing.

Environmental Consequences Potential effects of either Alternative 1 (no grazing) or Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) are consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guideliness and ACSOs and would not adversely affect the population viability of fish or other aquatic species. While most impacts associated with riparian timber harvest and extensive road systems in the project area are on an improving trend, the rate of natural recovery to achieve the desired conditions (DC) varies by alternative. Continued application of ACS direction under Alternative 2 is expected to improve fish habitat conditions and move aquatic habitat towards the DCs within the project area though more slowly and less completely than under Alternative 1. Stream channel conditions are expected to continue to improve under both alternatives as the primary mechanisms affecting the streams are not related to grazing in most locations.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--49

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Potential effects to aquatic species, including bull trout, spring Chinook, and steelhead are addressed in the Biological Assessment and summarized in this document. Potential effects to interior redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and other trout are addressed in the following discussion. Each of these management indicator species is used to assess the maintenance of populations (the ability of a population to sustain itself naturally), biological diversity (which includes genetic diversity, species diversity, and habitat diversity), and to assess effects on species in public demand.

The Forest Plan classifies allotments as either unsatisfactory or satisfactory with appropriate vegetation utilization and streambank alteration standards of 0-35% or 45% use, respectively, and 20% bank alteration. The goals of these standards are to improve streams and fish habitat, to reach DCs through a near natural rate of recovery process, as described in the ACS. This classification system combined with the two different levels of utilization should improve stream conditions and allow aquatic habitats to reach DCs through the natural rate of recovery process. Depending on the specific sub-watershed and associated site potential, grazing practices may have to be adjusted to meet the goals of GM-1, which states the Forest will:

“Adjust grazing practices to eliminate impacts that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. If adjusting practices is not effective, eliminate grazing”.

Currently, the existing LLBNP allotments‟ condition is classified as satisfactory, with several localized exceptions, and utilization standards are set at 45%. Both the Twisp River and Lower Methow River Watershed Analyses noted grazing as impacting aquatic habitat but did not raise them as specific issues (USDA Forest Service 1995 and 1998). Most analysis area streams that support sensitive and special status fish species, particularly steelhead, are lower gradient channels in wider river valleys. These are more susceptible to disturbance, with low-gradient spawning reaches being the most sensitive. These channel types are relatively uncommon in the project area, including the greatest concentration of this channel type in Little Brdige Creek. Across the vast majority of the project area, stream types are steeper, brushy Rosgen A and B- type channels that are more resilient to cattle effects. Considering these conditions, the recovery methods and adaptive management techniques described in Alternative 2 would maintain and/or improve these conditions and eventually DCs should be achieved.

Impacts to aquatic habitats associated with improperly grazed livestock have been well documented in scientific literature and by state and federal agencies (Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Clary and Webster, 1989; Overton et. al., 1994; Platts, 1991; Platts and Nelson, 1985; Platts, 1979). These impacts can come in the form of direct (cows disturbing or killing fish/eggs) or indirect (cows impacting aquatic habitat or streamside vegetation) effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 This alternative would have no direct effects to any fish species and would have the highest beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat, primarily in areas where livestock can access aquatic and riparian areas. Many studies have shown stream habitats degraded by livestock grazing would improve when grazing is eliminated. Ohmart (1996) estimates that with total rest that most riparian areas show large improvements in 8 to 10 years in comparison to riparian areas appropriately grazed that may require 16 to 20 years to reach the same level of improvement.

Kauffman and Krueger (1984) review and describe many studies that demonstrate riparian improvements following rested range lands. The rate of recovery of any given impacted site

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--50

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

would vary depending on its current level of interaction with the floodplain, channel type, substrate size, stream flows, condition of riparian vegetation, and upstream supply of sediment (Rosgen 1996).

Because no cows would be present on any of the four allotments, there would be no risk of direct effects of cows to sensitive fish species via direct mortality (stepping on fish or redds) or via indirect harassment/disturbance.

The existing indirect effects of livestock to riparian vegetation and subsequently water temperatures are estimated to be unsubstantial based on field analysis and from conclusions from stream survey reports in all project area streams. Therefore, eliminating livestock is unlikely to result in any measurable improvement to current water temperatures. See the Hydrology discussion for more details on temperature effects. Existing livestock are having proportionately small effects to streambanks and sediment delivery across the allotment; removing all cows would result in some improvement to streambank and sediment levels. However, stability is excellent across the allotment including areas where active grazing occurs, suggesting their removal would not result in much improvement over existing conditions, with the primary exception of along an approximate one-mile reach of Little Bridge Creek, an 1/8 mile reach of Poorman Creek, and a selection of small, primarily intermittent and non-fish-bearing streams. Existing sediment levels result primarily from parent geology and high road density, which would remain unchanged. Nearly all sediment delivery to streams from livestock results from bank trampling and our survey data indicates banks are minimally impacted by livestock (stability >90% stability). Removing livestock would decrease nutrient input to the system, but available data suggest that nutrient and fecal coliform levels in Methow Sub-basin streams are properly functioning (WA DOE 303(d) list). An unsubstantial, immeasurable improvement would be theoretically gained in water quality by excluding cattle.

Summary of Effects to Aquatic TES, Region 6 Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species Under Alternative 1 immediate and long term positive impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats would have a Beneficial Impact (BI) to bull trout, spring Chinook, and steelhead, as well as other fish species, including Management Indicator Species and R6 Sensitive species (redband rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout) plus any other resident fish species.

Individual fish would not have any direct disturbance by wading livestock. There would be no risk of bull trout, steelhead, or other salmonid redds being trampled by livestock in any project area stream. This would potentially positively affect each species‟ survival and production in all project area streams. However, the extent of actual ongoing impacts to individual redds is assumed to be very low, based on habitat complexity and observed spatial distribution of cattle trails so no measurable increase in survival or production is expected beyond the site scale. Furthermore, there would be no effect to bull trout spawning and rearing habitat.

With no grazing pressure critical habitat would show some improvement. Streambank stability would increase slightly and reduce sediment and increase riparian vegetation browse. Shade may increase slightly in some areas, but is not expected to measurably change due the limited locations within the analysis area that are currently impacted. Roads are the primary activity that is affecting sediment levels so eliminating grazing is unlikely to measurably change fine sediment levels. Therefore, the effect would be beneficial, but with no measurable improvement to critical habitat conditions.

Effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--51

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 would eliminate livestock presence in those reaches of Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, and Libby Creek that support or potentially support Chinook or coho salmon, thus designated as EFH. Cessation of livestock in these areas would also eliminate any indirect downstream effects via sediment input and temperature effects, benefiting coho and Chinook in the Twisp River where they are both known to occur. There would be no livestock impact to designated EFH for Chinook or coho. However, the current livestock use along the river is minimal and impacts are immeasurable. Therefore, the effect from the no-action alternative would be beneficial but with no measurable improvement versus Alternative 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 Under the Alternative 2, cattle could access each fish bearing stream in both allotments and the potential for direct effects to fish would exist in the following locations, based on cattle having access to fish bearing streams:

Direct Effects Twisp River – Cattle would not access the Twisp River, thus no direct effects to fish would occur.

Little Bridge Creek – Under Alternative 2, the proposed exclusion fencing would keep all cows out of Little Bridge Creek up to RM 5.1. This would eliminate all direct effects to any fish below RM 5.1.

Steelhead spawn and rear up to about RM 4.8 and the proposed exclosure would eliminate all potential direct effects to spawning adult steelhead and redds in all known reaches where spawning occurs. Cattle access to Little Bridge Creek above the proposed exclosure is minimal due to steep terrain and dense vegetation. There is some potential for disturbing rearing juvenile steelhead above RM 5.1. Any displacement of juveniles is expected to be limited to a few minutes while cattle cross or drink water. Measures such as placement of salt in the uplands, off-site watering, active herding, and pasture rotations would reduce this impact. Additionally, the project would require the permittee to remove cattle if move triggers are met, which would minimize the amount of time cattle would spend along Little Bridge Creek.

There is suitable spawning habitat for bull trout above the new exclosure, but surveys have not discovered any spawning. Since access has been restored in Little Bridge Creek, bull trout redd surveys would continue and if spawning is detected in the future, the Bridge and Midnight pastures would not be grazed after August 31 each year when bull trout are spawning. Due to low bull trout use, it is extremely unlikely there would be any bull trout disturbed from cattle.

The only other sensitive fish in Little Bridge Creek is redband rainbow trout, which were confirmed to be genetically “pure” during a late 90s genetic analysis by Proebstel (1998). Redband trout both spawn and rear in an area where cattle would have limited access, above RM 5.1, and they can be in gravel until mid August. There would be a low probability for direct disturbance to this species because cattle have limited access and the frequency of any disturbance would be low – i.e. <10 times per year and for only a couple of minutes. The potential for redd trampling would be extremely low with only a few week overlap of cattle and redds present. Furthermore, cattle are well dispersed across the pastures, have many off-site water sources and salt blocks, and the permittee must actively ride to minimize the time spent along Little Bridge Creek. Therefore, the limited access and low likelihood of any direct effects from cows would result in little effects to redband trout and very unlikely to result in any change to the local population.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--52

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Libby Creek – The mainstem of Libby Creek in the project area supports steelhead use, including spawning and rearing. No direct effects to adult steelhead or redds would occur because pasture rotations would be scheduled after July 15 on Libby Creek, at which point all spawning is done and fry would have emerged from the gravel. Some minor disturbance to rearing juvenile steelhead is expected, but would be limited in scope due to minimal cattle access as described above.

Bull trout occur in the Libby Creek drainage, but only one individual has ever been documented, indicating their use is very low. Due to their low use, it is unlikely cattle would have any direct effect to overall bull trout populations.

Redband rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout occur in high numbers in mainstem Libby, NF Libby, and SF Libby Creeks. It is unlikely any direct effects to redband or cutthroat spawning or redds would occur as pasture rotations would be scheduled to not graze along Libby Creek until after July 15, at which point all spawning is done and most fry would have emerged from the gravel. Some minor disturbance to individual redband and cutthroat trout are expected, but would be limited due to poor livestock access and low cattle numbers around riparian areas. Therefore, the limited access and low likelihood of any direct effects from cows would result in little effects to redband and cutthroat trout and grazing is very unlikely to result in any change to the local populations.

Buttermilk Creek – The mainstem of Buttermilk Creek supports spawning and rearing steelhead, migration of bull trout, and likely one or both of westslope cutthroat trout and interior redband rainbow trout.

All steelhead and bull trout spawning habitat would be protected with new fences and pasture rotations that would prevent cattle from accessing the mainstem, EF and WF Buttermilk Creeks during this critical period. Due to the densities of juvenile, sub-adult, and adult bull trout and juvenile steelhead, some disturbance effects are likely to occur when cattle cross streams or get a drink of water. Effects may include temporary displacement to areas where they would be at greater predation risk and alteration of normal feeding and sheltering behaviors. With limited access, low cow numbers, the frequency and magnitude of effects are expected to be low.

Both EF and WF Buttermilk Creeks support bull trout, interior redband rainbow trout, and westslope cutthroat. Based on each species spawn timing and proposed cattle presence in the Buttermilk Pasture, spring-spawners would be protected. Bull trout spawning would also be avoided by removing cows from the pasture before August 31. All disturbances would be of infrequent nature and very low magnitude and not result in any loss in viability of any species‟ local population or move any species towards listing or further downgrade.

Redband rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout occur in high numbers in the mainstem, EF, and WF Buttermilk Creeks. It is unlikely any direct effects to redband or cutthroat spawning or redds would occur as pasture rotations would be scheduled to graze along Buttermilk Creek after July 15, at which point all spawning is done and most fry would have emerged from the gravel. Some minor disturbance to individual redband and cutthroat trout are expected, but would be limited due to poor livestock access and low cattle numbers around riparian areas. Direct effects to these species are expected to be minor.

Poorman Creek – Rainbow trout of unknown genetic heritage and brook trout occur in Poorman Creek. Due to limited data on the life history form of rainbow trout, the fish biologist conservatively assumes the fish are steelhead. There is no potential for steelhead redds to be

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--53

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

trampled because the creek does not provide suitable steelhead spawning habitat. Some rearing juveniles may be temporarily disturbed by cattle during normal feeding and sheltering behaviors. But because of the dispersed nature of habitat, cattle access, and the extent of the species over the length of the creek, disturbance would be of infrequent nature and very low magnitude.

Indirect Effects Streambanks – This indicator is currently considered to be “functioning appropriately” across both allotments. Nearly all streambanks are well armored with dense vegetation and rocks. Cattle would continue to have access to streams across both allotments that would result in some localized streambank alteration and streamside vegetation trampling and browsing. Where this occurs, it would lead to fine sediment input to streams and a reduction in bank stability. However, the combination of relatively low numbers of cattle, limited access across the allotments, and short duration of livestock presence in riparian areas, impacts would only occur in small scale localized areas. Water developments, active herding, improved pasture rotations, and fencing are expected to reduce grazing impacts to streambanks. Consequently, at the reach scale or larger, the proposed grazing management plan is likely to result in minor improvements in streambank condition.

Under the proposed action, areas with higher cattle effects would be improved. The most substantial streambank habitat alteration noted during 2009 and 2010 habitat investigations was on a one-mile section of Little Bridge Creek around RM 3. Under Alternative 2, the exclusion fence would exclude cattle from accessing this easily accessed area, thereby protecting important steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. A short section of lower Poorman Creek would have improved riparian vegetation conditions because of changes in herd management. The use of “move trigger” at this site, as described in Chapter 2, would ensure that standards are not exceeded. Impacts would be monitored at a designated monitoring area (DMA) in the most sensitive reach and once the “move trigger” of 15% is reached cattle would be moved from the area. Additional adaptive management to maintain standards in this historically impacted reach include temporary exclusion fencing or moving cows.

At designated monitoring areas (DMA) along the most sensitive areas of habitat that experience cattle use (critical DMA), a representative sample of project area streams would be used to monitor pre-, post-, and in-season use. Bank alteration trigger and threshold levels would be set and monitored to address bank alteration concerns. The target bank stability of >80% would be adequate to maintain stable streambanks and protect aquatic habitat. Rotating grazing in the pastures would reduce the potential for over utilization on riparian shrubs. Constructing a new water development and repairing existing developments would result in cattle being drawn away from streams. Using off-channel water sources is a successful method to attract livestock away from streams, minimizing time spent along and impacts to streams (Porath et al. 2002).

Alternative 2 would slightly decrease livestock impacts over the 10-year period of the grazing permit. With additional fencing and pastures, the actual time cattle spend in proximity to streams would be reduced. The extent of localized impacts to streambanks is expected to be limited to less than 5 percent of streams across the allotments. This expectation is based on the patterns of limited stream access, dense riparian vegetation, and Project elements intended to draw cattle away from riparian areas. Grazing effects on the current streambank stability, which is at or near optimal across the allotments, are expected to be unsubstantial in scope and would not result in either adverse or beneficial changes to patterns of habitat use by fish in the project area. Habitat alteration in non-fish-bearing streams would continue to occur under the proposed action. Strategically placed DMAs would continue to monitor a representative sample of these

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--54

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

to ensure that streambank alteration levels in representative tributaries continue to remain within the adopted standard.

Riparian Reserves: Riparian reserves are generally considered in good condition, but with localized areas with altered vegetation from roads, grazing, or past timber harvesting. Continuing grazing would continue to result in a negative effect to riparian vegetation because trampling and browsing of riparian areas would reduce the integrity of riparian vegetation, reducing its capacity to fulfill the multiple functions it normally provides for aquatic habitats (e.g., shading, sediment filtration, nutrient input, and hiding cover). The combination of relatively low numbers of cattle, limited access across the allotments, and short duration of livestock presence in riparian areas, would limit impacts to small-scale, localized areas. Water developments, active herding, improved pasture rotations, and fencing are expected to reduce grazing impacts to streambanks. Effects to riparian vegetation at the stream reach or larger scales would be minor and the current condition is not expected to change.

In areas where livestock use is reduced or eliminated, localized immediate improvements to Riparian Reserve conditions are expected. Areas where cattle would be excluded under the proposed action include the remaining extent of known steelhead spawning on Little Bridge Creek (RM 3.0 to about RM 5.1). Cattle would be seasonally excluded from steelhead habitat on Buttermilk Creek; with reduced occupancy along the stream, improvements to Riparian Reserve condition are expected.

Impacted areas associated with old riparian harvest units would continue to improve with the proposed livestock grazing. For example, observations of former clearcuts and related slope failure locations made on Libby Creek during stream surveys in 1998 and 2010, indicate that vegetative recovery is occurring and that livestock impacts are not impeding the development of conifers in these areas. Riparian areas associated with roads would remain impacted and not fully recover unless the roads are removed; however road-stream crossings comprise a very small (<1%) proportion of total stream linear distance and recent investigations (USDA 2010) indicate that impacted areas at road crossings typically only extend a short distance up or downstream from the road (<100 feet).

The proposed riparian monitoring strategy of not exceeding 45% use on riparian vegetation would keep the impacts to a minimum and would allow most riparian areas to provide important functions to maintain aquatic habitat conditions. Some localized negative effects to riparian function would occur, but the overall high functioning riparian vegetation across the allotments would not change and some areas would improve over the next 10 years, both within exclusion areas as well as outside.

Temperature – Baseline stream temperatures are considered as “functioning at risk” for some sensitive fish life history stages across the allotments. Browsing or trampling of riparian vegetation can reduce shade, resulting in increased solar radiation reaching and warming the water. Transferring water from springs to above-ground troughs, water loss from livestock consumption, and evaporation has a slight effect to local hydrology at the site scale.

Cattle would likely browse and trample understory vegetation in a few areas across the allotment. However, nearly all small order streams within the allotment are characterized by good tree cover with generally thick riparian vegetation and thus are resistant to losing stream shade. Cattle impacts to riparian vegetation are concentrated near road crossings and old clear cuts, which are dispersed across the allotment. The majority of the riparian reserves contain dense stands of trees and/or steep terrain, limiting livestock use. Cattle do not have

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--55

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

measurable impacts on mature streamside trees. Thick brush within riparian areas is expected to physically limit cattle access to much of the stream channel.

The heaviest riparian grazing presently occurs on about one mile of Little Bridge Creek. Nonetheless, overstory mixed deciduous trees and conifers provide good shade during the summer throughout most of this habitat. Some reduction of shrubs and young deciduous trees is occurring, which would be addressed by fencing cattle from this reach, thereby enhancing the stream‟s ability to maintain the cold temperatures of Little Bridge Creek.

An 1/8 mile reach of Poorman Creek has previously been denuded streamside shrubs and the width:depth ratio has increased due to the impacts of grazing. Cattle would continue to access this area under the proposed action but the “move trigger” at this site, described in Chapter 2, would ensure that standards are not exceeded in this reach. This area comprises a proportionately small length of the entire creek, most of which is well-shaded by mature conifers and heavy shrub growth. Increased temperature effects on National Forest (and to downstream receiving waters that support sensitive fish species) are also likely nullified by an extensive main-channel beaver pond/wetland complex covering over one mile of the lower creek on private lands. In this complex, several active beaver ponds and dispersed channels route the stream slowly through thick cattails and shrubs and several shallow beaver ponds where the rate of solar warming likely exceeds anything occurring on National Forest lands upstream. Temperature monitoring data conducted by the Forest Service and Bureau of Reclamation in 2010 found that the temperature of lower Poorman Creek increased by about 43°F (6°C) over the lower 1.5 miles of creek to the mouth. This amounted in the change from a temperature range considered properly functioning to not properly functioning.

Reduction of some riparian shrub coverage may occur in upland streams, most of which are intermittent and non-fish-bearing. Due to the narrow stream channels of these waters, shrub removal via grazing would not have measurable impacts on solar warming since generally full crown coverage is available. More importantly, most upland streams on the allotment are intermittent and unable to be measurably warmed during the most critical times of year. For these reasons, potential impacts to stream temperature for listed species as a result of proposed livestock grazing would be minimal and not expected to be measurable, particularly at a sub-watershed or watershed levels. Each major stream on the allotment provides measurable coldwater influence on its receiving waters, the Twisp River and mainstem Methow River.

Water developments have the potential to affect stream temperature by bringing groundwater to the surface and exposing it to solar warming and decreasing the volume of water in streams. The volume of water used by a single water development is estimated at 0.003 cfs, suggesting a very small amount of water diverted from streams. Based on this small amount of water loss, these proportions were <0.3% of the total volume of adjacent streams in all examples analyzed, with most being <0.01%. Further, cattle only directly consume water at development locations for an average of 40 days per season such that a large proportion of the water returns to the ground for most of the year. This proportionately small volume effect to the overall hydrologic budget at each site would not result in sufficient reductions to the drainages to effect measureable changes in water temperature (Chapter 3.5 Water Resources).

Alternatively, water developments provide water sources away from streams where cattle can browse vegetation and reduce shade. The use of these would reduce the amount of shade loss, benefiting stream temperatures.

Overall, the level of browsing and trampling of vegetation is not expected to lead to measurable

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--56

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

changes in water temperature either in small order streams within the allotment or downstream. Similarly, small reductions in flow rates associated with water developments are unlikely to influence stream temperatures (Chapter3.5 Water Resources).

Sediment – The sediment and substrate embeddedness indicators are “functioning at risk” in the project area. This is primarily due to the extensive gravel and natural surfaced road networks that frequently cross streams and provide multiple points for sediment input.

When cattle access streams, they usually trample streambanks which can lead to accelerated bank erosion and increased sediment and turbidity levels. However, the extent of this effect would be minor. Streambanks across both allotments are well armored with dense vegetation and cobble sized rocks, which reduce sedimentation effects. The pattern of cattle movement associated with creeks in dense conifer forested landscapes involves crossing streams in scattered locations along narrow paths, often in areas with rocks armoring streambanks. Most streams in the project area are resistant to cattle trampling. Cattle access is concentrated around a few discrete access points and road crossings well dispersed across the allotments.

Overall, the combination of relatively low numbers of cattle, limited access across the allotments, and short duration of livestock presence in riparian areas, would limit impacts to stream sediment input to small-scale, localized areas. Water developments, active herding, improved pasture rotations, and fencing are expected to reduce grazing presence along streams and thereby, reduce sediment input. The project fish biologist expects released sediment volumes to be sufficiently small that when they have settled, they would have unsubstantial effects on patterns of fish habitat use at the site scale or larger scale.

Nutrients - Cattle are typically scattered across the allotment and do not generally congregate in large numbers. The amount of nutrients added to the stream at any discrete site, let alone the entire project area, would be unsubstantial. The use of fences and water developments would limit livestock use across the pasture and minimize livestock presence along streams, which would assist in minimizing effects to nutrient levels. Overall, nutrient effects are expected to be unsubstantial (Chapter 3.5 Water Resources).

Summary of Effects to Aquatic TES This discussion summarizes the effects of Alternative 2 on bull trout, steelhead, and spring Chinook from the project Biological Assessment.

The impacts resulting from Alternative 2 on T&E species were discussed with the USFWS and NMFS in a Level 1 meeting on March 31, 2011. Through consultation, the Methow Valley Ranger District received a Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) determination for Columbia River bull trout and Upper Columbia River steelhead and a Not Likely to Adversely Affect call for UCR Chinook salmon. This was based on the potential for direct injury or mortality of individual bull trout and steelhead and through small-scale, localized impacts to aquatic habitat. Design criteria and mitigation measures included in the project are expected to reduce the extent or likelihood of injury or mortality for these species. The biological opinion and incidental take statement for bull trout were received from the USFWS on July 14, 2011 and are part of the project file. Consultation with NOAA fisheries is still ongoing and results will be disclosed in the Decision Notice.

Direct effects to bull trout and steelhead redds is not expected to occur because of the proposed fencing and pasture rotations, which would keep cattle out of bull trout and steelhead streams when they are spawning. Some temporary disturbance to individual bull trout and steelhead

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--57

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

may occur when cattle access occupied streams in the form of displacement of juveniles, sub- adult, and adult bull trout and juvenile steelhead. When fish are disturbed, they may be displaced to areas with increased predation risk and to areas outside of their normal foraging behavior. Due to the limited access, low cow densities, and short-duration grazing with pasture rotations, very few individuals are expected to be impacted. The severity of disturbance to a few fish, as reported by FWS and NMFS, would be sufficiently mild that the survival of exposed individuals would not be reduced appreciably.

Through the consultation process, FWS and NMFS determined that impacts to critical habitat would occur to streambanks and riparian vegetation sufficient to alter feeding and sheltering behaviors of individual fish. It was also determined that the combination of low numbers of cattle, limited access, and short-duration grazing would limit these effects to a few localized areas. At the stream reach or larger scales, the proposed grazing management plan would result in unsubstantial changes to streambank stability and riparian vegetation.

Overall, the project would result in a „Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for bull trout and steelhead, but the direct and indirect effects are expected to impact only a few fish each year. This degree of impact was determined to be too limited to result in changes in reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the local population.

Spring Chinook critical habitat is a minimum of over a quarter mile beyond allotment boundaries. Habitat impacts across the allotment were determined to be negative because of increases in sediment over no action, but are insignificant. Additionally, sediment impacts would be reduced over existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 2 is considered to “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Upper Columbia River spring Chinook.

Summary of Effects to Region 6 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species Under Alternative 2 there is potential for some direct effects to individual redband and cutthroat trout and some degradation of habitat may occur due to potential bank alteration, sediment delivery, reduction in riparian vegetation, and increases in nutrients in project area streams.

Redband rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout spawn in the spring similar to steelhead, but slightly later and can remain in their redds until mid August. Their spawning distribution overlaps where the project would exclude cattle to protect steelhead and so nearly all of the spawning period of redband and cutthroat trout would be protected as well. Cattle could potentially trample redds from mid-July to mid-August. Redband and cutthroat trout typically spawn in smaller pockets of habitat in remote higher elevation reaches where cattle access is very low. Therefore, the probability of redds being trampled is considered to be very low.

Some direct effects are expected as a result of disturbance to individual fish. When cattle cross streams or access them to get water, they may disturb a few fish when exposed. These species are highly mobile and being temporarily displaced to another position is unlikely to cause any physical harm in most cases. On rare occasions, trout may be displaced to a position that is more exposed to predators resulting in harm, but the frequency and duration would be low. Overall, the numbers of individual fish harmed is expected to be low.

Similar to the ESA fish species, small-scale, localized habitat impacts could result in some harm to individual trout. These would be few in number across the project area due to limited access and short-duration of cattle presence along fish bearing streams. Streambank stability and riparian vegetation would likely receive the greatest negative impacts. Because these areas would be few and well dispersed across the project area, at the stream reach or larger scales,

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--58

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

the existing conditions would not change. The overall good to excellent habitat conditions would remain as a result of the proposed project. Impacts to native trout habitat are minimal and not sufficient to decrease each species‟ viability within the project area (Appendix A).

Considering the combination of improved monitoring strategy and adaptive management, excellent bank stability under the existing AMP, grazing impacts are expected to improve and continue to be unsubstantial to IRRT and WSCT. Some minor direct and indirect habitat effects may occur but at very low intensity not capable of affecting local populations. Therefore, Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species of IRRT and WSCT.

Effects to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The extent of original coho salmon habitat in the Methow Sub-basin is not known and current reintroduction efforts have not result in many known spawning adults or juveniles in any project area streams, with the exception of the lowest reach of Libby Creek within several hundred feet of the Methow River (R. Alford, personal communication). All Chinook salmon habitat is over a quarter mile beyond allotment boundaries. Impacts to combined steelhead and spring Chinook critical habitat, as a rough coho surrogate, are considered unsubstantial, based on the Biological Assessment. No negative impacts to EFH are expected.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects on aquatic resources, when combined with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities, would be negative for riparian vegetation and streambank stability. Livestock would continue to graze in Riparian Reserves in late summer and fall, leading to vegetation removal in sensitive areas that may prevent or hinder willow, alder, and sedge establishment; however, with proposed excluded areas in Little Bridge Creek and seasonally- excluded areas in Buttermilk Creek, the spatial extent of this would be small-scale, localized areas. Similarly, we expect localized streambank impacts that will lead to sediment input into the stream network.

The proposed adaptive management associated with alternative 2 would allow properly functioning aquatic conditions to continue. Habitat indicators currently functioning at risk such as sediment, temperature, and riparian vegetation would continue to be maintained or would improve. Until a substantial reduction in riparian roads occurs, fine sediment levels and riparian vegetation conditions will continue. Stream temperatures in fish-bearing streams across the project area are largely properly functioning with some functioning at risk locations that are largely driven by climatic conditions and unlikely to measurably change under either alternative.

We expect measures such as water developments, fencing, and active riding coupled with limited riparian access across the allotment to reduce grazing impacts to riparian vegetation and streambank stability as well as other important habitat indicators. Consequently, at the reach scale or larger, the proposed grazing management plan is likely to result in unsubstantial changes to aquatic and riparian habitats. Therefore, no measurable change is expected in aquatic habitat conditions from the continued grazing across the LLBNP Allotments at the stream reach, project area, or watershed spatial scale. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan EIS (USDA FS 1989b:IV-93 and IV-94).

Consistency with Standards and Guidelines Okanogan Forest Plan standards for grazing management in Riparian Reserves would be met in Alternative 2.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--59

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

2-14: management activities around small intermittent headwater streams shall not deteriorate water quality in larger fish bearing streams below. Water quality may experience some short-term temperature and turbidity increases. o Rotating livestock between pastures, range improvements, and adaptive management described in Chapter 2 will distribute livestock use across a large area and minimize impacts in any one stream or pasture. The Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) allows the Forest Service to monitor and make in-season and annual adjustments to grazing if impacts are exceeding riparian/aquatic use thresholds. Continued use of upland water developments and installation of exclusion, riparian, and additional drift fencing and cattle guards will reduce and/or eliminate impacts to the most sensitive stream habitat identified in the project area. 3-1: maintain biological, chemical, and physical qualities of Forest fish habitat. o Rotating livestock between pastures, range improvements, and adaptive management described in Chapter 2 will distribute livestock use across a large area and minimize impacts in any one stream or pasture. The Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) allows the Forest Service to monitor and make in-season and annual adjustments to grazing if impacts are exceeding riparian/aquatic use thresholds. Continued use of upland water developments and installation of exclusion, riparian, and additional drift fencing and cattle guards will reduce and/or eliminate impacts to the most sensitive stream habitat identified in the project area.

Northwest Forest Plan standards for grazing management in Riparian Reserves would be met in Alternative 2. GM-1: Adjust grazing practices to eliminate impacts that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. If adjusting practices is not effective, eliminate grazing.

o Riparian grazing standards of maintaining 80% or greater streambank stability and not exceeding 45% riparian shrub-use will allow stream and riparian function to continue and will meet this objective. Rotating livestock between pastures, range improvements, and adaptive management described in Chapter 2 will distribute livestock use across a large area and minimize impacts in any one stream or pasture. The Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) allows the Forest Service to monitor and make in-season and annual adjustments to grazing if impacts are exceeding riparian/aquatic use thresholds. Continued use of upland water developments and installation of exclusion, riparian, and additional drift fencing and cattle guards will reduce and/or eliminate impacts to the most sensitive stream habitat identified in the project area. GM-2: Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside Riparian Reserves. For existing livestock handling facilities inside the Riparian Reserve, ensure that Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are met. Where these objectives cannot be met, require relocation or removal of such facilities.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--60

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

o This one is met because there are no new livestock handling facilities proposed and the existing ones are not impacting streams and ACS objectives are met. GM-3: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, loading, and other handling efforts to those areas and times that will ensure Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are met.

o The project will limit trailing, bedding, watering, loading, and other handling efforts in Riparian Reserves. Specifically, the project will use measures to attract livestock away from streams such as upland water developments and salting. Rotating livestock between pastures will limit the amount of time spent along individual streams and distribute use across a large area. Using the AOIs will allow the Forest Service to make in-season and annual adjustments to grazing to reduce impacts if they are found to be exceeding streambank alteration and riparian shrub use thresholds.

The design features listed in Chapter 2 were used to insure that Alternative 2 is consistent with the Forest Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan by meeting management objectives to maintain conditions in Riparian Reserves, maintain stream temperatures, prevent chemical contamination, maintain or reduce sediment levels in streams, and improve the current high level of bank stability. Additionally, Alternative 2 would meet Forest Plan standards and objectives and ACS objectives at the sub-watershed and watershed scales.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--61

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.3 AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The use of annual operation instructions that allow the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to make annual and in season modifications to grazing in order to meet and maintain standards and guidelines should protect overall bank stability and water quality. By implementing techniques such as rotating livestock, off-site watering and salting, adding exclosure, drift, riparian fencing, and accommodating species-specific turnout and removal dates along Little Bridge and Buttermilks creeks, Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ACSOs) are expected to be attained at the project level and watershed scales. The proposed project has been designed to avoid direct effects to spawning fish and incubating eggs, maintain riparian function, maintain water quality and soil productivity, and provide connectivity within and between watersheds for aquatic and riparian dependent species. Riparian Reserves as defined in the amended Forest Plan have been identified for all types of streams in the project area. Current grazing impacts have been monitored and conditions observed suggest ACSOs are being maintained. A key indicator of livestock impacts to streams is their effect to streambanks. Surveys on the major streams across the allotment indicate bank stability exceeds 90%,which is considered excellent, with only a few localized exceptions that are directly addressed in the proposed project.

No measurable changes to water temperatures of streams on National Forest are anticipated. Sediment levels are mostly driven by the geology and from the high density of riparian roads. Grazing would occur within Riparian Reserves and some impacts would occur to streams across the allotment. The level of impact anticipated with the 10-year grazing permits is expected to maintain and allow recovery of riparian and aquatic habitat features. Monitoring of livestock use and habitat indicators would continue to ensure standards are met. If conditions approach standards, the proposed AMP allows the Forest Service to make appropriate changes in grazing management to meet ACSOs.

Project Consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives The Northwest Forest Plan identifies nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (USDA and USDI 1994: B-11) that need to be reviewed for each project. The following discussion states the objective, describes relevant existing conditions / effects and determines whether the project would maintain the existing conditions or lead to improved conditions in the long-term (B-10).

1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted.

Field reconnaissance coupled with analysis of aerial photos and topographic maps provided an accurate estimate of the amount of livestock use along streams in the LLBNP allotments. In addition, Forest Service Level 2 stream habitat surveys were conducted in Libby Creek (1999, 2010), Little Bridge Creek (2008), and Buttermilk Creek (1995/1996) and each major fish- bearing stream in addition to many of the smaller tributaries, were again visited in 2009 and 2010 (USDA 2010) to assist in making consistency determinations.

Some grazing impacts were noted in field surveys. Impacts were typically evidenced as short segments of bank trampling (few exceeded 20 feet in length and most were less than 10 feet) and areas of streamside shrub browse. Impacted areas typically occur in former clear cut harvest units along streams and at road crossings. These areas were characterized by

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--62

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

presence of livestock manure and trails, and spotty bank trampling. Stream and riparian conditions maintained proper function because areas typically had a mature conifer overstory that was unaffected by livestock. Exceptions occur along an approximately one-mile length of Little Bridge Creek, which is proposed to be fenced in Alternative 2 to exclude livestock and avoid direct effects to spawning fish and allow streambank and vegetation recovery, and in several locations along intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams. In nearly all locations where streambank alteration standards adopted for this project from PACFISH have been exceeded by past grazing, mitigating measures including riparian fencing, additional riding, and improved pasture rotation are planned to reduce or eliminate riparian/stream impacts.

Throughout each allotment, areas of heavy use were spatially separated and interspersed among longer extents of stream with light or no use that provide fully functioning stream/riparian conditions. The majority of Riparian Reserves in the allotments have light to no use and are properly functioning to provide adequate distribution, diversity, and complexity of stream/riparian features to aquatic dependent species. Measures within the proposed AMP (reduction of cattle numbers, drift/riparian fencing, building of exclosures, use of trigger thresholds to move livestock, and other range improvements) would continue to improve function of streambanks. The moderate use areas in former clear cut harvest units are resulting in the continued development of vegetation along streams and would eventually provide more protection to aquatic species at the site scale. Therefore, the proposed action would maintain or restore watershed and landscape features for aquatic resources.

2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

There are no physical or chemical barriers to aquatic organisms associated with livestock grazing. Former clear cut harvest units along streams were harvested more than 10 years ago (most >20 years ago) and vegetation is developing. According to the project wildlife biologist, the existing clear cuts in Riparian Reserves provide some dispersal habitat and connectivity with the uplands. With the intermingled mature riparian forest, there is adequate connectivity for riparian dependent wildlife species (John Rohrer, personal communication, 2009). Livestock are not impeding the development of vegetation in the former clear cut harvest units along streams (John Daily – silviculturist, personnel communication, 2009).

The major riparian impacts from livestock on the allotment occur in three locations: an approximately one-mile reach of Little Bridge Creek is impacted by cattle loafing and grazing within the stream channel and impacting historic beaver pond habitat; the Mission Pond area in the Libby Creek drainage was being impacted by cattle which loafed along the shoreline trampling its shore and denuding the pond shoreline; and a short reach (100-200 feet) of lower Poorman Creek at the pasture boundary. The proposed action includes construction of riparian fence that would effectively exclude cattle from about two miles of impacted and/or accessible steelhead habitat in Little Bridge Creek, effectively protecting the length of known spawning habitat. Exclusion fencing around the entire Mission Pond complex was completed in 2010, which is now allowing unimpeded riparian recovery and protecting water quality in the ponds, as well as potential improvements to beaver recovery efforts in the area. Improved pasture boundaries, drift fencing, slight reductions in herd numbers, and adaptive management described in Chapter 2 would allow for improved herd management and reduced riparian impacts along Poorman Creek.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--63

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Therefore, the proposed continuation of grazing with modifications would maintain or restore connectivity in the stream/Riparian Reserve environment with the uplands and adjacent drainages. The current rate of recovery in historically impacted areas would increase.

3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Stream bank vegetation across most of the allotment consists of alders, willows, and red-osier dogwood, as well as abundant conifers and large amounts of downed trees along some streams. These species provide excellent bank protection and downed wood generally creates effective streambank exclusion to cattle.

There are approximately 216 miles of streams within the boundaries of the LLBNP Allotments, including about 149 miles of intermittent streams and about 62 miles of fish-bearing perennial streams. Bank trampling and other impacts are restricted to a fraction of this, occurring primarily at road crossings and short sections of streambanks where past management has opened up livestock access to the creek.

Streambanks throughout the Libby Creek sub-watershed are very stable overall (<5% erosion in mainstem reaches). Stream surveys in 1999 noted riparian habitat impacts associated with cattle in the low gradient reach from rivermile 12.6-14.1, however the impacts were minor and streambank stability was good. Repeat surveys in 2009 and 2010 verified similar levels of cattle impacts and bank stability (USDA 2010, USDA in press) and the more quantitative Level 2 stream survey of Libby Creek (USDA 2011) found that streambank stability as well as instream fine sediment values were both improved in Libby Creek from past surveys.

Nearly all streams across the allotment are Rosgen Aa+ and A channels, described by steep channel slopes, v-shaped channel cross sections, and large substrates that armor streambanks to erosion (Rosgen 1996). These areas are described by low-angle streambanks, smaller substrates, and a higher level of floodplain connectivity; and these areas are utilized by steelhead for spawning habitat. Little Bridge Creek is an exception to this generalization being a mixed Rosgen B and C channel through much of its length inside the allotment. Overall channel slope is between 3% and 4% within the allotment, with some C-channel areas less than 2% gradient. The 2006 habitat survey of Little Bridge Creek found that streambanks were very stable (>97% overall), but that there were localized areas of higher cattle use. Revisits between 2008 and 2010 found that the level of impacted streambanks increased in a one-mile reach upstream of the exclosure fencing which was completed in 2008. Streambanks along the lower four to five miles of Little Bridge are more prone to damage by cattle grazing and the lowest three miles of stream were protected with exclosure fencing between 2006 and 2008. Under the proposed action, the remaining (approximately) two miles of sensitive stream and steelhead habitat above the existing exclosure fence would be protected by new fencing. Field visits to a representative sub-sample of small tributaries to Little Bridge Creek found that most streambanks and riparian habitat in the allotment met established standards for allowable streambank alteration. Several exceptions of localized higher use occur along some small, intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams in the Little Bridge Creek drainage; these areas are all short (<200‟) in linear stream distance and are interspersed amongst much larger properly functioning reaches. Cattle impacts along the heaviest impacted tributary stream, feeding upper Little Bridge Creek, would be addressed by felling several large conifers into a canyon bottom to restrict trailing and loafing in a sensitive seasonally wet area along this creek and encourage use into the uplands, while still allowing some watering away from sensitive fish habitat.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--64

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Streambanks were reported as very stable in the Buttermilk Creek drainage (USDA 1996). Recent investigations (USDA 2010; USDA unpublished field notes) verified these findings and quantified cattle-impacted streambanks in habitat accessible to migratory salmonids as follows: 1.0% cattle-eroded streambanks along the mainstem, 0.4% cattle-eroded banks on the East Fork, and 0.5% cattle-eroded banks on the West Fork. All affected areas along the creek consist of cattle access points and trail crossings, not expansive lingering/loafing areas. These values are well within established ranges of natural variability and adopted PACFISH standards.

Investigations in 2010 of streambanks in Poorman Creek found that banks are generally very stable with the exception of the lower boundary, immediately upstream of the allotment boundary fence. For a length of 1/8 mile, streambank and riparian habitat is impacted by concentration of cattle; however, streambanks and riparian vegetation both upstream and downstream of this small area are intact and properly functioning. A series of downstream wetlands and main-channel beaver ponds provides effective filtration of sediment from the short impacted area in the Poorman allotment before it reaches habitat of any ESA-listed species. Under the proposed action, herd rotation would decrease impacts to this area by reducing numbers slightly and changing use from season-long to a higher intensity, shorter duration pattern, which has been shown to be lower impact on riparian habitat (Wyman et al. 2006).

Overall, the small spatial extent of bank trampling is unsubstantial at the sub-watershed scale and is not causing elevated stream sediment levels or decreasing channel stability. The small number of exceptions to this, the most apparent being Little Bridge Creek, would be addressed directly in the proposed action. With overall bank stability greater than 90% under existing conditions, proposed improvements, proposed monitoring and move triggers, the continuation of grazing is not expected to increase sedimentation. The proposed AMP under Alternative 2 would maintain and in some places restore the physical integrity of the stream channel features.

4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Livestock grazing along streams likely adds nutrients to water courses possibly increasing nutrient levels, bacteria, and fecal coliform at the site scale. However, there are no feed lots or areas of heavy congregation along streams capable of measurably changing nutrient levels. The Washington State Department of Ecology does not report any exceedences for fecal coliforms in the project area. A site on the Methow River downstream of the Twisp River reports data from 1997 through 2006, in which no samples exceed allowable concentrations for fecal coliforms. Pasture rotation, exclusion fencing in some areas, off-channel watering and salting, and active range riding would minimize livestock use along and in streams. This would reduce opportunities for livestock to add nutrients directly to the stream network. Existing and historic grazing activities have not measurably affected nutrient levels in project area streams, based on available data. Proposed grazing activities are expected to be reduced and unlikely to negatively affect nutrient levels in streams.

Past streamside timber harvest aided livestock access to streams and cattle have cumulatively impacted the riparian areas and streambanks along a length of Little Bridge Creek and at Mission Pond (Libby Creek). Grazing of riparian trees and shrubs may have elevated solar exposure and water temperatures. In most cases, overstory conifers and large deciduous trees continue to maintain shade function. Shrub cover may be limited along the wider floodplain of

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--65

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Little Bridge Creek and along the shores of Mission Pond. Cattle would be excluded from lower Little Bridge Creek in the proposed action and in conjunction with recently completed exclosure fencing at Mission Pond would allow shrub and tree recovery to proceed at the maximum natural rate.

Temperature monitoring by MVRD personnel has shown that State temperature standards for water quality and for listed salmonid species are exceeded each summer in many monitored locations, typically near the mouths of some streams and in larger streams at lower elevations, off-forest. High water temperatures result, at least a partially, from natural conditions in the Methow Sub-basin and upland reaches on the National Forest typically provide extensive ranges of habitat for sensitive coldwater species such as bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Habitat surveys for Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, and Libby Creek make no mention of areas where cattle grazing has resulted in extensive areas of increased solar penetration. Areas of higher use across the allotment occur in upland areas along intermittent creeks; any increased solar penetration in these areas would have no effect to stream temperatures during critical time periods since those overlap with periods when these streams are dry.

Although current livestock impacts are affecting shade in a small number of hotspot areas at the site scale, the combination of spring influence and prolific mature conifer overstory between hotspots is sufficient to maintain cold temperatures. The amount of browsed streamside vegetation is not sufficient to measurably affect temperatures as evidenced by the water temperatures. Mitigation in the proposed action would restrict livestock from the extent of vulnerable channel areas in Little Bridge Creek and an exclosure fence was recently construction at Mission Pond to facilitate natural recovery. Mitigation would also reduce the duration of cattle presence along streams and distribute livestock across pastures, away from streams. The rate of riparian recovery in former clearcut units would be increased relative to that under the current AMP.

Based on the unsubstantial effects to shade levels over most of the allotment, improvements within the proposed action that reduce cattle impacts and allow riparian recovery and normal nutrient levels, the proposed grazing under Alternative 2 would not affect water quality and would not retard the area from maintaining or restoring water quality.

5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

Some sub-watersheds within the Twisp River and Lower Methow River watersheds contain highly erosive soils, thus some streams are naturally high in sediments. Most pastures in the project area also overlap areas of extensive timber harvest history, related road building, dispersed recreation, and fire suppression. The diverse history of past and current management activities has likely cumulatively increased naturally high baseline sediment levels in all allotment area creeks to some extent. Because stream habitat surveys over the last two decades have, with few exceptions, found that streambank stability on fish-bearing streams is very high and almost entirely within accepted ranges considered properly functioning by NOAA/USFWS and within ranges of natural variability, the source of sediment in project area streams is likely derived primarily from natural sources, past riparian timber harvest, and road building.

The last published Libby Creek stream survey report (USDA 1999) noted elevated fine sediment levels in the lower surveyed reaches of the mainstem. Surveyors attributed much of the

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--66

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

sediment to roads and a then-recent (around 1996) road failure and logging-related slope failures that directly contributed large volumes of sediment into the creek. The 2010 Libby Creek survey (USDA in preparation) notes that nearly all of the previous slope failures and road failure area are healing or healed, covered with dense shrub and other plants that have effectively stabilized the slopes. Nearly all evidence of streambank erosion is now healed and overall streambank stability across the mainstem and major forks of Libby Creek is estimated at more than 98%, with only a small proportion of this related to cattle crossings. Overall, fine sediment levels in Libby Creek may be slightly elevated but not excessive and on an improving trend as past riparian timber harvest and road failure areas continue to heal (D. Hopkins, personal communication). Additional 2009 and 2010 field investigations verified these findings and high streambank stability (USDA 2010). Present and past cattle grazing is not a major source of fine sediment in Libby Creek.

The 2006 Little Bridge Creek stream survey (USDA 2006) found that surface fine sediments were functioning at risk in all five surveyed reaches, based on NOAA Fisheries guidelines. Values ranged from 13% to 18%, compared to the Forest Plan standard of 20%. The highest value recorded of 18% surface fines (<6mm particles) occurred between RM 7.2 and RM 8.1, within the designated Twisp River LSR, upstream of all historic timber harvest units, upstream of all existing or historic roads, and above nearly all cattle use, suggesting that high fine sediment values in Little Bridge Creek are primarily a function of natural processes. Overall, streambank erosion ranged from 0.2% to >3% for each surveyed reach. Localized streambank impacts associated with cattle in some areas are directly addressed in the proposed action.

Previous habitat surveys of Buttermilk Creek, including the East and West forks indicate that the system is contributing large amounts of sediments to the Twisp River. Sediment sources are attributed to natural and logging/road-related slope failures along the steep walls along the stream. Habitat data from the mid-1990s indicate that streambanks were very stable, indicating that sediment sources were related to natural sources, a small number of point sources, and chronic sediment delivery from many other sources. Harvest units in this area were last cut between the early 1980s and late 1990s. 20 and 30 years of recovery have occurred and slope stabilization since that time and slopes have largely revegetated. Habitat assessments conducted in 2009 and 2010 found that streambanks along the mainstem of Buttermilk Creek and its major forks are very stable and that cattle-impacted banks comprised about 1% of the total length of the mainstem and 0.5% or less of banks in the East and West forks. The vast majority of riparian and stream habitat along Buttermilk Creek is protected from cattle impacts by steep terrain, thick vegetation, and substantial amounts of boulders and downed trees.

Overall, impacts in the Buttermilk Creek sub-watershed are primarily restricted to upland small tributaries with lower stream energy that are more vulnerable to cattle trampling. While physical stream channel geometry is affected in some of these streams, most of the impacts are via bank alteration and are not actively recruiting fine sediments. Some fine sediment delivery is likely occurring in these areas but not at levels that are measurable against high background levels associated with natural sources, roads, and timber harvest in the sub-watershed. Indirect downstream impacts may be occurring but the magnitude of those impacts has not degraded habitat indicators, based on stream survey reports for Buttermilk Creek or the Twisp River.

The lower mile of grazed land along Poorman Creek exhibits higher cattle impacts relative to other project area streams. While elevated, streambank impacts are primarily cumulative and associated with past season-long grazing of cattle in the pasture which resulted in heavier use than that under the proposed action. Overall, streambank stability in Poorman Creek is within adopted PACFISH standard, with a section between 100 and 200 feet in length potentially

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--67

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

exceeding this adopted standard. Fine sediment delivery as a result of heavier use in the lower mile of Poorman Creek may be occurring but any mobilized sediments are filtered out below the National Forest boundary in a series of in-channel active beaver ponds and wetlands.

Based on the small proportion of streams with bank trampling, the present livestock activities are causing only negligible effects on sediment levels. Road densities in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, Buttermilk, and Poorman drainages are high. Fine sediment levels are largely naturally- caused and elevated by high road densities and potentially by historic riparian timber harvest. Based on limited data, the sediment and streambank stability appear to be on an improving trend. Based on these factors, the proposal of grazing with improvements, described under Alternative 2, would maintain or restore the sediment regime within the analysis area.

6. Maintain and restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

Human water uses in the Twisp River and Lower Methow River watersheds include domestic, livestock watering, recreation, and irrigation.

Re-authorizing grazing and operation of water developments are anticipated to have unsubstantial and immeasurable effects to the peak/base flow indicators (see Biological Assessment). Proposed fencing in multiple locations may have long-term ancillary benefits to beavers which do provide positive hydrologic benefits in the form of floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, floodplain reconnection, and late summer instream flow benefits. These benefits may be realized in several years along Little Bridge Creek and at Mission Pond where historic beaver use is visible, though recent beaver reintroduction attempts have failed.

All allotment drainages are generally small with fairly low summer flows. Historic timber harvest, irrigation diversions, loss of beavers, changes to the drainage network including substantial road networks in the grazed areas, and some channel simplification (wood removal/diking for flood control) have altered project area stream hydrographs.

Only two surface water diversions occur on project area creeks (Little Bridge Creek and Alder Creek). Several water transmission lines withdraw from groundwater sources in the Little Bridge, Libby, Poorman, and Buttermilk drainages. An additional transmission line removes a small volume from Smith Canyon Creek. Each of these withdraw very low volumes of water (0.01-0.02 cfs) from sources primarily disconnected to surface water and were determined to have no effect to sensitive fish species (USDA 2005).

Many project area streams are intermittent and do not manifest surface water flow during late summer and fall. As such they do not draw cattle in as a perennial stream would and trails and vegetation overbrowse do not occur in close proximity to the stream. This is particularly true for streams in the Libby Allotment, including Smith and Elderberry Canyons, where very little sign of cattle trailing and other impacts were noted along representative lengths of both creeks. In these areas, upland water developments, typically situated around springs, provide water. All water developments visited in 2010 consisted of a very small volume of water being withdrawn into a trough. Overflow from the trough spilled onto the ground and re-entered the ground within an estimated average of 20-feet from the trough. Some water is obviously lost via direct consumption by cows and other animals and likely by evaporation/transpiration, but the proportion of water loss is likely unsubstantial and of insufficient magnitude to effect a

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--68

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

measurable change in base flow measurements in fish-bearing waters at the sub-watershed scale (USDA 2010).

Livestock and associated water developments are having a minimal effect to stream flows at the site scale and no effect at the project or watershed scales. Therefore, the proposed continuation of grazing, coupled with improvements within the AMP under Alternative 2 would maintain or restore instream flows at the project scale.

7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Most of the streams in these allotments drain steep terrain and have little natural floodplain connectivity. The extent of impacts to streams is some bank trampling and streamside vegetation browse, but livestock are not causing channels to downcut or aggrade. Because sediment has been observed trapped by large wood and effectively routed and stored, and because no increases in sediment delivery (using ocular estimates) outside of the allotment were observed, floodplain habitat does not appear to be altered within the range allotments area.

Historic riparian timber harvest along Little Bridge Creek is one of the few exceptions to the above generalization and has reduced large wood recruitment (and potentially beaver activity) along several lengths of Rosgen C-channel habitat. Wood is the chief habitat forming agent in this channel type, promoting scour, channel migration, aggradation, and floodplain inundation during high flows. Protection via riparian fencing along this reach is included in the proposed action and increased natural recovery of shrubs and trees is expected, which would ultimately result in more stream channel process dynamism and floodplain interaction in the long-term.

The allotment area is mostly forested with some open areas that are generally former clearcut units. Construction of drift fencing, directed felling of trees to block cattle access, and a fencing exclosure would reduce the number and impacts of cattle to sensitive floodplain/wetland features, improving their hydrologic function in the long-term.

The proposed continuation of the grazing, coupled with required cattle improvements under Alternative 2, would maintain or restore connectivity to floodplains or instream water table elevations in wetlands at the project scale.

8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Livestock impacts occur on a small proportion of the total stream miles in the allotment due to steep terrain and dense vegetation. The vast majority of stream associated riparian areas in the LLBNP allotments either have light or no use by livestock. Even in areas of more intense use, large conifers and some shrub vegetation remain that provide thermal protection, bank stability, and sediment filtration. The proposed AMP includes actions that address key areas in Little Bridge, Buttermilk, Libby, and Poorman creeks where stream habitat surveys have identified areas that are in need of improvement. Exclusion or reduction of cattle in these areas would promote more rapid riparian recovery within these past timber harvest areas.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--69

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

The proposed continuation of grazing, coupled with improvements in the AMP under Alternative 2 would maintain, and in some cases restore species composition and structural diversity of plant capable of providing the above protection and complexity at the project scale.

9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

At several specific sites across the project area, livestock grazing is having negative impacts to riparian and stream habitats in the form of bank trampling and shrub/hardwood browse. However, at the project or sub-watershed scales, these areas comprise a very small proportion of the total stream length or allotment area. These areas are well dispersed across the allotments and properly functioning areas are intermingled between moderate use areas. Livestock either do not access the creeks or, if they do, use is light and stream/riparian functions are not compromised.

The small proportion of moderate-to-high use along streams and Riparian Reserves is expected to be reduced with improvements in the proposed AMP and would have little to no impact across the project area to the distribution of riparian dependent species. The proposed grazing, coupled with improvements in the AMP, would maintain or restore habitat to support well- distributed populations of native riparian species at the project scale.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--70

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.4 SOILS

Scope of Analysis The project area is defined as land area within the allotment boundaries. The soil analysis will focus on key grazing areas and areas suitable for grazing. A large portion of the land within the allotments is unavailable for grazing due to conifer dominated vegetation, lack of understory forage and steep slopes.

Existing Condition

Geology/Geomorphology Soils within the project area are derived from Acidic Igneous crystalline rocks (biotite granite, granodiorite and quartz monzonite) from the Tertiary and Cretaceous age (Stoffel 1991). Typically, these rock units are hard and resistant to weathering, forming prominent ridges. Soil weathering products are quite coarse and lack fine silt and clay fractions, creating “sandy” textured soils with low inherent fertility. Other weathering products incorporated in glacial drift have fine silt and clay fractions and are typically associated with areas of glacial fluvial history. The Cordilleran Ice Sheet that over rode the project area as late as 12 to 14 thousand years ago has strongly influenced topographic expression (Waitt, 1972). Topographic expression in the project area has been described in the in-service publication Landtype Associations of Central Washington (Landtype Associations Survey). Continental glaciation processes have shaped all landforms within the project area. These processes also help to explain soil properties and the occurrence of soils across the landscape.

Eighteen distinct landform associations occur within the project area. Dominant landforms include dissected mountian slopes, glacial morraines, and valley bottoms/outwash (USDA, 2004 Landtype Associations).

Soil Classification Soils occur in rather predictable patterns, which have been verified by field assessments completed by Forest Service Soil Scientists. A soil survey has been completed for the analysis area (USDA-NRCS, Okanogan-Methow Highland Area 2005).

Soil Environments Surface soil properties provide an insight into the environmental conditions, which strongly influenced soil development. Mollisols, which support the majority of suitable range for livestock, have dark surfaces, which strongly suggest that these soils developed within grassland communities with very little influence from coniferous trees. These soils historically supported grassland communities with some open-grown, large ponderosa pine trees but due to tree encroachment are moving toward supporting relatively closed canopy forests. The dark surfaces reflect the influence of organic matter staining from fine root decay, typical of grassland communities. These soils are high in base saturation, indicating that grassland environments were the principle vegetation responsible for soil development. These soils continue to support grassy under stories. Due to a number of factors, tree encroachment and expansion has created patches of coniferous forests mostly ponderosa pine. Acres of mollisol soils in the project area are shown in Table 3.4.1.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--71

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.4.1. Acres of mollisol soils in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Allotment Acres of Mollisol Soils Total Acres Libby 7919 23,971 Little Bridge 12,762 27,494 Newby 3177 17,236 Poorman 2759 6745 Total 26,617 75,446

Inceptisols are weakly developed soils occurring in warm, dry climates. These soils have relatively shallow, dark-colored surfaces that are very light-colored when dry. This feature suggests that organic matter with high base saturation is present, but not to the level that would completely darken the surface soil. These soils likely supported open to closed canopy forest communities with varying amounts of grass in the under story, which would persist for long periods. Following natural fire disturbance, these sites would have supported grassland communities and scattered trees for some time before transitioning back to a forest community. Andisols have relatively light-colored soil surfaces comprised of thick volcanic ash deposits. The relatively light colored surfaces suggest that herbaceous species have not been a dominant part of under story composition. These soils likely supported relatively closed canopy forest communities.

Soil Interpretations Mollisols or grassland soils support the majority of the suitable forage for livestock. The majority of the Mollisols occur on steeper slopes. Access to these grasslands may be limited by terrain and rock outcrops. Inceptisols may contain small areas of forage or transitory range. Andisols are in closed canopy forest and are likely used on edges for shade by livestock.

Soil Erosion Most soils in the analysis have “ashy” surfaces with fine sandy loam textures and friable or weak structure. This textural characteristic can result in erosive conditions if site features are not limiting hydrologic processes. Surface rock fragments, vegetation recovery, timing/duration of precipitation, and slope gradient can either limit hydrologic processes linked with erosion risk or accelerate the erosion risk.

Soil erosion occurs mainly on disturbed sites where bare soil conditions exist and where vegetation has been removed and has not yet become reestablished. The greatest source of soil erosion within the analysis area is associated with roads where bare soil conditions exist on both cut and fill slopes and on the steeper road grades. To a limited extent, some soil erosion is occurring on the more heavily used cattle trails, especially where continued disturbance is occurring on the cut and fill slopes. Some sedimentation from soil erosion also exists within some of the riparian areas from cattle moving into or through these sites as they look for sources of water.

Bare soil due to vegetation removal by grazing occurs in overgrazed areas. The soil becomes prone to wind, water erosion, and invasive plants colonization.

Detrimental Soil Compaction/Displacement Detrimental soil compaction can be a contributing factor to soil erosion and reduction of soil productivity. Severely compacted soils would normally restrict water infiltration rates, possibly

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--72

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

resulting in greater chances of overland flow with subsequent increases in soil erosion (Froehlich H. A. no date). Soil compaction also has the potential to affect long-term site productivity.

Compaction decreases water infiltration in the sandy textured soils that are void of rocks. Overland flow of water or puddling would occur in these areas with poor infiltration. Vegetation and litter buffers the soil from compaction (Roberson, 1996).

Soil compaction has been observed along small areas near stream banks and riparian areas where concentrations of livestock occur. Soils in these areas can have higher water tables and are prone to seasonal wetness. Wet soils are more prone to compaction than dry soils. Trampling often creates bare soils and opportunities for weedy species to become established replacing the more stabilizing native vegetation. Additional discussion on weeds occurs in the Invasive Plant Species section of this document.

Soil Productivity Productivity of the soils within the project area varies, depending on a variety of both physical and chemical properties. These properties generally include, but are not limited to: slope, aspect, elevation, precipitation, soil type, and soil depth, available water capacity of the soil, soil drainage, surface organic matter and bulk density of the soil.

Organic matter improves soil structure, water holding capacity and infiltration. Livestock trampling can decrease soil porosity and alter soil structure from granular to platey. Bare soil due to vegetation removal by grazing occurs in overgrazed areas in the allotments, (Greene, personal observations, 2006).

Past sale activity in the Little Bridge Creek area includes the TPR sale which was completed in 2003. A commercial thin was done with tree removal and then underburning. This opened up the stands allowing more forage to be available for livestock.

The Shady sale was completed in 2006 and overlaps with the Buttermilk Creek area. Trees were also removed with some additional burning. This created more openings and removed slash to allow easier access for forage.

Soil Microorganisms Soil fauna play important roles in soil development, soil fertility maintenance and the decomposition of organic matter in grassland habitats. Soil fauna influence bacterial and fungal biomass via grazing, liberating immobilized nutrients, and stimulating further fungal and bacterial activity, as well as, enhancing plant growth. Grazing can influence chemical, physical and biological properties of the soil (Battigelli and MacIntyre 1998).

Soil displacement can have adverse effects on microorganism function by reducing the depth of surface horizons. If surface horizons are shallow, displacement will have more serious or lasting effects. Often microorganism activity is highest in the surface organic duff layer and surface mineral soil. The deeper ashy soils are expected to have higher microorganism activity than the thin ashy soils. The thin ashy soils Inceptisols and Mollisols are considered more susceptible to displacement and loss of microorganism activity.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--73

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 Grazing would be discontinued on the allotments. All range improvements would be left on the allotments. Some of the immediate results of this would be no additional soil erosion or soil compaction from grazing. In some areas, the reestablishment of vegetation on bare soil areas would occur within the first year or two. In most other areas, several years or longer would be needed to reestablish vegetation. Existing soil compaction from livestock along trails would begin to diminish over time as vegetation slowly becomes established and root systems and soil organisms increased soil porosity.

Alternative 2 Grazing would continue but the allotment management plan would be modified from the existing plans to include several improvements that would decrease effects to soils. The potential for an earlier turn-out date (May 1) would result in an earlier off-date which would lower the potential for bare soil caused by over grazing. The new water development and reconstruction of existing ones would allow areas that had been previously impacted adjacent to springs to reestablish vegetation. Fencing that would exclude livestock from wet areas would allow re-establishment of vegetation and soil stabilization. Additional fencing and cattle guards would allow for better management of livestock reducing late season grazing and allowing existing vegetation to remain intact to protect soils. Aspen and riparian areas should show vegetation recovery and stabilization of soils with improved livestock distribution because they would not be as heavily used.

Range readiness surveys prior to turn-out would ensure that soils are dry enough to withstand grazing. Drier soils are less susceptible to soil compaction. Utilization surveys in upland and riparian areas would ensure that livestock are moved before excess grazing occurs. This would keep ground vegetation intact and minimize bare soils and areas for nonnative plants to establish.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 The actual area of the allotments is the scale of analysis for soils cumulative effects. Cumulative effects analysis for soils is restricted to specific management actions that contribute to soil-site disturbances. Included are the effects from projects done up to 40 years ago and activities proposed in the next 10 years, the length of the permit.

Several activities are on-going in the allotments. Past and present noxious weed treatments and those planned for the future include manual, chemical, mechanical, cultural and bio-control methods. Treatment sites occur in each allotment where weed populations exceed damage thresholds. Reduction in the rate of noxious weed spread is now occurring. Eliminating weeds and weedy plants can help reestablish native vegetation and increase soil stabilization. Past timber sales are considered an aspect of the existing condition. The longest lasting impacts of these harvest activities are from the road construction, reconstruction and maintenance of roads. Some of the roads were not maintained and where these roads were near streams, erosion from the fill slopes or road surfaces is carried into the streams. See the Hydrology section of this EA for a discussion on sedimentation.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--74

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Fuel treatments associated with the TPR sale are still planned in the Little Bridge area. These burns are coordinated with grazing use to allow the areas to recover and re-vegetate. Forage will become enhanced and allow livestock to distribute and lessen impacts on soils.

The Mission Forest and Fuels project is scheduled for planning in 2012 and will thin trees and have fuel reduction treatments. This again will increase transitory range; increase livestock distribution and lessen impacts on soil.

Alternative 2 provides more range improvements than Alternative 1. These improvements would meet the 15% detrimental soil threshold. The improvements are slated to occur within 1 to 5 years. Vegetation recovery and soil stabilization will increase as improvements are completed. Increased vegetation vigor, re-vegetation of bare soils and improved livestock distribution would be effective at moving these disturbed areas toward more desirable conditions. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall affect will be better distribution of livestock, protection of sensitive areas and improved soil conditions.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--75

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.5 WATER RESOURCES

Existing Condition The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman project area is located within the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 48, Methow River. The analysis area includes seven 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds; Middle Twisp River, Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Alder Creek-Methow River, Libby Creek, Lower Twisp River, Thompson Creek-Methow River.

Libby Allotment The Libby Allotment consists of approximately 23,971 acres and lies mostly within the Lower Methow River Watershed. About 2,663 acres occurs within the Middle Methow and about 320 acres occur in the Twisp River watershed. Elevations in the allotment range from approximately 2000 feet to 7600 feet. Vegetation communities vary from open ponderosa pine dry forest conditions in the lower elevations to mixed conifer in the mid elevations to lodge pole pine/subalpine fir in the higher elevations. Terrain includes steep drainages and moderate gradient drainages. There are approximately 69.4 miles of streams in the allotment including Libby, North Fork Libby, and South Fork Libby Creeks.

Little Bridge Allotment The Little Bridge Allotment covers about 27,494 acres and is located within the Twisp River and Middle Methow River watersheds. The allotment lies within three Twisp HUC 12 watersheds: Mainstem Upper Twisp River, Little Bridge Creek, and Mainstem Lower Twisp River. A small portion of the allotment lies within the Middle Methow River watershed, but this portion of the allotment has no surface water connection and will not be included in the analysis of effects.

Elevations in the allotment range from approximately 2200 feet to 7600 feet. Vegetation communities vary from open ponderosa pine dry forest conditions in the lower elevations to mixed conifer in the mid elevations to lodgepole pine/subalpine fir in the higher elevations. Major streams include Little Bridge Creek and Canyon Creek and approximately 76 total miles of streams are in the allotment.

Newby Allotment The Newby Allotment covers approximately 17,236 acres and is located in the Twisp River watershed. Allotment elevations range from roughly 2200 to 6600 feet. Vegetation communities vary from open ponderosa pine dry forest conditions in the lower elevations to mixed conifer in the mid elevations to lodge pole pine/subalpine fir in the higher elevations. There are an estimated 50.2 miles of streams including Buttermilk Creek and Newby Creek.

Poorman Allotment The Poorman Allotment occurs entirely in the Poorman 12th field sub-watershed that covers approximately 6,745 acres. Allotment elevations range from around 2000 up to about 5400 feet. Topography and vegetation are consistent with those described in the Little Bridge Allotment. This allotment contains approximately 20.1 miles of streams with Poorman Creek being the major stream.

Climate The analysis area is located in the Methow Basin, which is generally characterized as high

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--76

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

desert (Methow Basin Planning Unit 2005). The analysis area ranges from 1700 to 7600 feet, which includes a strong alpine and east slope rain-shadow influence as well. Annual precipitation on the allotments themselves ranges from 17 to 19 inches at the lower elevations up to 45 to 49 inches at the higher elevations (WRCC 2011, USDA 2009, USDA 2010). Approximately 40 percent of precipitation falls as snow at lower elevations, ranging up to 60 percent at the higher elevations. Average temperatures range from 11°F (Jan) to 86°F (July) at the lower elevations, and from 3°F (Jan) to 63°F (July) at the upper elevations. Elevations below 2700 feet in this area are considered rain-dominated, while those above 3500 feet are considered snow-dominated. The elevations from 2700 to 3500 feet are considered to be in a rain-on-snow (ROS) regime (Table 3.5.1). The closest climate station to the analysis area is approximately 9 miles west-southwest, the remote automated weather station (RAWS) site located near Winthrop at an elevation of 1760 feet. To account for temperatures at higher elevations, additional temperature data was obtained from Harts Pass Snotel (approximately 25 miles NW) which has a period of record reporting since 1979 and an elevation of 6490 feet.

Table 3.5.1. Percent of allotments and 6th-field HUC analysis area within climactic regimes. Dominant Regime Percent of Analysis area Percent of Allotments (HUC-6) Snow-Dominated 46% 68% Rain-on-Snow 27% 31% Rain-Dominated 27% 1%

Water Rights/Uses The USDA Forest Service has developed water rights for stock watering in the analysis area. Range improvements over the years have developed existing springs or small streams with diversions to troughs and fencing to protect the source sites. Some of these are in need of reconstruction (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources).

Water Quality All waters on Okanogan National Forest lands are classified by the Washington State Department of Ecology in WAC 173-201A-200 fresh water designated uses and criteria. The general classification of WAC 173-201A-200 classifies all surface waters on National Forest system lands according to aquatic life uses and all streams within the project area are classified as core summer salmonid habitat or char spawning and rearing. Water quality standards are listed in WAC 173-201A-200. Water quality standards are established for temperature, turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria along with a number of other constituents. Some of these standards allow increases over background levels.

All streams on National Forest lands have additional designated uses of: core summer salmonid habitat and extraordinary primary contact recreation, unless otherwise designated in Table 602, of WAC 173-201A-602, “Use designations for fresh waters by water resource inventory area (WRIA)” (State of Washington, 2006).

The following streams in the analysis area are exceptions to the above use designation (per Table 602), Buttermilk Creek and tributaries, Libby Creek and Hornet Draw and tributaries above Hornet Draw, Little Bridge Creek and tributaries. These streams are designated char spawning and rearing as opposed to core salmonid habitat which is the default designation for waters on National Forest. Water temperature in core salmonid habitat is to have a 7 day average daily maximum of 16 degrees C, whereas in char spawning and rearing, the highest 7-

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--77

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

day average daily maximum is to be 12 degrees C (Table 3.5.2).

Table 3.5.2. Water quality criteria for waters on National Forest and in the analysis area.

Category Default Criteria for waters on Criteria for waters National Forest designated as Char Spawning/Rearing Temperature 16 C (60.8 F) 12 C (53.6 F)

(7-day average of maximum daily temperature)

Dissolved oxygen 9.5 mg/L Same (DO)

Turbidity Turbidity shall not exceed: Same

5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less;

or

10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.

Total Dissolved Total dissolved gas shall not exceed Same Gas 110 percent of saturation at any point of sample collection. pH pH shall be within the range of 6.5 Same to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.2 units.

Fecal Coliform Critera are based on the Water Contact Recreation Criteria – which is “Extraordinary primary contact recreation” on National Forest Lands, and applicable for all waters in analysis area.

Fecal Coliform Fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 50 colonies/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 100 colonies/100 mL

The water quality criteria most likely to be affected by grazing are turbidity (via increased sediment in streams), temperature (via riparian vegetation removal and compaction of shallow groundwater aquifers), and bacteria (via fecal matter). Turbidity is a measure of optical clarity of

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--78

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

water, and is measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs). NTU readings increase as a function of particle size distribution and concentration, so sediment delivery to streams will increase NTU measures. State water quality criteria for waters on National Forest call for less than a 5 NTU increase (or 10% above background for streams greater than 50 NTU background). Generally, most streams in the area have a lower background than 50 NTU.

303(d) Listings of Impaired Water Bodies Water quality in Washington State is classified into five categories, in order to comply with the Clean Water Act. Category 1 waters meet water quality standards for all items tested, and category 5 waters are considered “impaired”, and are placed on the state 303(d) list. Category 3 waters have insufficient data to be classified. Categories 2 and 4 are “waters of concern”, the primary difference being that the data for category 2 waters are insufficient to warrant listing as category 5 waters. Category 4 waters have not met water quality standards but they either have a pollution remediation plan in place, or are not meeting standards due to a non-polluting source (i.e. insufficient instream flow).

Within the analysis area, there is one Category 5 (303-d) listing, five Category 4 listings, and four Category 2 listings (Table 3.5.3). Of these listings, two Category 2 listings are on National Forest System (NFS) Lands and a third is immediately adjacent to NF land. On NFS lands, Alder Creek (for cadmium, pH, and zinc) and the Twisp River (both for temperature and instream flow) (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2008). The excursion in Alder Creek took place in 1997 and for the Twisp in 1999. Neither has updated sampling data.

Table 3.5.3. Washington State listed waters within the LLBNP area. Waterbody Category Criterion Location Relative to NF Methow 5 (303-d) Fish Tissue Toxicity 5 miles downstream Beaver Creek 4C Instream Flow 6 miles downstream Methow River 4C Instream Flow 5 miles downstream Twisp River 4C Instream Flow 0.3 miles downstream Alder Creek 2 Cadmium, pH, Zinc On FS Land Foghorn Ditch 2 Temperature 3 miles downstream Twisp 2 Temperature On FS Land

The Methow River is listed on the approved 2009 303(d) list (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2009) for water quality impaired water bodies, although none of the streams inside the LLBNP Allotment boundaries subwatersheds are on the 2009 Washington State water quality impaired 303(d) list. The Methow River is on the 303(d) list for water temperature in category 5 (waters for which at least one characteristic or designated use is impaired, as evidenced by failure to attain the applicable water quality standard for one or more pollutants). Water temperature is an important water quality parameter for this project. The water temperature impaired section of the Methow River is near the mouth at Pateros, 30 or more miles below the LLBNP project area. To meet the intent of the Clean Water Act, activities planned in tributaries to the Methow Basin cannot further impair the water temperature in the river, and should help restore water quality in the river where possible. Activities in the Riparian Reserves and headlands should leave the structural shade that maintains the water temperature at current levels intact.

There is one other impaired listing for the Methow River about 5 miles below the project area. It is near the town of Carlton and the listing is for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (fish tissue related). None of the

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--79

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

activities proposed in the LLBNP project would affect this listing and this parameter will not be discussed further.

Water Quantity The National Forest System lands in the LLBNP project area represent about 6.5 percent of the entire Methow River 4th field HUC watershed. Stream flows for bankfull discharge (approximately two year return period) and 100 year peak flood levels are summarized in Table 3.5.4.

Table 3.5.4. Stream flow summary for LLBNP area streams. Watershed/Basin Drainage Area Bankfull Flow 100 Year Flood (square miles) (cfs) (cfs) Methow River below 1570 6170 19200 Carlton Twisp River at mouth 246 1680 5030 Libby Creek 40.3 188 733 Little Bridge Creek 24.4 216 712 Canyon Creek 8.9 76.3 275 Buttermilk Creek 37.1 301 987 Poorman Creek 12.4 47.9 217

The hydrology of the LLBNP project area watersheds is dominated by snow accumulation in winter and spring snowmelt with the rise in stream flow. Peak stream flow normally occurs during late April thru mid June. Some floodwater is stored in the flood plains along the creeks and adjacent riparian areas. The stored water contributes to later stream flow as well as base stream flow in the late summer, fall and winter. Stream flow drops rapidly, with summer low level in late July or early August. Flow continues to slowly drop through September, as smaller tributaries and streams go dry. Rain-on-snow floods may occur but are rare because winter storms rarely have air temperatures over freezing which promotes more rapid snowmelt along with the precipitation that immediately runs off. Summer convective storms may occur in localized areas and cause local flooding.

Riparian Resources Riparian Reserves occur in the LLBNP Allotment areas sixth field watersheds. Acreages of Riparian Reserves and stream miles are summarized in Table 3.5.5.

Table 3.5.5. Total acres, stream miles, and Riparian Reserve acres by allotment for the LLBNP project. Allotment Name Total Acres Perennial Intermittent Riparian Stream Miles Stream Miles Reserve Acres Libby 23971 30.7 64.6 3799 Little Bridge 27494 35.8 55.5 3949 Newby 17236 21.6 48.0 2735 Poorman 6745 5.0 22.4 907

Road Density and Road Stream Crossings Roads change slope hydrology and affect water runoff and stream sedimenation. Roads and road stream crossings change the hydrology (storage and release of water) of the watershed. Besides modifying water flow and water storage in riparian areas, road stream crossings are entry points for livestock into streams. Several of the 6th field HUC watersheds have over 10 miles of road, with greater than 33 percent of roads within riparian reserves (Table 3.5.6).

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--80

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Roads are an extension of the stream network where ditch relief culverts direct water toward streams. Precipitation and intercepted shallow ground water collect in road ditches. Road ditch water more quickly enters the stream and increases the rate of peak run-off. The added water increases stream energy leading to more sediment transport and channel erosion. During high run-off periods, additional sediment from road prisms (the contiguous road cut, road surface and road fill on a hillside) is carried to the stream, increasing the flow energy in the creek. The stream initially carries more sediment; deposition is more likely when streams have a high width-depth ratio.

Road density values are moderately high especially those in the riparian reserves (Table 3.5.6). Besides roads being an extension of the stream network and accelerating surface runoff into streams, the roads are also a source of accelerated sediment production delivered directly to tributary channels and eventually to the Twisp River and the Methow River.

Table 3.5.6. Roads and stream crossings by watershed for the LLBNP project area. Analysis Road/Stream Miles of Road Miles of Road Percent of Watershed Crossings on Road in Density in Riparian Road Miles NF lands WS mi/mi² Reserves in Reserves Buttermilk Creek 59 84.8 2.29 5.0 21.0

Middle Twisp 37 53.3 1.56 7.8 24.4 River Little Bridge 75 75.2 3.04 15.6 33.9 Creek Lower Twisp 80 113.4 2.54 14.7 36.2 River Thompson Creek 73 70.1 1.58 11.9 32.7 Methow River Alder Creek 106 84.8 1.82 8.1 36.1 Methow River Libby Creek 86 107.2 2.65 17.3 36.2

Created Openings/Water Yield Changes Natural and created openings collect more snow and rain when compared to tree covered areas. Criteria for created openings (and hydrologically immature areas) are described in WA Department of Natural Resources (1997). The additional precipitation on the ground may increase runoff from the site. However, the likelihood of winter rain-on-snow flooding is low here. The conditions necessary to promote rapid snowmelt and increased runoff occur when the air temperature rises above freezing immediately following or during late fall or winter snowstorms. This is not a normal occurrence during or immediately following winter snowstorms in this area.

Annual peak flows from snowmelt may increase, depending on conditions, from additional snow accumulations in created openings. Satterlund (1993) summarizes ". . . most studies in the forest snow zone, as in other forest zones, have indicated an increase in water yield following forest removal or a decrease following forest regrowth.” The changes in stand openings influences the hydrologic cycle by changing the amount of precipitation reaching the ground, rate of water use on the site and the rate of release of the runoff. The changes can influence the rate and duration of stream flow. Potential peak stream flows were analyzed but changes in

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--81

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

canopy cover due to grazing activities have not been measurable from past management and are not expected in the future.

Detectable water yield increases may not occur after removal of cover because the remaining vegetation uses any water that could be available for runoff. Seasonally low soil water levels during the heavy water use periods in the spring, summer, and early fall already limits evapotranspiration rates.

Existing percentage of forested canopy cover is summarized in Table 3.5.7 for some of the analysis area watersheds. This summary does not distinguish between natural and created openings in forested cover but changes due to forest management in the project area has been minimal.

Table 3.5.7. Forest canopy, mean elevation, and annual precipitation for watersheds in the LLBNP project area. Watershed/Basin Forest Canopy Mean Basin Elevation Mean Annual Percent (feet) Precipitation (in) Methow River below 47.1 4850 32.9 Carlton Twisp River at mouth 49.1 4780 39.9 Libby Creek 44.8 3960 28.1 Little Bridge Creek 47.9 4170 39.6 Canyon Creek 50.7 4430 36.1 Buttermilk Creek 56.4 5470 38.7 Poorman Creek 48.8 3420 23.2

Plans of Other Agencies Washington State Department of Ecology regulates the beneficial uses of water in Washington State and on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The specific basin regulations are listed in the Methow Basin Plan (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1976). Minimum flows have been established for the several reaches of the Methow River. Water issues are important in the Twisp and Methow Rivers and their tributaries. NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a Biological Opinion on habitat conditions and streamflow required to protect the Threatened and Endangered species for the Methow River (3.2 Aquatic Resources).

The Washington State Department of Ecology controls water uses in the Methow River basin. The United States of America has water rights for stockwater and recreation uses at selected locations in the project area, and reserved rights for administrative needs and for water needed for creating conditions of favorable streamflow and the production of timber. Reserved rights have a priority date of 1898, while the water rights acquired through the State process are mostly in the early 1980‟s, but some water right priority dates are as early as the 1940‟s to 1960‟s. Forest Service "reserved rights" would be impacted by minimum flows in the Biological Opinion, and would be subject to other water right claims made prior to the reservation of national forest system lands in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

The Methow River and tributaries are part of the tributary system to the Yakama Tribe‟s historic fishing sites along the Columbia River, and the Tribes are interested in any land management decisions that may affect fish habitat.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--82

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences Proposed actions related to livestock grazing have the potential to adversely affect soils, water quality, and associated overall watershed condition. Potential adverse effects of most concern for this area include those related to loss of soil productivity due to activity created soil compaction and soil erosion and their associated potential adverse effects on water quality and downstream aquatic habitat. Generally, the risk of negative impacts to soils, water quality, and watershed condition would increase proportionally to the acres included in the grazing allotments and the numbers of animals allowed under permit. Other potential effects addressed include those related to changes in hydrologic timing of water flows due to changes in canopy closure. Removal of too much stream shading in critical places under this project could have the potential to increase summer stream temperatures.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Vegetative recovery at disturbed sites would continue without risk of damage from unintentional grazing by domestic livestock. Vegetative growth in riparian and key use areas would be slightly increased, resulting in reduced potential for soil erosion and reduced risk of sediment entering surface waters. Disturbances from livestock grazing would be eliminated from fragile or sensitive sites, including wet to moist meadow soils and vegetation within Riparian Reserves. Vegetative shading along streams at water access points would gradually increase in the long- term, although the area impacted is too small to likely result in any measurable improvement of water temperatures in the 303(d) listed waterbodies. Risk of fecal coliform and other nutrient pollutants entering surface waters would be slightly reduced. Existing riparian restoration projects within the allotment areas would exhibit slightly more effective vegetation and soil compaction recovery, resulting in more effective protection of water quality.

Alternative 2 The proposed action includes improvements to the current grazing management plan within the allotments. Monitoring over the past several years has resulted in identification of locations where detrimental impacts to water resources were known to be potentially occurring. Design criteria have been developed to reduce the risk of grazing activities impairing water quality and long-term site productivity. The combination of slight reduction in permitted numbers of livestock, increased fencing to restrict access to riparian areas, improvements to water developments, and increased monitoring with trigger points for changes in use will all increase the likelihood that water resources will be protected. Utilization standards for vegetation have the additional benefit of protecting soil and water resources by maintaining protective ground cover and reducing surface erosion. Monitoring and enforcement of design criteria and would be part of project implementation.

Water Temperature and the Washington State 303(d) list Tributary drainages within the LLBNP allotment areas are important for water temperature downstream in the Twisp and Methow Rivers. Water temperatures are expected to remain at current levels or slightly decrease (improve) from current levels because stream shading is expected to be maintained in riparian reserves. Any changes in stream shading due to loss of cover by livestock grazing are not expected to result in any measurable change in water temperatures. As vegetative cover re-growth fills in past created openings, average water temperatures would be maintained or decrease as shaded areas increase. Long term decreases in stream temperatures would occur as past and existing created openings in the riparian areas canopy closures increase. Reduced access to riparian areas by livestock after

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--83

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

the fencing in the proposed action is implemented will speed the recovery process of vegetative shading.

Stream Sedimentation Stream sedimentation and water temperature changes are the most likely impacts from management projects which disturb vegetation cover or expose soil. Turbidity is the water quality parameter most likely impacted by increased stream sedimentation. No specific water quality information is available for streams within the allotment areas, but spawning gravel information suggests that water quality standards are being met. The Proposed Action is not expected to generate sufficient stream sedimentation to increase turbidity over the current water quality standard with implementation of the design criteria and mitigation measures.

Bacteria The risk of fecal coliform bacteria entering surface waters would be reduced from the current condition with the proposed action alternative. The increased protection to riparian areas with the proposed mitigation measures and the improvements to water developments will reduce the access of livestock to surface waters and thus reduce the input of fecal material.

Created Openings and Water Yield Changes Peak stream flow would remain at current levels because any change in canopy cover due to livestock grazing is not expected to be measurable. As existing created openings continue to increase in canopy closure, peak flows would remain constant or decline slightly from current levels.

Any potential changes in hydrologic flow regimes are not expected to be measurable at a level greater than the current highest level of precision in streamflow measuring techniques which at best has a five to ten percent margin of error. Since changes are not expected to be measurable at the smaller sub-watershed level they would also not be measurable at the larger 5th field HUC level.

Groundwater can potentially be impacted by changes in timing and flows resulting from management activities. Actions which change soil infiltration rates such as compaction from livestock grazing may influence groundwater recharge rates. Range developments which utilize spring water sources will not consume enough water to measurably impact groundwater levels or streamflows. At the micro-site level, riparian reserve fencing will be utilized to protect springs, seeps, and wetlands so that no impact on groundwater is expected. Since the Proposed Action is not expected to cause any measurable change in hydrologic timing or flow levels there is not expected to be any measurable change in groundwater resources.

Cumulative Effects

Watershed Resources Cumulative effects from past, current and foreseeable future activities are an important concern in the Methow Watershed and can be affected by actions on private lands as well as National Forest System lands. For the LLBNP Allotment area there are relatively minor amounts of private lands within or immediately adjacent to the analysis area. The cumulative effects analysis boundary for this project is the 5th field watershed scale. Within the 5th field watershed smaller sub-watersheds were analyzed in order to address effects that might be masked at the larger scale. The time scale for cumulative watershed effects is considered the time required for vegetation to achieve hydrologic recovery.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--84

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Cumulative watershed effects are generally manifested by increased rates of runoff which result in increased surface erosion, stream channel scouring, and changes in timing and volume of streamflows. Increased levels of soil compaction can lead to faster rates of surface water runoff. Reductions in canopy cover can lead to changes in snow deposition and melt rates with resulting changes in streamflow and groundwater recharge. Increased road construction can lead to faster rates of surface water runoff, interception of groundwater, and routing to stream channels.

Most of the acres within the LLBNP Project area have been subject to timber harvest activity, recreation use, and impacts from grazing by wild and domestic range animals. Past harvest entries have occurred on a large percentage of the forested lands within the project area. Because these old harvest units were logged 20 or more years ago, natural processes and re- vegetation with deep rooted perennial grasses has reduced the compaction level by approximately 50 percent or greater.

The potential for additional soil compaction from grazing activities is expected to be reduced by implementation of the mitigation measures, and standards and guidelines for soil disturbance are expected to be met (3.4 Soils). The overall area in detrimental soil conditions (compaction, displacement, and severely burned) is expected to meet standards. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring from past projects has shown that the proposed design standards are successful in meeting Forest Plan requirements (USDA Forest Service, 2007).

Cumulative watershed effects are influenced by past impacts, proposed future impacts and susceptibility to high intensity rain-on-snow storm events. As mentioned above, past timber harvest operations have occurred over a large percentage of the project area. The last sales within the area with regeneration harvest occurred over 20 years ago and recovery of compacted areas by natural processes has begun to occur as deep-rooted vegetation is re- established. Existing clearcut harvest units have recovered to the level that crown closures exceed 70 percent and are considered to be fully recovered hydrologically in terms of water yield and evapotranspiration rates (Troendle and Leaf, 1980).

Any potential changes in hydrologic flow regimes are not expected to be measurable at a level greater than the current highest level of precision in streamflow measuring techniques which at best has a five to ten percent margin of error. Since changes are not expected to be measurable at the smaller sub-watershed level they would also not be measurable at the larger 5th field HUC level.

Other harvest and fuels treatment activities have occurred within the 5th field watersheds in which the LLBNP project lies. Harvest and fuels activities within the last 20 years on National Forest System lands have been designed to meet standards which protect soil and water resources similarly to current practices. A minor amount of harvest has occurred on state and private lands in the lower portions of the Twisp and Methow River watersheds. These activities may have led to small incremental increases in rates on surface erosion runoff but these changes are not expected to be measurable at the 5th field watershed level.

The area has also received soil compaction and displacement from cross country motorized vehicle use, wild ungulates, and recreation use but these activities have very small footprints and are not expected to contribute to levels that would exceed Forest Plan standards.

Fuels treatments associated with the TPR Project in Little Bridge Creek are planned for completion within the next few years. The Deer unit of TPR is a landscape burn approximately

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--85

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

770 acres in size. Approximately 270 acres have been burned and 500 remain. Treatments would reduce slash levels and cause mortality of some small trees. In burned areas, disturbed soil has a greater chance of adding to stream sediment loads. Design details and mitigation measures in prescribed burning and other fuels treatments would minimize sediment production, although there would be stream sedimentation increases lasting 2-3 years until surface vegetation recovered.

Recreation activities include activities listed at the beginning of Chapter 3. These activities generally do not lead to increased sedimentation, except in isolated cases where recreationists repetitively access the streams. Past management activities, such as fencing construction to limit streamside vehicle access have successfully addressed these problems.

Various weed populations continue to be treated annually by spot-spraying with herbicide, hand- pulling, or bio-control agents. Reduction in the rate of noxious weed spread is now occurring. Population levels are being substantially reduced or eliminated, helping reestablish native vegetation, increase soil stabilization, and reduce sedimentation.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Road maintenance activities would continue. Sedimentation levels as a result of earlier road treatments would decrease and stabilize. Hazard tree removal will continue along major forest roads and private residence areas which will add incrementally to the lowering of canopy closure within the 5th field watersheds. Continued soil compaction and displacement from cross country motorized vehicle use, wild ungulates, and recreation use will add incrementally to the disturbed soil conditions within the 5th field watersheds. The forest is currently preparing an EIS for travel management under the Travel Management Rule; once a decision is signed, all motorized use will be required to be on designated routes and cross country motorized use will be prohibited.

Noxious weed management is expected to continue in the two analysis watersheds because the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest is developing an EIS for the integrated management of noxious weeds, including this project area. The EIS is expected to be completed in late 2012. Erosion impacts from manual treatments are expected to be local, with little stream sedimentation occurring as a result of the erosion. Project design details will be implemented to minimize potential movement of eroded soil from treated sites or introduction of herbicides into surface waters. This would increase the number of weed treatment options available within the LLBNP Project area. More area would be reestablished as native vegetation, which would increase soil stabilization and reduce sedimentation from those areas.

These activities have been evaluated with the proposed actions and a determination has been made that their effects combined with those of the proposed actions would contribute incrementally to cumulative effects in the project analysis area but the increase would not be measurable in terms of streamflow, site productivity or detrimental effects on water quality at the 5th field watershed level or the smaller sub-watershed level. Cumulative effects as a result of this project and anticipated similar types of activities on nearby State and private lands are expected to be unsubstantial.

Consistency Findings The Methow River approximately 30 miles downstream has been designated as water quality limited for temperature on the Washington State 303(d) list under the Clean Water Act. This project would have no effect on the stream temperatures within the planning area or the downstream segments of the mainstem Twisp and Methow Rivers. With mitigation requirements

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--86

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

for controlling livestock access in riparian reserves, the grazing activities in the proposed action will not remove streamside vegetation or shading at measurable levels and therefore treatments will not affect this parameter or exacerbate the 303(d) listings downstream.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--87

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.6 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE

Domestic livestock can affect wildlife species directly by trampling on individuals or eggs of smaller-statured species, such as reptiles or amphibians (Bull 2009), or by physically displacing larger species such as mule deer (Mackie 1981). Grazing by domestic livestock can affect wildlife species by altering the composition and structure of plant communities (Robinson and Bolen 1989). Grazing shortens the height of herbaceous vegetation, which can reduce security and nesting cover for some species, increase the susceptibility of some small mammals and birds to predation, and reduce the biomass of insects and other invertebrates which are an important food source for other wildlife species (Krausman et.al. 2009). Grazing by livestock also reduces the amount of forage available for wildlife, and, if excessive, can result in the establishment of invasive plant species. However, the altered vegetation caused by livestock can have positive effects for some wildlife species (Johnson 1981, Bock et.al. 1993, Ivey 1996) or unsubstantial effects on others (Johnston and Anthony 2008). In addition, grazing of grass and forbs can stimulate growth of adjacent shrubs and small trees and rejuvenate perennial bunchgrasses (Robinson and Bolen 1989). Fencing used to manage livestock can affect certain wildlife species by blocking their movements or causing injury or death when individuals get caught in wire when attempting to cross.

Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) were designated in the Okanogan Land and Resource Management Plan to address the management requirements of the National Forest Management Act (USFS 1989; III-77, 78). Specifically, “fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area”. These species and their habitats are listed in Table 3.6.1. In 2011 a status review was completed for MIS of the Okanogan National Forest (Status of Management Indicator Species On the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, April 2011, Unpublished document, 78pp). This analysis used viability outcomes to describe the probability of the planning unit (Okanogan portion of the National Forest) to support a population of each MIS based on current habitat and risk factors. It also included an estimate of the amount of habitat available at the Forest scale. Table 3.6.1 includes the viability outcome for each MIS and a description of those viability outcomes.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--88

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6.1. Summary of Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Okanogan National Forest (USFS 1989:II-131 – 134, III-76 – 83). Acres of Habitat Habitat on Present in Species Forest Level Okanogan LLBNP Present in Viability National MIS Habitat Description Area LLBNP Area Outcome1 Forest Northern Mature and old- Yes Documented E spotted owl growth conifer 82,116 Barred owl Mature and old- Yes Documented A growth conifer 170,799 Pileated Mature and old- Yes Documented C woodpecker growth conifer 66,237 Three-toed Mature and old- Yes Documented B/C woodpecker growth conifer 783,357 American Mature and old- Yes Documented B/C marten** growth conifer 30,262 Mule deer Winter range Yes Documented A 321,775 Riparian and Ruffed grouse Yes Documented A deciduous 193,891 Canada lynx Lodgepole pine Yes Documented B 63,847 Pileated Dead and 66,237 Yes Documented C woodpecker defective trees Three-toed Dead and 783,357 Yes Documented B/C woodpecker defective trees

Black-backed Dead and No Yes Documented B/C woodpecker defective trees estimate Downy Dead and No Yes Documented A woodpecker defective trees estimate Hairy Dead and No Yes Documented A woodpecker defective trees estimate Lewis‟ Dead and No Yes Documented C woodpecker defective trees estimate White-headed Dead and No Yes Documented C woodpecker defective trees estimate ‟ Primary Cavity Excavators Williamson s Dead and No Yes Documented B/C sapsucker defective trees estimate Red-naped Dead and No Yes Documented B sapsucker* defective trees estimate Northern Dead and No Yes Documented A Flicker defective trees estimate *The yellow-bellied sapsucker listed in the Okanogan Forest Plan (USFS 1989:III-78), was taxonomically split into three species in 1983: red-naped, red-breasted, and yellow-bellied sapsuckers (AOU 1983, Walters et al. 2002); only the red-naped sapsucker occurs in Eastern Washington ** Listed as Pine Marten in the Okanogan Forest Plan. 1Outcome A – Suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance. The combination of distribution and abundance of environmental conditions provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous intra-specific interactions for the MIS species. MIS species with this outcome are likely well-distributed throughout the planning area.

Outcome B - Suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance, but there are gaps where suitable environments are absent or only present in low abundance. However, the disjunct areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the species to potentially interact as a metapopulation. Species with this outcome are likely well-distributed throughout most of the planning area.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--89

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Outcome C – Suitable environments are distributed frequently as patches and/or exist at low abundance. Gaps where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance are large enough such that some subpopulations are isolated, limiting opportunity for intra-specific interactions. There is opportunity for subpopulations in most of the planning area to interact, but some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low density that they are essentially isolated from other populations. For species for which this is not the historical condition, reduction in the species‟ range in the planning area may have resulted. Species with this outcome are likely well-distributed in only a portion of the planning area.

Outcome D – Suitable environments are frequently isolated and/or exist at very low abundance. While some of the subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the suitable environmental patches. For species for which this is not the historical condition, reduction in species‟ range in the planning area may have resulted. These species are likely not well- distributed in the planning area.

Outcome E – Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance, with little or no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, resulting in strong potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of such patches. There has likely been a reduction in the species‟ range from historical conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition since the historical time period. Species with this outcome are not well-distributed throughout much of the planning area.

Marten, Pileated Woodpecker, Three-toed Woodpecker, and Barred Owl

Existing Condition The marten, pileated woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker are management indicator species for mature or old growth habitats in mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, and/or subalpine fir forest types. The marten is a small forest carnivore that inhabits mature/old growth habitats, especially those with an abundance of downed woody debris. It preys on small mammals, birds, and insects. The pileated woodpecker inhabits mixed conifer stands and the three-toed woodpecker inhabits lodgepole pine and subalpine fir forest types. The barred owl is a management indicator species for mixed conifer old growth and mature habitats. Details on habitat use, ecology, and amount of habitat on the Forest are in Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011). The amount of habitat on the Forest for each of these species is also listed in Table 3.6.1. There is suitable habitat for these five species in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Marten presence has been documented in all 4 allotments. Barred owls have been documented in the Little Bridge and Newby allotments.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2. The no grazing alternative and the proposed livestock grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would not alter any of the important components of mature or old growth forest habitats. They would not result in any reduction in the amount of habitat at the project or Forest scale. They would not change the viability outcomes listed in Table 3.6.1. The LLBNP project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for marten, pileated woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, or barred owl.

Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat Existing Condition The northern spotted owl is a management indicator species for mixed conifer old growth and mature habitats. Details on habitat use, ecology, and amount of habitat on the Forest are in Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011). The amount of northern spotted owl habitat on the Forest is also listed in Table 3.6.1. Northern spotted owls are known to occur on the Methow Valley

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--90

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Ranger District. The Methow Rivers and most of the Chewuch River are recognized as the eastern boundary of northern spotted owl distribution in northern Washington. Breeding pairs or individuals have been documented at 8 different areas on the district. The northern spotted owls in the Methow Valley typically begin nesting in late March and young owls leave the nest by mid June.

The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments are all west of the Methow River and thus within the range of the northern spotted owl. No known nest stands are in any of the 4 allotments. There have been no northern spotted owl sightings in any of the 4 allotments in the last 20 years. Several timber sale projects that were within the 4 allotments were surveyed for northern spotted owls in the last 20 years with no detections (Poverty, Ridge, AM, Shady, TPR). The nearest known spotted owl locations are 2 miles west of the Little Bridge allotment (War Creek site) and 3 miles south of the Libby allotment (Foggy Dew site). There is no northern spotted owl critical habitat in any of the 4 allotments.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a minor, beneficial effect on the northern spotted owl and its habitat. The absence of livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would eliminate the potential for disturbance that may occur with the management of the grazing allotment, and it would eliminate the potential for impacts to northern spotted owl prey abundance.

Alternative 2. The proposed livestock grazing activities would have no effect on northern spotted owl habitat. They would result in no alterations to forest stand structure. The only potential effects of the proposed action to northern spotted owls is disturbance that may occur with the management of the grazing allotment; e.g. maintaining fences and water developments, placing salt, moving cattle, looking for cattle, and potential impacts to owl prey abundance. Cattle grazing typically does not occur in habitats that are suitable as nesting stands for northern spotted owls. The dense tree canopy closure is not conducive to the dense grass/forbs growth that cattle seek for forage. The potential for human/cattle disturbance to northern spotted owls on these 4 allotments is very low and thus the effects of such disturbance are insignificant and discountable.

Grazing effects on rodents varies with the species, habitat type, and season of grazing (Ivey 1996). Some rodents are dependent on good ground cover and can be negatively affected by grazing (Johnson 1981, Kauffman et. al. 1981, Oldemeyer and Allen-Johnson 1988). Excessive grazing removes their security cover and forage. However, grazing according to Forest standards results in more than half of the grasses and forbs left to provide cover for owl prey species. In addition, the grazing rotation strategy results in not grazing some units annually while others are not grazed until late in the year. Those units grazed early can realize some grass regrowth if there is post-grazing precipitation. Northern spotted owl primary prey species include northern flying squirrel, bushy-tailed woodrat, and deer mice (Richards 1989). These species are not dependent on herbaceous ground cover and likely are not greatly affected by cattle grazing.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest in northern spotted owl habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected northern spotted owls in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, and

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--91

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

fire suppression. Timber harvest has removed northern spotted owl habitat. Fire suppression has resulted in the protection and development of northern spotted owl habitat. Under a natural wildfire occurrence cycle some of the current northern spotted owl habitat would not have developed but would have been in a more open condition. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting northern spotted owl include livestock grazing and fire suppression. Fire suppression continues except under certain conditions in wilderness areas of the district. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to northern spotted owls in keeping with Forest Plan standards and the Endangered Species Act. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would result in a minor cumulative effect. The proposed livestock grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would not alter any of the important components of mature or old growth forest habitats. They would not result in any reduction in the amount of habitat at the project or Forest scale. They would not change the viability outcomes listed in Table 3.6.1. The LLBNP project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for northern spotted owl.

Primary Cavity Excavators

Existing Condition The pileated, three-toed, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis‟ and white-headed woodpeckers; red-naped and Williamson‟s sapsuckers; and northern flicker are management indicator species for dead and defective tree habitat. Details on habitat use, ecology, and viability on the Forest are in Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011). These species and suitable snag habitat exists throughout the forested areas of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Alternatives 1 and 2. The no grazing alternative and the proposed livestock grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would have no effect on the size or health of primary cavity excavator populations. These species nest in tree cavities and thus are not disturbed by livestock. Grazing does not affect dead and defective tree habitat. Neither alternative would change the viability outcomes listed in Table 3.6.1. The LLBNP project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for the pileated, three-toed, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis‟ and white-headed woodpeckers; red-naped and Williamson‟s sapsuckers; and northern flicker.

Ruffed Grouse

Existing Condition The ruffed grouse is the management indicator species of deciduous and riparian habitats. Details on habitat use, ecology, viability, and amount of habitat on the Forest are in Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011). The amount of habitat on the Forest for this species is estimated in Table 3.6.1. Deciduous and riparian habitats are also important for songbirds, waterfowl, amphibians, beaver, ungulates, and many other species. Deciduous stands in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are either linear in shape and associated with streams or are small, widely scattered aspen stands. A few of the more notable aspen stands in the area are associated with wetlands or streams, such as the stand in the headwater of Blackpine Creek (Newby), the one adjacent to beaver ponds in upper Libby Creek, those along Ben Canyon (Libby), and the one near the mouth of Cow Creek (Little Bridge). Most, if not all, of the aspen stands are utilized by cattle for grazing and loafing, and some browsing of smaller stems occurs. Hadfield and Magelssen (2004) found that aspen stands on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--92

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Forest were commonly browsed by cattle and deer, but not severe enough to prevent aspen sprouts from growing into larger stem sizes. Several of the stands they sampled on the Methow Valley Ranger District were in these 4 allotments. The present grazing systems appears to be conducive to allowing aspen stands to expand and/or regenerate through sucker sprouting. Most of the stands appear to be healthy and limited more by conifer shading than by ungulate browsing (Figure 3.8.1). An aspen stand on Buttermilk Butte may be an exception (see Botany report).

The major streams in the area include Libby Creek, Little Bridge Creek, Canyon Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Blackpine Creek, Newby Creek, and Poorman Creek. Libby Creek is accessed by cattle almost exclusively at the 3 sites where a Forest road crosses the stream. The remainder of the mainstem of Libby is not conducive to cattle use due to steep slopes and dense vegetation. The same is true for Canyon Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Newby Creek, and most of Poorman Creek. Little Bridge Creek is more accessible to cattle due to gentle slopes and from an adjacent Forest road. However, the lower 2 miles of Little Bridge have been fenced to exclude cattle from the stream and its riparian habitat.

The larger wetlands in the allotment include Mission Pond (Libby), Government Spring (Libby), and Blackpine Lake (Newby). In addition, there are beaver pond systems on upper Libby Creek, Ben Canyon (Libby), Little Bridge Creek, Blackpine Creek (Newby), and Buttermilk Creek (Newby). Government Spring, Blackpine Lake, Mission Pond, and the large beaver pond system in the headwaters of Blackpine Creek have been fenced to exclude cattle.

Minor streams and springs can be small in size but the riparian habitats provided by them are very important to wildlife. Springs that are developed as a water source for cattle still provide excellent habitat for wildlife if the spring source is fenced and maintained and the drinking trough is located out of the riparian habitat. Spring sources that are not developed or have been developed but not maintained can easily be impacted by cattle use. Trampling at the spring site can reduce water availability and excessive browsing and/or grazing in the riparian vegetation reduces habitat quality and quantity for wildlife. There are several developed springs in the 4 allotments that require additional maintenance or reconstruction to reduce impacts from cattle use. The fences excluding cattle from the spring source at Bridge Creek Saddle, Lime 4, Lime 5, YCC Spring, Blakely 2, Lookout Draw, Alder Lookout, and Lower Elderberry water developments are not functioning resulting in cattle impacting the small riparian areas around them. The drinking trough at Elbow, Blakely 1, Alder Lookout, and Upper Elderberry water development is located in the riparian area resulting in cattle trampling of the riparian vegetation immediately around the trough.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--93

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.6.1. Variety of stem sizes in an aspen stand in North Fork Libby Creek.

Most of the riparian habitat in the project area is in good condition. Past stream surveys documented minimal impacts from cattle for the stream systems mentioned above (Chapter 3.2 Aquatic Resources). Shrub density and cover is often very high and provides a good access barrier for cattle. Past road building along and across the riparian areas and old harvest units along streams have facilitated livestock access to streams, but minimal livestock damage to stream banks and streamside vegetation is occurring outside these livestock access points. Cattle are using the streams primarily to access the water and not for foraging. In most inspected areas, browsing of shrubs is not evident. Exceptions are the water developments listed above and the sites listed in Chapter 2. In particular, the area along Little Bridge Creek upstream of the existing fence exclosure where abandoned beaver ponds exist has been impacted by cattle use. Trampling along the one remaining pond has broken down the old beaver dam and lowered the water level of the pond, reducing habitat for amphibians and other wildlife. A small wet meadow system in upper Black Pine Creek adjacent to Forest road 4300 was heavily utilized by cattle during several years (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources and Figure 3.1.3). Over utilization of grasses, forbs and shrubs reduced riparian habitat available for wildlife during those years.

Direct and Indirect Effects The potential effects of cattle grazing to riparian and deciduous habitat and the species that use them includes trampling on individuals or eggs of small species such as amphibians (Bull 2009), physically displacing larger species such as deer, and by altering the structure and composition of the riparian vegetation. Livestock grazing of riparian vegetation can reduce nesting cover,

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--94

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

alter prey availability (insects), and increase nest detectability (Bull et. al. 2001).

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would result in a positive effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitat. All forbs, grasses, shrubs, and new sprouts in riparian/deciduous stands would be available as wildlife forage and cover and would not be grazed by livestock. The riparian areas where cattle congregated in the past (road crossings of streams, the water developments listed above, the old beaver pond area along Little Bridge Creek, the small wet meadow system in upper Black Pine Creek) would recover from the overutilization and trampling. Alternative 1 of the LLBNP project would not change the viability outcome listed in Table 3.6.1. It would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for ruffed grouse.

Alternative 2. This alternative would have a minor effect on ruffed grouse and riparian/deciduous habitats. Livestock grazing would continue as it has in the recent past, however there would be adjustments made to reduce grazing in the areas of riparian/deciduous habitats where cattle have congregated and impacted the habitat for wildlife. The fencing to reduce cattle access to Little Bridge Creek would be very effective at improving the riparian habitat at the old beaver dam area because cows would no longer be able to access this habitat. The reconstruction of existing spring developments would be very effective at improving riparian habitat because cows would no longer be able to access habitat where fencing is reconstructed, and where troughs are moved out of the riparian habitat cattle trampling and use of the adjacent riparian area would be greatly reduced since they would not have to enter it to access the trough. The reduction in cattle numbers and improvements to reduce cattle use in the Buttermilk unit of Newby and Lime unit of Little Bridge would be moderately effective at improving riparian habitat. These reductions in grazing would allow the impacted riparian/deciduous habitat areas to improve because not as many cattle would be impacting this habitat. The small wet meadow system in upper Black Pine Creek would still be accessible to cattle but the fewer numbers and fewer days would result in impacts being within standards. Streams and ponds that are presently fenced to exclude cattle would continue to provide high quality riparian habitat. The streams that currently do not get utilized by cattle due to slope or dense vegetation would continue to provide high quality riparian habitat. Because of the deferred and/or rest-rotation grazing strategies, the riparian/deciduous habitat areas in the 4 allotments that are accessed by cattle would continue to provide the structure needed to provide forage and cover for ruffed grouse and other dependent wildlife species.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest and road building impacts to riparian habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected ruffed grouse and riparian and deciduous habitats in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, road building, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and recreation. Timber harvest and road building has removed some riparian/deciduous vegetation. Fire suppression has resulted in many riparian areas, especially narrow stream corridors, being dominated by dense stands of conifer trees. Under a natural wildfire occurrence cycle many of these riparian areas would be composed of a more diverse forest of deciduous shrub, deciduous trees, and conifer trees. Prescribed fires have rejuvenated decadent aspen stands and initiated sucker sprouting and stand expansion. Recreational development of trails, trailheads, Black Pine Lake campground, and dispersed recreation sites in riparian habitat has resulted in small losses of riparian habitat. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting ruffed grouse and riparian and deciduous habitats include livestock grazing, road and

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--95

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

trail maintenance, fire suppression, and recreation. Existing roads and hiking trails intersect riparian habitats and are maintained to prevent riparian vegetation from growing over them. Fire suppression continues except under certain conditions in wilderness areas of the district. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to riparian and deciduous habitats in keeping with Forest Plan standards. No population or habitat trend information is available for the analysis area. However, habitat trend analysis completed for the Interior Columbia Basin project identified a basin-wide decline in old forests of aspen and cottonwood-willow (Wisdom, et al. 2000). This would mean that there is currently less habitat available for ruffed grouse than historically. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be in an improvement over existing conditions. It would not change the viability outcome listed in Table 3.6.1. Alternative 2 of the LLBNP project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for ruffed grouse.

Mule Deer Existing Condition Mule deer are the management indicator species for winter range. Mule deer winter ranges on the Methow Valley Ranger District are primarily lower elevation areas where bitterbrush and other shrubs exist along with or adjacent to forest habitat to provide both forage and cover. Details on habitat use, ecology, and amount of habitat on the Forest are in the Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011). The amount of winter range habitat on the Forest is also listed in Table 3.6.1. A large portion of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments is mapped as mule deer winter range. This includes low density winter range and high density winter range (Management Areas 14 and 26, respectively, Figure 1-2). Table 3.6.2. Amount of mule deer winter range by allotment. Libby Little Bridge Newby Poorman Total Allotment Area (acres) 23,971 27,494 17,234 6744 75,443 Winter Range Area (acres) 17,249 5065 4329 3912 30,555 Percent 72% 18% 25% 58% 41%

In the Libby allotment mule deer winter range includes the entire Smith and Alder units, most of the Chicamun unit, and the lower elevations of the Mission unit (Figure 1-2). The areas that receive the highest deer use during winter (MA 26) include upper Booth Canyon (Smith unit) and the north side of McClure Mountain (Alder unit). Cattle are not placed or moved to upper Booth Canyon or the north side of McClure Mountain and they normally do not drift into these areas. All of the Libby allotment is currently scheduled for use every other year during the months of May through September (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). In the Little Bridge allotment most of the Meyers unit and the southeast corner of the Bridge unit are mapped as mule deer winter range (Figure 1-2). The areas of the Little Bridge allotment that receive the highest deer use during winter are the lower elevations of Coal Creek and Myers Creek in the Meyers unit. The Meyers unit is currently scheduled for use every other year from May 16 to July 15 (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). In the Newby allotment most of the East unit (Newby Creek subdrainage) is mapped as mule deer winter range (Figure 1-2). There are no MA 26 areas in the Newby allotment. The East

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--96

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

unit is currently scheduled for grazing in June and early July of each season (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). In the Poorman allotment the south facing slopes north of Poorman Creek and the Blakely Canyon area are mapped as mule deer winter range (Figure 1-2). There are no MA 26 areas in the Poorman allotment. The Poorman allotment is currently scheduled for grazing each year with a deferred rotation strategy (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). Fencing can block mule deer movements or individual deer can get injured or die by getting tangled in strands of wire. Fences can be designed to minimize these effects. By having the top wire strand or wooden rail no higher than 42” above the ground allows adult deer to jump over the fence. By having the lowest wire strand or wooden rail at least 16” above the ground allows fawns to crawl under. By maintaining wire fences to keep the strands up and tight allows animals to pass between strands without getting tangled. Barbed wire fencing used on the LLBNP project area that has been maintained poses little threat to mule deer. Unmaintained or abandoned barbed wire fence does pose a threat to individual deer, however, cases of movement barriers or entanglements in the project area have not been reported or documented.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have no effect on mule deer winter range on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. There would be no livestock grazing or browsing and all annual available browse would be available for mule deer. There would be no displacement of deer by cattle. Any benefits to deer from shrub seedling establishment and early spring grass availability due to cattle grazing would not be realized. Alternative 2. Two potential effects that livestock grazing could have on mule deer and their winter ranges are changes in forage available for mule deer due to utilization by livestock and deer physically avoiding areas due to the presence of livestock. Fencing used to manage livestock can affect mule deer by blocking their movements or causing injury or death when individuals get caught in wire when attempting to cross. Cattle are primarily grazers (consume grass and forbs) but they will browse on shrubs in late summer and early fall when the grasses have dried out and are lower in palatability and nutrient content. The Forest Plan requires that 85% of the annual available browse (shrubs) on winter ranges to be available for wildlife and 15% for livestock. The most abundant browse species on the winter ranges of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments is bitterbrush. A majority of the bitterbrush stands grow on steep, south-facing slopes. Many of these slopes are steep enough that they receive little, if any, use from livestock. There is no evidence of livestock use of winter range browse in excess of 15% on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Some research has indicated that cattle grazing on deer winter range can result in conditions favorable for the establishment of new shrub seedlings such as bitterbrush (Neal 1981). In early spring mule deer change their diet from woody browse stems to the new growth of forbs and grasses on south-facing slopes. Fall grazing by cattle can make the new growth in the following spring more accessible for mule deer (McLean and Willms 1981). The interactions of cattle and mule deer have been the subject of several studies (Mackie 1981, Coe et al. 2001). Most of these discuss the large number of variables involved that influence the results, such as topography, plant communities, season of use, number of livestock, number of deer, presence of other ungulates such as elk, range condition, and human use of area. Some studies have found that mule deer either moved or changed their use patterns when cattle were turned into allotments (Mackie 1981). Studies on the Starkey Experimental Range in northeastern Oregon found no clear response of mule deer to cattle, but this was confounded by a strong avoidance by mule deer to elk (Coe et al. 2001). Cattle are on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments during the months of May through September, not

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--97

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

during winter. So any displacement of deer by cattle would only occur during May through September and not during winter.

Alternative 2 would have a minor effect on mule deer and their winter range. Livestock grazing would continue as it has in the recent past with some reduction in numbers and changes to decrease access to riparian areas and improve upland range conditions. The proposed reduction in numbers, fencing, rotation strategies, and increased monitoring would result in better distribution of cattle and a slight decrease in cattle use of winter range. Livestock use of winter range browse would not likely exceed the 15% Forest Plan standard since it has not in the past and the proposed action would result in even less use. Cattle presence from May through September may cause mule deer to change their use patterns and make more use of areas that cattle avoid, such as steep slopes and dense forest stands, or to move out of the allotment. The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby and Poorman allotments contain many steep and/or densely forested areas that cattle avoid, but could be utilized by mule deer. Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest and road building impacts to winter range habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected mule deer and winter range habitats in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, road building, fire suppression, and prescribed fire. Past timber harvest in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby and Poorman allotments has likely resulted in an increase in deciduous trees and shrubs that deer favor for browse. Road building has removed some habitat and facilitated human disturbance of deer. Prescribed fires have rejuvenated deer browse species such as aspen and buckbrush by initiating sprouting of new stems. Fire suppression has resulted in many areas, especially narrow stream corridors, being dominated by dense stands of conifer trees. Under a natural wildfire occurrence cycle many of these riparian areas would be composed of a more diverse forest of deciduous shrub, deciduous trees, and conifer trees. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting mule deer and winter range habitats include livestock grazing, road and trail maintenance, and fire suppression. Existing roads and hiking trails intersect winter range habitats and are maintained providing access routes for human disturbance to mule deer. Fire suppression continues except under certain conditions in wilderness areas of the district. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to mule deer and winter range habitats in keeping with Forest Plan standards. Habitat trend analysis completed for the Interior Columbia Basin project identified a basin-wide decline in habitat capability for mule deer (Wisdom, et al. 2000). However the Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011) includes information that indicates that mule deer populations in eastern and central Washington are stable. The proposed changes on Libby, Little Bridge, Newby and Poorman allotments would result in slight improvement to upland range conditions. When the past, present , and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be a minor cumulative effect. It would not result in any reduction in the amount of winter range habitat at the project or Forest scale. It would not change the viability outcome listed in Table 3.6.1. Alternative 2 of the LLBNP project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for mule deer.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--98

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Canada Lynx

Affected Environment The Canada lynx is the management indicator species of lodgepole pine habitats. Lodgepole pine habitats are also important for songbirds, snowshoe hares, ungulates, and many other species. Lynx are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. Lynx inhabit mesic, coniferous forests that have cold snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hares (Ruggiero et al. 2000). On the east side of the Cascade Range lynx primarily inhabit subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine forests. They also occur in cool, moist Douglas-fir types where they are interspersed with primary vegetation types (Ruediger et al. 2000). These forest types generally are found above 4000 feet elevation. Lynx seem to prefer areas of low topographic relief (McKelvey et al. 2000, Apps 2000). Lynx distribution is linked to that of the snowshoe hare which require forests with low, dense, horizontal structure (Ruggiero et. al. 2000). Details on habitat use, ecology, and amount of habitat on the Forest are in the Wildlife MIS Status Report (2011). The amount of lynx habitat on the Forest is also listed in Table 3.6.1.

The far west portion of the Libby allotment (approximately 1500 acres) is within the Methow Gold Creek lynx analysis unit (LAU). Approximately 6000 acres of the southwest portion of the Newby allotment is within the Spirit Mountain and Twisp LAUs. Approximately 12,000 acres of the north and west portion of the Little Bridge allotment is within the Milton Mountain and Twisp LAUs. This is all mapped as critical habitat for lynx. The Poorman allotment is not within any LAU and contains no lynx habitat. The presence of lynx has been documented in the Methow Gold Creek, Twisp, and Spirit Mountain LAUs within the last 10 years.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a minor, beneficial effect on the lynx. The absence of livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would eliminate the potential for livestock overgrazing important snowshoe hare forage areas.

Alternative 2. The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) provided 4 project planning standards for analyzing effects of livestock grazing on lynx and their habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000). These 4 standards focus on the effects of livestock grazing on snowshoe hare habitat: 1. Do not allow livestock use in openings created by fire or timber harvest that would delay successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components. Delay livestock use in post-fire and post-harvest created openings until successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components occurs. There is no evidence of livestock grazing delaying regeneration in fire or harvest created openings in the Libby, Little Bridge, or Newby allotments. Past timber harvest units in the allotments show no evidence of cattle use delaying the regeneration of shrubs or trees.

2. Manage grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of the clones. There are small stands of aspen in the Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments. Most, if not all, of the aspen stands are utilized by cattle for grazing and loafing. The present grazing systems appears to be conducive to allowing aspen stands to regenerate

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--99

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

through sucker sprouting. The stands appear to be healthy and are limited more by conifer shading and disease than by ungulate browsing. Hadfield and Magelssen (2004) found that aspen stands on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests were commonly browsed by cattle and deer, but not severe enough to prevent aspen sprouts from growing into larger stem sizes. Some of the stands they reviewed were in the Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments. The proposed actions should even further reduce cattle impacts to aspen stands.

3. Within the elevational ranges that encompass forested lynx habitat, shrub-steppe habitats should be considered as integral to the lynx habitat matrix and should be managed to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition. There are some areas of shrub-steppe habitat (big sagebrush) in lynx habitat on the Libby, Little Bridge and Newby allotments. Cattle grazing has not impacted the seral stage of the high elevation shrub steppe habitat.

4. Within lynx habitat, manage livestock grazing in riparian areas and willow carrs to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition to provide cover and forage for prey species. There are no willow carrs in the Libby, Little Bridge, or Newby allotments. Riparian habitat condition was discussed above. Most of the riparian habitat in the allotment is in good and improving condition. The proposed action includes fencing of some riparian areas to exclude cattle, though none of these are in lynx habitat. Riparian areas in lynx habitat are used by livestock, but not in a manner that depresses the seral condition of the riparian habitat. Livestock grazing does reduce summer foraging habitat for snowshoe hares. However, summer foraging habitat is not a limiting factor for snowshoe hares (Hodges 2000). Shrub and tree cover in these riparian areas, which is more important for winter snowshoe hare habitat, is altered minimally if at all. Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the Methow Gold Creek, Spirit Mountain, Twisp, and Milton Mountain lynx analysis units (LAUs). The temporal boundary is approximately 100 years in the past when livestock grazing and predator control in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that affected lynx in the analysis area include predator control efforts and hunting/trapping activities, livestock grazing, fire suppression, and timber sales. Predator control targeting wolves in the early 1900s likely impacted lynx, especially when poison carcasses were placed on the Forest. Lynx were legally trapped until they were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2000. The number of livestock grazing in the early 1900s greatly exceeded the present number and likely resulted in widespread overgrazing in the project area. Bands of sheep in the high elevation areas likely reduced forage available for snowshoe hares. Fire suppression in the high elevation forests has resulted in fewer acres of young lodgepole pine, the primary winter forage for snowshoe hares. Timber sales have resulted in the temporary conversion of some high elevation forest stands to young lodgepole pine stands that provide good snowshoe hare forage and therefore good lynx hunting areas. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting lynx include human disturbance to a den, accidental or intentional shooting, livestock grazing, fire suppression. Human disturbance to a den site is always a possibility on public lands, but extremely unlikely since lynx den in very dense stands of conifers with an abundance of large, downed logs (McKelvey et al. 2000, Apps 2000). Shooting and trapping of lynx is illegal. Fire suppression continues except under special

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--100

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

conditions in wilderness areas. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to lynx in keeping with Forest Plan standards and the Endangered Species Act. The proposed action meets the terms of the Lynx Conservation Agreement. The proposed range activities would result in no new road construction and no new forest openings. They would not alter snowshoe hare winter habitat. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be a minor cumulative effect on lynx. Alternative 2 of the LLBNP project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan National Forest for lynx. It would not change the viability outcome listed in Table 3.6.1. Landbirds Affected Environment Livestock grazing has been shown to have a negative effect on some bird species, a positive effect on some, and no effect on others (Musconi and Hutto 1991, Bock et. al. 1993). Bird species most likely affected by grazing are those that use grasses, forbs, and shrubs for nesting, foraging, or security cover.

The Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascades Mountains in Oregon and Washington (2001) lists priority habitats, habitat attributes, focal species, and management considerations that are appropriate for birds in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby and Poorman allotments area. The following focal species were selected based on their conservation need, and/or degree of association with important habitat attributes in the East-Slope Cascades.

Table 3.6.3. Focal species and habitat attributes

Habitat Attribute Focal Species Habitat

Ponderosa Pine old forest-large patches white-headed woodpecker Ponderosa Pine large trees pygmy nuthatch Ponderosa Pine open understory - regeneration chipping sparrow Ponderosa Pine burned old forest Lewis' woodpecker Mixed Conifer large trees brown creeper Mixed Conifer large snags Williamson's sapsucker Mixed Conifer grassy openings, dense thickets flammulated owl Mixed Conifer multi-layered, structural diverse hermit thrush Mixed Conifer fire edges and openings olive-sided flycatcher Oak-Pine Woodland early seral, dense understory Nashville warbler Oak-Pine Woodland large oaks with cavities ash-throated flycatcher Oak-Pine Woodland large pine trees/snags Lewis' woodpecker Lodgepole Pine mature/old-growth black-backed woodpecker Whitebark Pine mature/old growth Clark's nutcracker Montane Meadows wet and dry sandhill crane Aspen large trees/snags, regeneration red-naped sapsucker Subalpine Fir patchy presence blue grouse

The priority habitat/habitat attribute/focal species that could be affected by livestock grazing in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are those that include meadows or forest openings:

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--101

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.6.4. Focal species that may be affected by livestock grazing in the 4 allotments

Habitat Attribute Focal Species Habitat

Ponderosa Pine open understory - regeneration chipping sparrow Mixed Conifer grassy openings, dense thickets flammulated owl Mixed Conifer fire edges and openings olive-sided flycatcher Montane Meadows wet and dry sandhill crane Subalpine Fir patchy presence blue grouse

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would result in a positive effect on landbirds and their habitats. No ground nests would be disturbed or destroyed. All forbs, grasses, and shrubs would not be grazed by livestock and would be available as landbird forage and cover.

Alternative 2. The potential effects of cattle grazing to these birds include trampling of nests, and the alteration of the herbaceous vegetation that provides birds with nesting, foraging, and/or hiding cover and produces insects for bird to forage.

The chipping sparrow nests in small trees and it forages on the ground in open areas for seeds and insects. Heavy grazing may reduce herbaceous cover used for foraging (Partners in Flight 2001). The flammulated owl is a secondary cavity nester and forages on insects and arthropods that are most abundant and diverse in grassy meadows and open forests (Hayward and Verner 1994). Cattle grazing in flammulated owl habitat could alter the abundance of insects and other prey items. The olive-sided flycatcher nests in trees and also forages on flying insects (DeGraaf et. al. 1991). Grazing could limit understory growth that provides insect productivity (Partners in Flight 2001). The sandhill crane nests, forages, and rears young in large meadows. They are not known to nest in the project area or anywhere else on the Methow Valley Range District. Blue grouse nest on the ground in open stands of coniferous forests or aspen (DeGraaf et.a. 1991). During spring and summer they spend a lot of time near streams, springs, and meadows where they forage on leaves, buds, flowers, berries, and insects (WDFW 1998). In autumn they migrate to higher elevations and major ridgetops and remain there all winter foraging primarily on conifer needles. Cattle grazing could disturb or destroy grouse nests and reduce the understory vegetation that is important for their food and cover (PIF 2001).

Kauffman et. al. (1981) found that late season grazing had minimal effects on nesting birds, and deferring grazing until after August 1 was recommended to minimize effects to blue grouse (WDFW 1998). The greatest potential for effects would be in the allotment units that are grazed early in the season. The earliest that cattle would be on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would be May 1. In these lower elevation areas blue grouse usually hatch and leave their nests in the first 2 weeks of April, so disturbance or destruction of nests by grazing would probably not occur (Personal observation). For ground nesting species that hatch later than May 1, there would be potential for nest disturbance to occur. All but two of the allotment units that are grazed early get rested every other year. Smith and Chicamun in Libby; Lime, Canyon, and Meyers in Little Bridge; and Powderhouse in Poorman are scheduled for use beginning in May, followed by a year of non-use. East and West units in Newby are not rested every other year, but they have lower numbers of cattle on alternating years (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). Not all areas of these early season units are utilized by cattle because cattle tend to congregate on gentle slopes, along roads, and near wet areas; they tend to avoid steep slopes.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--102

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

This alternative would have a minor effect on landbirds and grass/shrub habitats. In alternative 2 livestock grazing would continue as it has in the recent past, however there would be adjustments made to reduce grazing in the riparian areas where cattle have congregated and to improve upland range conditions in several areas. The proposed fencing, reduction in numbers, and changes in timing of grazing would lessen the potential for negative effects to blue grouse and other landbirds. Chipping sparrows, flammulated owls, olive-sided flycatchers, blue grouse and other landbirds that rely on grass, forbs, and shrubs would be impacted by the livestock grazing proposed in alternative 2. However this impact is primarily limited to alternate years in the areas in the early season units where cattle tend to congregate. Most of the grass, forb, and shrub habitat in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would maintain the structure needed to provide forage and cover for landbirds.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest and road building impacts to landbird habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected landbirds and grass/shrub habitats in the analysis area include livestock grazing, road building, and prescribed fire. Past livestock grazing was more intense than current grazing practices and resulted in overgrazing of riparian and grassland habitats. Road building has removed some grass/shrub vegetation. Prescribed fire has removed some conifer trees and opened up areas for grasses and shrubs to become established. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting landbirds and grass/shrub habitats include livestock grazing. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to landbirds and grass/shrub habitats in keeping with Forest Plan standards. When the past, present , and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be a minor cumulative effect. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species

The following list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are known or suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest:

Table 3.6.5. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species on the Okanogan National Forest.

Status Species Endangered gray wolf Threatened grizzly bear Canada lynx northern spotted owl

Sensitive American peregrine falcon Ash-throated flycatcher Bald eagle Common loon Eared grebe Ferruginous hawk

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--103

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Fisher Gray flycatcher Great gray owl Harlequin duck Sandhill crane Sharp-tailed grouse Townsend‟s big-eared bat Upland sandpiper Western gray squirrel White-headed woodpecker Wolverine

Gray Wolf

Existing Condition Wolves are wide-ranging predators that can exist in a wide variety of habitat types. They are habitat generalists in terms of terrain and vegetation (Boyd 1999, Oakleaf et al. 2006). They are not wilderness dependent, but their survival depends on the availability of cover and relatively secure areas that allow them to avoid humans and escape persecution (Carroll et al. 2003). To successfully inhabit an area they require a year-round prey base of wild ungulates (Boyd et al. 1994, Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Mule deer are likely the main prey item for wolves in the Methow Valley since they are by far the most abundant ungulate. White-tailed deer, moose, mountain goats, beavers, wild turkeys, marmots, and other small mammals likely provide a prey source.

The basic social unit of a wolf population is a mated pair, and a wolf pack is generally a mated pair along with one or more generations of their offspring (Mech 2000, Mech and Boitani 2003). Pups are born at a natal den in spring (generally mid-to late April) and remain there with their mother for about 2 months (Mech 1970, Boyd 1999). During this time any disturbance that results in the female leaving the den may expose the pups to predation or inclement weather. The sensitivity of females to human disturbances at den sites varies greatly among individuals (Boyd 1999). From the den the pups are moved to a rendezvous site, where they remain, usually under the care of one adult, while other adult members of the pack hunt. Wolf packs vary widely in the number of rendezvous sites they may use in a summer and the amount of time spent at them (Boyd 1999). Frame et al. (2005) tested the response of wolves to human disturbance at both den and rendezvous sites and found that though the wolves may have moved in response to the disturbance, it did not reduce reproductive success nor effect the re- use of the sites in subsequent years. For more detailed information on gray wolf biology see Mech and Boitani (2003) or the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/.

Gray wolves are believed to occur throughout the Methow Valley Ranger District, but confirmed sightings were not common until 2008. In early 2008 a series of wolf sightings and photographs resulted in the documentation of the Lookout Pack, the first wolf pack known to exist in Washington since the 1930s. To date, this is the only known reproductive wolf pair on the Methow Valley Ranger District. The Lookout Pack has inhabited the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments during parts of the last two years. The Lookout Pack‟s winter use area includes portions of Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Their one known den site and several rendezvous sites are all within the Libby allotment.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a minor, beneficial effect on the gray wolf. The absence of livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman alltoments would eliminate the potential for livestock/wolf conflicts. It would also reduce the amount of human

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--104

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

use in the analysis area, thus reducing the potential for human/wolf conflict.

Alternative 2. There are 3 potential effects of the proposed grazing activities on gray wolf:

1) Cattle presence on the allotment may displace deer, the primary prey of gray wolves in this area, and thus cause wolves to move to other areas to hunt, or increase the possibility of predation on livestock by wolves, 2) human management of the grazing allotment may disturb gray wolves that may be in the allotment, which could result in abandonment of a den or moving a rendezvous site, and 3) the possibility of livestock/wolf interactions that would result in wolf control action.

1) Cattle presence on the allotment could displace deer, the primary prey of gray wolves in this area, and thus cause wolves to move to other areas to hunt. The interactions of cattle and mule deer have been the subject of several studies (Mackie 1981, Coe et. al. 2001). Most of these discuss the large number of variables involved that influence the results, such as topography, plant communities, season of use, number of livestock, number of deer, presence of other ungulates such as elk, range condition, and human use of area. Some studies have found that mule deer either moved or changed their use patterns when cattle were turned into allotments (Mackie 1981). Studies on the Starkey Experimental Range in northeastern Oregon found no clear response of mule deer to cattle, but this was confounded by a strong avoidance by mule deer to elk (Coe et. al. 2001).

Cattle use on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments may cause mule deer to change their use patterns, e.g. make more use of areas that cattle avoid, such as steep slopes and dense forest stands, or to move out of the allotment. The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments contain many steep and/or densely forested areas that cattle avoid, but could be utilized by mule deer. Wolves are wide-ranging predators that have been known to travel more than 20 miles away from a den or rendezvous site while hunting (Mech and Boitani 2003). Cattle use of the allotment may result in wolves having to travel further to hunt deer.

2) Human management of the grazing allotment; e.g. maintaining fences and water developments, placing salt, moving cattle, looking for cattle, may disturb gray wolves that may be in the allotments. Human disturbance at natal den or rendezvous sites may result in abandonment of the sites (Fritts et al. 2003, Frame et al. 2005). However, the sensitivity of wolves to human disturbances at den sites varies greatly among individuals (Boyd 1999). Pups are born at a natal den in spring (generally mid-to late April) and remain there with their mother for about two months (Mech 1970, Boyd 1999). During this time any disturbance that results in the female leaving the den may expose the pups to predation or inclement weather. From the den the pups are moved to a rendezvous site, where they remain, usually under the care of one adult, while other adult members of the pack hunt. Frame et al. (2005) tested the response of wolves to human disturbance at both den and rendezvous sites and found that though the wolves may have moved in response to the disturbance, it did not reduce reproductive success nor effect the re- use of the sites in subsequent years.

Wolf packs in other locations have been documented using the same rendezvous site in successive years and other packs have established new sites (Mech 1970). Whether the presence of cattle would cause wolves to abandon a den or rendezvous site(s) is unknown. In 2008 the Lookout Pack used only one rendezvous site and it was within ¼ mile of private land with occupied dwellings. There were domestic dogs present at this house. In 2009 they used several rendezvous sites, but not the 2008 site.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--105

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Management of the grazing allotments occurs throughout the grazing season (May 16 – September 30) so cows could be on the allotments for a month before wolves move from their dens to rendezvous sites. Maintenance of the improvements in an allotment unit is required prior to turn-out, so maintenance in units used first could take place in late April and early May, which is during the natal denning period.

Allotment management activities by humans would not be allowed near known, active den sites, during the denning period. The distance will be determined on a site-specific basis and will depend primarily on topography around the den site. Salt or other livestock attractants will not be allowed near dens or rendezvous sites. Active rendezvous sites will be managed on a case- by-case basis, since human activity may be required near these sites to reduce or prevent cattle from accessing the site.

3) The possibility of livestock/wolf interactions that would result in wolf control actions. Although wolves normally prey on wild ungulates or other wild animals, they sometimes attack and kill livestock or other domesticated animals. Livestock depredation by wolves is difficult to predict and seems to be influenced by many factors. Newborn livestock in remote places are more vulnerable than larger, older stock that are kept closer to humans, and leaving livestock carcasses out and available for scavenging may increase the risk of wolf depredation (Fritts et al. 2003). The proximity of livestock to wolf homesites can also be a factor in determining the potential for wolf to depredate on livestock (Stone et al. 2008).

There have been no livestock/wolf interactions documented on the Methow Valley Ranger District in recent history. No control actions have been taken in recent history. In addition, any control action must be initiated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and would be considered to be a future Federal action requiring separate consultation under the Endangered Species Act. This element is not considered as part of this proposed project.

Cattle use of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments would increase the potential for wolf/livestock interaction, increase the potential for human disturbance to a wolf den or rendezvous site, and may result in wolves having to travel further to hunt deer.

There is nothing in the grazing permits, allotment management plans, or annual instruction letters for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments that authorizes predator control and any such control is not reasonably foreseeable; if such control is necessary, it would be a separate action.

Gray Wolf Conservation Measures for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments The following conservation measures will be implemented to reduce effects of the grazing allotment to gray wolves: 1. Livestock carcasses found on areas of the allotment where they would attract wolves to a potential conflict situation with other livestock, (such as a salting ground, water source, or holding corral) must be removed, buried, or otherwise disposed of such that the carcass will not attract wolves. 2. Obviously sick or injured livestock must be moved from the allotment, so they are not targeted by wolves. 3. Allotment management activities by humans will not be allowed near active wolf den sites during the denning period (late April to late June), to avoid human disturbance of the site. The distance will be determined on a site-specific basis and will depend primarily on topography around the den site.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--106

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

4. Salt or other livestock attractants will not knowingly be placed near wolf dens or rendezvous sites, to minimize cattle use of these sites. If a new den or rendezvous site is discovered, any previously established salt or attractant location may need to be relocated.

With the above conservation measures in place, the proposed grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments “may effect, but would not adversely affect the gray wolf”.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the Libby Creek and Upper Twisp River grizzly bear management units (BMUs). The temporal boundary is approximately 100 years in the past when livestock grazing and predator control impacts to gray wolves in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that affected gray wolves in the analysis area include predator control efforts and hunting/trapping activities. Predator control and hunting/trapping activities in the early 1900s extirpated the gray wolf from the LLBNP area as well as all of Washington state (Mech and Boitani 2003, WDFW 2011). Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting gray wolves include disturbance to a natal den site or rendezvous site and accidental or intentional shooting. Shooting and trapping of wolves is illegal in Washington. Livestock grazing is regulated and there have been no livestock/wolf interactions documented in the analysis area. Disturbance to a den or rendezvous site is always a possibility on public lands. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to gray wolves in keeping with Forest Plan standards and the Endangered Species Act. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be a minor cumulative effect on gray wolf.

Grizzly Bear

Existing Condition The project area is within the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The number of grizzly bears in the 6,473,314 hectare recovery zone is estimated to be less than 50, possibly as few as 10-20 (Almack et.al. 1993). There have been 5 confirmed reports of grizzly bears on the Methow Valley Ranger District (Almack and Fitkin 1998). The most recent was in 1996.

The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area is primarily conifer forest with areas of sage-steppe and some stringers of riparian habitat and small aspen stands. The riparian areas and aspen stands would provide spring foraging habitat for grizzly bears. There is a limited amount of livestock overgrazing occurring to grizzly bear habitat under the current grazing management strategy on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Riparian and aspen habitat conditions within the allotments are in good and improving condition with a few notable exceptions, as described above in the MIS Ruffed Grouse section. There is some remote, high-elevation habitat in the northwest end of the Little Bridge allotment in the Three AM and Midnight Mountain area. This area has some alpine, side-slope meadows, small stands of whitebark pine, avalanche chutes, talus slopes and north-facing slopes that may be suitable denning habitat. Cattle currently access the Midnight Mountain area from July 15 through September 15, however due to steep slopes and a scarcity of water, most of the cattle spend this time on lower elevations near Little Bridge Creek (Chapter 3.1 range Resources).

The Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments fall into the Upper Twisp River grizzly bear

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--107

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

management units (BMUs). The Libby allotment is within the Libby Creek BMU.

Table 3.6.6. BMU size and % core area for Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Allotment BMU BMU Size (ac) Core Area (%) Libby Libby Creek 147,910 47 Little Bridge, Newby, Upper Twisp River 156,966 66 and Poorman

Core area is any habitat that is more than 500 meters from a road or high use trail. A BMU with less than 55% core area is considered to have a high level of human influence (Gaines et. al. 2003).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a minor, beneficial effect on the grizzly bear. The absence of livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would eliminate the potential for livestock/bear conflicts and the potential for overgrazing of important bear forage areas. It would also reduce the amount of human use in the analysis area, thus reducing the potential for human/bear conflict.

Alternative 2. Potential effects of the proposed livestock grazing activities to grizzly bears include:

1. The potential for livestock/bear interactions that could result in bear control measures. This includes instances of bear predation on livestock as well as bears being attracted to and scavenging a livestock carcass. There have been no livestock/grizzly bear interactions documented on the Methow Valley Ranger District in recent history, and control is not a reasonably foreseeable future action. Bear control action would not be authorized by the proposed AMP revisions. The AMPs would specify that livestock carcasses within ¼ mile of a road, facility, or developed trail would be removed or destroyed to minimize the potential for human interaction with any bear that may discover and “defend” the carcass. In addition, the AMPs would require that all bear attractants associated with livestock operations be made unavailable to grizzly bears to avoid conditioning of bears to food. 2. The potential for livestock overgrazing on important bear forage areas. The proposed action includes fencing of several riparian areas to exclude cattle. Riparian and aspen habitat conditions within the allotments would be monitored to minimize over-utilization by cattle. The high elevation bear habitats in the Midnight unit of the Little Bridge allotment would receive little, if any, use from livestock since they are in steep and rugged terrain that most cattle rarely access. 3. Management of the grazing allotment; e.g. maintaining fences and water developments, placing salt, moving cattle, looking for cattle, etc. may disturb grizzly bears that may be in the allotments. There are no known denning or high use sites on or near the 4 allotments. Any bear disturbed by range management activities could move away in any direction. In addition, these disturbances would be temporary. The potential effects of human disturbance to grizzly bears on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are insignificant and discountable.

There would be no change to grizzly bear core area, since this proposal includes no new roads, motorized, or high-use trails. Based on the above analysis, the proposed activities are consistent with the interim direction for management in the North Cascades Grizzly Bear

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--108

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Recovery Zone. The proposed grazing activities “may affect, but would not adversely affect the grizzly bear”. There would be the potential for livestock/bear interactions. Any livestock/bear interaction would be reported to other wildlife agencies and coordinated with USDA Wildlife Services. Livestock overgrazing and trampling on sections of several riparian areas would be reduced because of the construction of one new water development, reconstruction of 12 existing water developments, and construction of fences to exclude cattle from a section of Little Bridge Creek and several wetlands in the Buttermilk Creek area. Conservation measures identified for gray wolf above would also prevent habituation by grizzly bears by minimizing the potential for bears to prey or scavenge on livestock.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the Libby Creek and Upper Twisp River grizzly bear management units (BMUs). The temporal boundary is approximately 100 years in the past when livestock grazing and predator control impacts to grizzly bears in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that affected grizzly bears in the analysis area include predator control efforts and hunting/trapping activities, livestock grazing, fire suppression, timber sales, road building, and prescribed fire. Predator control and hunting/trapping activities in the early 1900s nearly extirpated the grizzly bear from the LLBNP area as well as most of Washington state (Almack et.al. 1993). The number of livestock grazing in the early 1900s greatly exceeded the present number and likely resulted in widespread overgrazing in the project area. Bands of sheep and cattle both were grazed (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources). Fire suppression has resulted in more conifer forest and less deciduous shrubland, deciduous forest, and high elevation meadows, areas that provide abundant forage for bears. Timber sales have resulted in the temporary conversion of some conifer forest stands to deciduous shrub stands that provide good bear forage items. Road construction in conjunction with timber sales greatly reduced the amount of core area (habitat with minimum disturbance from human use). Prescribed fire has resulted in an increase in bear forage items by removing small conifer trees and stimulating the growth of plants that bears will forage on. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting grizzly bears include disturbance to a den or foraging site, accidental or intentional shooting, livestock grazing, fire suppression, and road maintenance. Human disturbance to a den or forage site is always a possibility on public lands. Shooting and trapping of grizzly bears is illegal. Livestock grazing is regulated and there have been no livestock/bear interactions documented in the analysis area. Fire suppression continues except under special conditions in wilderness areas. Road maintenance keeps the existing roads in a condition that reduces bear core area. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to grizzly bears in keeping with Forest Plan standards and the Endangered Species Act. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be a minor cumulative effect on grizzly bear.

Canada Lynx and Critical Habitat

Existing Condition Lynx are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. Lynx inhabit mesic, coniferous forests that have cold snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hares (Ruggiero et al. 2000). On the east side of the Cascade Range lynx primarily inhabit subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine forests. They also occur in cool, moist Douglas-fir types where they are interspersed with primary vegetation types (Ruediger et al. 2000). These forest types generally are found above 4000 feet elevation. Lynx seem to prefer areas of low topographic relief (McKelvey et al. 2000, Apps 2000). Lynx distribution is linked to that of the

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--109

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

snowshoe hare which require forests with low, dense, horizontal structure (Ruggiero et. al. 2000).

The far west portion of the Libby allotment (approximately 1500 acres) is within the Methow Gold Creek lynx analysis unit (LAU). Approximately 6000 acres of the southwest portion of the Newby allotment is within the Spirit Mountain and Twisp LAUs. Approximately 12,000 acres of the north and west portion of the Little Bridge allotment is within the Milton Mountain and Twisp LAUs. This is all mapped as critical habitat for lynx. The Poorman allotment is not within any LAU and contains no lynx habitat. The presence of lynx has been documented in the Methow Gold Creek, Twisp, and Spirit Mountain LAUs within the last 10 years.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a minor, beneficial effect on the lynx. The absence of livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would eliminate the potential for livestock overgrazing important snowshoe hare forage areas.

Alternative 2. The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) provided 4 project planning standards for analyzing effects of livestock grazing on lynx and their habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000). These 4 standards focus on the effects of livestock grazing on snowshoe hare habitat: 5. Do not allow livestock use in openings created by fire or timber harvest that would delay successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components. Delay livestock use in post-fire and post-harvest created openings until successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components occurs. There is no evidence of livestock grazing delaying regeneration in fire or harvest created openings in the Libby, Little Bridge, or Newby allotments. Past timber harvest units in the allotments show no evidence of cattle use delaying the regeneration of shrubs or trees.

6. Manage grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of the clones. There are small stands of aspen in the Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments. Most, if not all, of the aspen stands are utilized by cattle for grazing and loafing. The present grazing systems appears to be conducive to allowing aspen stands to regenerate through sucker sprouting. The stands appear to be healthy and are limited more by conifer shading and disease than by ungulate browsing. Hadfield and Magelssen (2004) found that aspen stands on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests were commonly browsed by cattle and deer, but not severe enough to prevent aspen sprouts from growing into larger stem sizes. Some of the stands they reviewed were in the Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments. The proposed actions should even further reduce cattle impacts to aspen stands.

7. Within the elevational ranges that encompass forested lynx habitat, shrub-steppe habitats should be considered as integral to the lynx habitat matrix and should be managed to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition. There are some areas of shrub-steppe habitat (big sagebrush) in lynx habitat on the Libby, Little Bridge and Newby allotments. Cattle grazing has not impacted the seral stage of the high elevation shrub steppe habitat.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--110

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

8. Within lynx habitat, manage livestock grazing in riparian areas and willow carrs to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition to provide cover and forage for prey species. There are no willow carrs in the Libby, Little Bridge, or Newby allotments. Riparian habitat condition was discussed above. Most of the riparian habitat in the allotment is in good and improving condition. The proposed action includes fencing of some riparian areas to exclude cattle, though none of these are in lynx habitat. Riparian areas in lynx habitat are used by livestock, but not in a manner that depresses the seral condition of the riparian habitat. Livestock grazing does reduce summer foraging habitat for snowshoe hares. However, summer foraging habitat is not a limiting factor for snowshoe hares (Hodges 2000). Shrub and tree cover in these riparian areas, which is more important for winter snowshoe hare habitat, is altered minimally if at all. Based on the above, the proposed action meets the terms of the Lynx Conservation Agreement. The proposed range activities would result in no new road construction and no new forest openings. They would not alter snowshoe hare winter habitat. The only potential effect of the proposed livestock grazing activities on lynx is the reduction of snowshoe hare summer foraging habitat. Summer foraging habitat is not a limiting factor for snowshoe hares (Hodges 2000). The proposed grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments “may effect, but would not adversely affect the lynx and lynx critical habitat”.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the Methow Gold Creek, Spirit Mountain, Twisp, and Milton Mountain lynx analysis units (LAUs). The temporal boundary is approximately 100 years in the past when livestock grazing and predator control in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that affected lynx in the analysis area include predator control efforts and hunting/trapping activities, livestock grazing, fire suppression, and timber sales. Predator control targeting wolves in the early 1900s likely impacted lynx, especially when poison carcasses were placed on the Forest. Lynx were legally trapped until they were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2000. The number of livestock grazing in the early 1900s greatly exceeded the present number and likely resulted in widespread overgrazing in the project area. Bands of sheep in the high elevation areas likely reduced forage available for snowshoe hares. Fire suppression in the high elevation forests has resulted in fewer acres of young lodgepole pine, the primary winter forage for snowshoe hares. Timber sales have resulted in the temporary conversion of some high elevation forest stands to young lodgepole pine stands that provide good snowshoe hare forage and therefore good lynx hunting areas. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting lynx include human disturbance to a den, accidental or intentional shooting, livestock grazing, fire suppression. Human disturbance to a den site is always a possibility on public lands, but extremely unlikely since lynx den in very dense stands of conifers with an abundance of large, downed logs (McKelvey et al. 2000, Apps 2000). Shooting and trapping of lynx is illegal. Fire suppression continues except under special conditions in wilderness areas. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to lynx in keeping with Forest Plan standards and the Endangered Species Act. The proposed action meets the terms of the Lynx Conservation Agreement. The proposed range activities would result in no new road construction and no new forest openings. They would not alter snowshoe hare winter habitat. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would be a minor cumulative effect on lynx.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--111

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat

Existing Condition Northern spotted owls are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. The Methow Rivers and most of the Chewuch River are recognized as the eastern boundary of northern spotted owl distribution in northern Washington. Breeding pairs or individuals have been documented at 8 different areas on the district. Suitable owl habitat on the Methow Valley Ranger District is mixed conifer forest below 5000 feet in elevation with large diameter trees, snags, and downed logs, decadence, high canopy closure, and a large proportion of Douglas-fir. The northern spotted owls in the Methow Valley typically begin nesting in late March and young owls leave the nest by mid June.

The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments are all west of the Methow River and thus within the range of the northern spotted owl. No known nest stands are in any of the 4 allotments. There have been no northern spotted owl sightings in any of the 4 allotments in the last 20 years. Several timber sale projects that were within the 4 allotments were surveyed for northern spotted owls in the last 20 years with no detections (Poverty, Ridge, AM, Shady, TPR). The nearest known spotted owl locations are 2 miles west of the Little Bridge allotment (War Creek site) and 3 miles south of the Libby allotment (Foggy Dew site). There is no northern spotted owl critical habitat in any of the 4 allotments.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a minor, beneficial effect on the northern spotted owl. The absence of livestock grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would eliminate the potential for disturbance that may occur with the management of the grazing allotment, and it would eliminate the potential for impacts to northern spotted owl prey abundance.

Alternative 2. The proposed livestock grazing activities would have no effect on northern spotted owl habitat. They would result in no alterations to forest stand structure. The only potential effects of the proposed action to northern spotted owls is disturbance that may occur with the management of the grazing allotment; e.g. maintaining fences and water developments, placing salt, moving cattle, looking for cattle, and potential impacts to owl prey abundance. Cattle grazing typically does not occur in habitats that are suitable as nesting stands for northern spotted owls. The dense tree canopy closure is not conducive to the dense grass/forbs growth that cattle seek for forage. The potential for human/cattle disturbance to northern spotted owls on these 4 allotments is very low and thus the effects of such disturbance are insignificant and discountable.

Grazing effects on rodents varies with the species, habitat type, and season of grazing (Ivey 1996). Some rodents are dependent on good ground cover and can be negatively affected by grazing (Johnson 1981, Kauffman et. al. 1981, Oldemeyer and Allen-Johnson 1988). Excessive grazing removes their security cover and forage. However, grazing according to Forest standards results in more than half of the grasses and forbs left to provide cover for owl prey species. In addition, the grazing rotation strategy results in not grazing some units annually while others are not grazed until late in the year. Those units grazed early can realize some grass regrowth if there is post-grazing precipitation. Northern spotted owl primary prey species include northern flying squirrel, bushy-tailed woodrat, and deer mice (Richards 1989). These species are not dependent on herbaceous ground cover and likely are not greatly affected by cattle grazing.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--112

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

The proposed grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments “may affect, but would not adversely affect the northern spotted owl”. The proposed grazing activities would have “no effect” on critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. This project would be consistent with the objectives in the northern spotted owl recovery plan.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest in northern spotted owl habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected northern spotted owls in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area include timber harvest, livestock grazing, and fire suppression. Timber harvest has removed northern spotted owl habitat. Fire suppression has resulted in the protection and development of northern spotted owl habitat. Under a natural wildfire occurrence cycle some of the current northern spotted owl habitat would not have developed but would have been in a more open condition. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting northern spotted owl include livestock grazing and fire suppression. Fire suppression continues except under certain conditions in wilderness areas of the district. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to northern spotted owls in keeping with Forest Plan standards and the Endangered Species Act. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would result in a minor cumulative effect.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the findings for gray wolf, grizzly bear, Canada lynx and northern spotted owl in a letter dated June 17, 2011.

Sensitive Species The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments do not contain habitat for ash-throated flycatcher, common loon, eared grebe, ferruginous hawk, harlequin duck, sandhill crane, or upland sandpiper. Ash-throated flycatchers, ferruginous hawks, and upland sandpipers are not known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. There are no large, open water bodies to support loons or grebes. Harlequin ducks are known to inhabit the Methow River and Twisp River but have not been documented on any of the streams in these 4 allotments. Sandhill cranes may migrate through the area, but there are no large, wet meadow complexes in the allotments that are known to be used by sandhill cranes. The proposed grazing activities would have “no impact” on these three sensitive species.

American Peregrine Falcon

Existing Condition Peregrine falcons are known to migrate across the Okanogan National Forest. There is one known peregrine falcon nesting site on the Okanogan National Forest. It is located more than 10 air-miles north of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Peregrines prey mainly on other birds, however with no known nesting areas on or near the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment areas; it is unlikely they forage there.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Both alternatives for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would have “no impact” on the peregrine falcon. The proposed projects would not disturb any known falcon nesting or foraging areas.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--113

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Bald Eagle

Existing Condition Bald eagles are known to occur in the Methow Valley. During winter, they occur as individuals or in small groups along the Methow River from Winthrop down to the mouth at Pateros and along the lower 6-7 miles of the Chewuch River. The eagles tend to congregate in areas with road-killed or winter-killed deer, near livestock calving operations, and along open waters that contain fish. There are communal winter roosting areas on non-Forest lands adjacent to the Columbia River near the mouth of the Methow River and along the lower Methow River. In the last few years, bald eagles have attempted to nest at 3 locations, at least, in the Methow Valley. All were located on private lands, one on the Methow River near the town of Methow, one on the Methow River near Winthrop, and one near Moccasin Lake, south of Winthrop.

There are no known or suspected bald eagle nesting or roosting sites on National Forest System lands in the Methow Valley. The only known bald eagle use on National Forest lands is on low elevation deer winter ranges where they scavenge on winter- or predator-killed deer remains.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 1 would not affect bald eagles since no grazing would take place. The proposed livestock grazing activities under Alternative 2 on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would not occur during the winter season when bald eagles might be scavenging deer carcasses on winter ranges. The proposed livestock grazing activities would occur more than one air-mile from any known bald eagle nesting or roosting areas. The 2 alternatives would have “no impact” on the bald eagle. Because no direct or indirect effects are expected, no cumulative effects would occur.

Fisher

Existing Condition Fishers are suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest. There are two trapping records of fishers on the Methow Valley Ranger District from the early 1900s (Stinson and Lewis 1998). In addition, there have been unverified observations of individual fishers or tracks in the snow by Forest recreationists. Based on lack of recent confirmed sightings, the fisher was considered extirpated or reduced to scattered individuals in the state of Washington (USDI 2004). In 2008 fishers were translocated to Olympic National Park in western Washington and that population persists to date (Lofroth et al. 2010).

Fishers historically occurred on both sides of the Cascades mountains in Washington in low to mid elevation forests (USDI 2004). They are opportunistic predators with a diverse diet that includes snowshoe hares, birds, rodents, reptiles, insects, carrion, and fruit. They need forests that provide abundant prey and low vulnerability to predators. They also have specific needs for natal denning and for resting spots (Powell and Zielinski 1994). The forest stand structures that provide these needs include large diameter trees with cavities and/or large platform-type branches, and large hollow logs. Late-successional forests provide the most suitable fisher habitat because they provide abundant potential den sites and preferred prey.

Forest stands that would be suitable fisher habitat are present within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment areas. Cattle grazing would not influence forest stand structure or the availability of denning and resting sites for fishers. Grazing could affect the abundance of some small rodent species that make up part of the fishers diet. However, grazing effects on

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--114

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

rodents varies; some species respond with an increase while others decrease (Ivey 1996). Since fishers are considered generalized predators (Lofroth et al. 2010) and do not specialize on any certain prey species they would be able to shift to whatever species were available.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Alternatives 1 and 2. Cattle grazing has not been identified as a concern for fisher habitat management. Both alternatives would have “no impact” on the fisher. Neither alternative would alter any fisher habitat. Because no direct or indirect effects are expected, no cumulative effects would occur.

Gray Flycatcher

Existing Condition Gray flycatchers are known to occur in suitable habitats on the Okanogan National Forest. They inhabit tall sagebrush plains and arid, open pine forests (DeGraaf et. al. 1991) and build nests 2 to 5 feet above ground in shrubs or trees (Johnson and O‟Neil 2001). Their diet includes beetles, butterflies, grasshoppers, and moths (Johnson and O‟Neil 2001). Their range in Washington appears to be expanding (Johnson and O‟Neil 2001). There is suitable gray flycatcher habitat within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments since portions of all 4 of these allotments are arid, open pine forest.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1. This alternative would have a slight beneficial impact on the gray flycatcher. There would be no livestock grazing and thus no nest disturbance or alteration of prey abundance.

Alternative 2. Potential effects to gray flycatchers would be nest disturbance and altering prey abundance. This alternative for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments “may impact individual gray flycatchers, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability”. Because gray flycatchers sometimes nest close to the ground, it is possible that livestock permitted under this alternative could physically disturb or destroy a nest. In the event that a gray flycatcher nest was physically destroyed, the parent birds would likely re-nest in a more secure location. It is possible that cattle grazing under this alternative could alter insect abundance. Some insect species are thought to increase in grazed areas (Robinson and Bolen 1989), while others are thought to be negatively affected (Schulz and Leininger 1991). The flying insects that gray flycatchers prey on are likely not as impacted by grazing as other ground-dwelling insects.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area and the temporal boundary is approximately 100 years in the past when fire suppression began, and 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected gray flycatchers in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area include livestock grazing, fire suppression, and prescribed fire. Fire suppression has slightly decreased the available gray flycatcher habitat as Douglas-fir trees filled in open pine stands. Prescribed fires have probably resulted in a small increase in available habitat by killing small diameter Douglas-fir trees in pine stands. However, if done during the nesting season, these prescribed fires may have disturbed

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--115

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

or destroyed nests. Present actions that may be affecting gray flycatchers in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area include livestock grazing and fire suppression. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to gray flycatchers in keeping with Forest Plan standards and regional sensitive species guidance. When considered in conjunction with other activities affecting gray flycatchers, the potential impacts of this alternative would result in a minor cumulative effect.

Great Gray Owl

Existing Condition Great gray owls are known to occur on the Okanogan National Forest. Great gray owls commonly nest in mature to old-growth forests that provide nesting structures such as broken top snags, mistletoe brooms, or abandoned hawk or raven nests (Hayward and Verner 1994). They forage in nearby meadows, bogs, clearcuts, or open forests for voles and pocket gophers (Hayward and Verner 1994). Prey abundance and the availability of existing nest sites appear to regulate great gray owl populations. Cattle grazing has not been reported as a limiting factor for great gray owls.

There are no known great gray owl nests in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments, though there appears to be suitable habitat components in the area. Cattle grazing does not affect the availability of nest sites, but it could affect great gray owl prey abundance. Grazing effects on rodents varies with the species, habitat type, and season of grazing (Ivey 1996). Voles and pocket gophers, which are great gray owls preferred prey species, are dependent on good ground cover and can be negatively affected by grazing (Johnson 1981, Kauffman et. al. 1981, Oldemeyer and Allen-Johnson 1988). Excessive grazing removes their security cover and forage.

Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have a beneficial impact on the great gray owl. There would be no livestock grazing and thus no impact to prey abundance.

Alternative 2. This alternative “may impact individual great gray owls, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability”. It is possible that cattle grazing permitted under this alternative could alter the abundance of the pocket gophers and voles that great gray owls prey upon. However, grazing according to Forest standards results in more than half of the grasses and forbs left to provide cover for owl prey species. In addition, the grazing rotation strategy results in some units not being grazed each year while others are not grazed until late in the year. Those grazed early can realize some grass regrowth if there is post-grazing precipitation.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest in great gray owl habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected great gray owls in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area include timber harvest and livestock grazing. Timber harvest has likely removed some great gray owl habitat and decreased the availability of suitable nesting sites. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting great gray owl include livestock grazing. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to great gray owls in keeping with Forest

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--116

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Plan standards regional sensitive species guidance. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would result in a minor cumulative effect great gray owl.

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Existing Condition. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse were known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District in the past. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse inhabit shrub-steppe and meadow-steppe communities and they were once plentiful throughout these habitats in eastern Washington, including the Methow River watershed (WDFW 1995). They require deciduous trees and shrubs during winter and the loss of this type of habitat led, in part, to their decline (WDFW 1995). Other factors include conversion of habitat to agriculture, brush removal, and livestock grazing (WDFW 1995). The last confirmed sighting in the Methow River watershed by a wildlife biologist was in 1982.

There have been no confirmed sightings of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments, or anywhere else in the Methow Valley for more than 20 years. There are no known historic grouse lek sights on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have no impact on the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

Alternative 2. This alternative would have “no impact” on the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The proposed project would not disturb any known lek sites or alter any known grouse habitat areas. Because no direct or indirect effects are expected, no cumulative effects would occur.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Existing Condition Townsend‟s big-eared bats are known to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. A nursery colony was discovered near the Early Winters Forest Service administrative compound in 1997. Approximately seventy Townsend‟s big-eared bats were using this site. The colony has been closely monitored and protected from disturbance since its discovery. There are several other sites used by Townsend‟s big-eared bats on private lands in the Methow Valley. This species of bat roosts in old buildings, caves, and mines, and underneath bridges (Christy and West 1993). They are not known to roost in foliage, beneath loose bark, in snags, or in rock crevices. They seem to require enough space to be able to hang upside down. They feed primarily on moths, and foraging habitat is open dry forests, meadows, and grasslands (Christy and West 1993).

There is suitable foraging habitat within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments, but there are no known suitable roosting areas for Townsend‟s big-eared bats in the area. Cattle grazing has not been documented as a limiting factor for these bats.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have no impact on the Townsend‟s big-eared bat.

Alternative 2. This alternative would have “no impact” on the Townsend‟s big-eared bat. The proposed project would not alter any bat roosting habitat or affect their prey base. Because no

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--117

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

direct or indirect effects are expected, no cumulative effects would occur.

Western Gray Squirrel

Existing Condition Western gray squirrels occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District, primarily in the southwest portion of the district. A brief survey in 1995 documented western gray squirrel sightings in Black Canyon, Squaw, and McFarland Creeks and found evidence in the form of cone cuttings in Libby Creek (Bartels 1995). The only western gray squirrel nests documented during that survey were in Black Canyon Creek and Squaw Creek (Bartels 1995). Wildlife sighting records for the Methow Valley Ranger District include documented sightings of western gray squirrels in each of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Western gray squirrels inhabit ponderosa pine forests and oak woodlands and forage on pine nuts, fir seeds, berries, bark, and hypogeous fungi (Johnson and O‟Neil 2001). Suitable habitat generally consists of conifer dominated stands of mature, mast-producing trees usually of pine or oak (Linders and Stinson 2007). In Okanogan County they use stands of ponderosa pine, douglas-fir and adjacent riparian areas with black cottonwoods (Linders and Stinson 2007). They are largely arboreal and interconnected tree canopy provides them with travel and escape routes. Roadkill is a substantial source of mortality. Populations have also declined in some areas due to competition with the introduced eastern gray squirrel, and due to a shift of many forest stands from mature, cone-producing trees to dense stands of small trees as a result of fire suppression, past timber management practices and historical overgrazing by domestic livestock (Johnson and O‟Neil 2001).

Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1. This alternative would have no impact on the western gray squirrel. There would be no livestock grazing.

Alternative 2. The short-term effects of light to moderate grazing on western gray squirrel habitat is unknown (Linders and Stinson 2007). Cattle grazing in western gray squirrel habitat would not have any impact on mature, seed/nut producing conifer trees nor on forest canopy cover. It would not impact their major food sources, nesting structures, or arboreal travel routes since no larger trees would be cut. Grazing would result in a more open understory in places, which may allow squirrels to better avoid predators while on the ground (Linders and Stinson 2007). Overgrazing can eliminate some native forbs and may inhibit the growth of some mycorrhizal fungi that make up a portion of the western gray squirrel diet, however, the proposed grazing management would be designed to avoid overgrazing.

This alternative “may impact individual western gray squirrels, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability”. It is possible that cattle grazing permitted under this alternative could alter the abundance of mycorrhizal fungi that western gray squirrels feed upon. However, grazing according to Forest utilization standards would limit this to very few places of very limited area. In addition, the grazing rotation strategy results in some units not being grazed each year while others are not grazed until late in the year.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 2. The geographic boundary is the LLBNP allotments area. The temporal boundary is approximately 50 years in the past when timber harvest in western gray squirrel habitat in the area began, to 10 years in the future, the estimated time until the allotment management plan will be updated again. Past actions that may have affected western gray squirrels in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area include timber harvest and livestock grazing.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--118

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Past timber harvest has decreased the forest canopy cover in some areas and reduced the number of mature seed/nut producing conifers. Present actions in the LLBNP area that may be affecting western gray squirrel include livestock grazing. Future resource projects in these allotments would be planned and implemented to avoid or minimize and mitigate impacts to western gray squirrel in keeping with Forest Plan standards regional sensitive species guidance. When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action the overall effect would result in a minor cumulative effect western gray squirrel.

White-headed Woodpecker

Existing Condition The white-headed woodpecker utilizes dead and defective tree habitat in open Ponderosa pine stands. This species and suitable snag habitat exists throughout the drier forested areas of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects Alternatives 1 and 2. The no grazing alternative and the proposed livestock grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would have no effect on the size or health of white-headed woodpecker populations. This species nests in tree cavities and thus are not disturbed by livestock and grazing does not affect dead and defective tree habitat. Because no direct or indirect effects are expected, no cumulative effects would occur.

Wolverine

Existing Condition Wolverines are known to occur on the Okanogan National Forest. The northern Cascade Range in Washington represents the southernmost extent of the current range of wolverines along the Pacific coast of North America (Aubry et al. 2007). Wolverines are uncommon inhabitants of subalpine habitats in western mountain ranges in the lower 48 United States (Aubry et al. 2007). Recent research on wolverines in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia (Krebs et al. 2007) and the United States (Copeland 1996, Copeland et al. 2007, Squires et al. 2007) indicates that wolverines are wide-ranging, inhabit remote areas near timberline, and are sensitive to human disturbance at natal and maternal den sites. They subsist on ungulate carrion and by predating on small to medium sized animals. Wolverines give birth in natal dens from late February to March (Magoun and Copeland 1998). Magoun and Copeland (1998) noted the critical feature of wolverine denning habitat to be the dependability of deep snow throughout the denning period. Copeland (1996) observed two wolverine natal dens in Idaho; both were in subalpine talus habitat on north-facing, steep slopes of cirque basins. The talus consisted of large rocks and boulders that were at least two meters in diameter, and the talus was less than 100 meters across and surrounded by trees. The den was in the interstitial spaces of the large-rock talus. Recent research in southeastern British Columbia has documented wolverine maternal den sites in Englemann spruce/subalpine fir forest types in large woody debris accumulations at the bottom of avalanche chutes (Krebs 1999). Wolverine denning habitat as described by Magoun and Copeland (1998) and Krebs (1999) does not exist within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment areas.

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects There is no wolverine denning habitat on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments. Cattle grazing has not been identified as a concern for wolverine habitat management.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--119

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 1 and 2. These alternatives would have “no impact” on the wolverine. The proposed alternatives would not alter any wolverine habitat. Because no direct or indirect effects are expected, no cumulative effects would occur.

Late-successional Reserve (LSR) There are 934 acres of the Sawtooth LSR in the southwest corner of the Libby allotment. There are 1,632 acres of the Twisp River LSR in the northwest corner of the Newby allotment, and 13,581 acres in the north and western portions of the Little Bridge allotment. The Poorman allotment contains no LSR. The proposed grazing activities for the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments would have no impacts or effects on late successional habitats. They would not retard or prevent attainment of LSR objectives. The proposed project would be consistent with LSR direction in that it would have a neutral effect on the LSR.

Survey and Manage Species

The LLBNP project is consistent with the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest compiled the species listed below from the 2011 Settlement Agreement Attachment 1. The list includes those vertebrate and invertebrate species with pre-disturbance survey requirements (Category A, B, or C species), whose known or suspected range includes the Okanogan National Forest.

This list also includes any Category D, E, or F species with known sites located within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area.

Species S&M Within Contains Habitat Surveys Survey Sites Site Category Range Suitable Disturbing Required Date Known Mgt Of the Habitat ? ? Or ? Species ? Found ? Great C Yes Yes No No* N/A 0 N/A Gray Owl Lyogyrus A Yes No N/A No** N/A 0 N/A n. sp. 2

*Pre-disturbance surveys for great gray owls are not required since the LLBNP project does not include a) falling potential nest trees within 600 feet of natural openings that are 10 acres or greater and provide suitable conditions for great gray owl nesting, or b) disturbance above ambient levels within 300 feet of suitable nesting habitat associated with natural openings 10 acres or greater between March 1st and July 31st.

**Pre-disturbance surveys for Lyogyrus n. sp. 2 are not required since there is no suitable habitat for this species within the LLBNP project area.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--120

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.7 BOTANICAL RESOURCES

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK This section assesses the effects of the proposed action on Sensitive plants, federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant resources and unique habitats within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments as required by the Forest Service Policy outlined in Section 2670 of the Forest Service Manual. Sensitive Species are defined as “those plants and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density and habitat capability that would reduce a species‟ existing distribution” (FSM 2670.5). Management of Sensitive species “must not result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing” (FSM 2670.32).

Managing for biological diversity and species viability is outlined in the Forest Service Manual (FSM) section 2620. The FSM requires that the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species and their community requirements be considered in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives and to provide a sound base of information to support management decision-making affecting wildlife and fish, including Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive animal and plant species, and their habitats. Managing for species viability requires that habitat be provided for the number and distribution of reproductive individuals that are necessary to ensure the continued existence of a species throughout its geographic range.

The 2011 Settlement Agreement for implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage measures states: “For projects with signed Records of Decision, Decision Notices, or Decision Memoranda from December 17, 2009, through September 30, 2012, the Agencies will use either of the following Survey and Manage species lists: a. The list of Survey and Manage species in the 2001 ROD (Table 1-1, Standards and Guidelines, pages 41-51). b. The list of Survey and Manage species and associated species mitigation, Attachment 1 to the Settlement Agreement.”

This project applies the Survey and Manage species list in the 2011 Settlement Agreement (Table, Settlement Agreement Attachment 1) and thus meets the provisions of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments cover 75,446 acres (30,532 hectares) of land, from the northwest headwaters of Little Bridge Creek to the southeast perimeter of the Libby Creek watershed. Elevation within the project area ranges from 2461 feet (750 meters) above sea-level on the valley bottom to 7600 feet (2214 meters) at the summit of Midnight Mountain. Habitats vary from shrub-steppe to sub-alpine.

The plant analysis for this project covers species on the 2008 Regional Forester‟s Special Status Species Lists, which includes the Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species (TE&P) and Sensitive species list, provided under the Interagency Special Status & Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP, 2008). It also covers other rare or little-known species that are on the list of plants tracked by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP 2008)

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--121

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

or the 2011 Survey and Manage list that are known or suspected to occur on the Methow Valley Ranger District. Data on invasive plant species was also collected as part of the rare plant inventory, and is addressed in the invasive plants portion of this chapter. Appendix B displays the 2008 list of Region 6 Federally Listed and Sensitive species as well as the WNHP February 2008 additional Species of Concern, and Other Rare or Little Known Species. Both 2008 WNHP and the Regional NRIS-TES database GIS layers were used in this analysis.

EXISTING CONDITION Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species The Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest has four plant species on the Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed (TE&P) species list. Two of these species, Hackelia venusta and Sidalcea oregana var. calva, are endemic to the Wenatchee National Forest and do not occur and are not suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest. Howellia aquatilis and Spiranthes diluvialis, both Federally Threatened species, are suspected to occur on the Okanogan National Forest, however, have yet to be documented as occurring on the Forest and are not known to occur within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area. Although there is suitable habitat for Spiranthes diluvialis and Howellia aquatilis on the Methow Valley Ranger District, the species has not been documented after conducting several inventories over the years in suitable habitat. Neither of these listed species were located during field inventory and there is little suitable habitat for them within the analysis area.

Sensitive or Survey and Manage Species Four special status vascular plant species are known to occur in the project area, in a total of 21 populations. Botrychium crenulatum is listed as Sensitive by the State and the Region. It is a Federal species of concern. It has a Global Ranking of G3, indicating the species is vulnerable to local extirpation. It has a State Rank of S3 and is considered vulnerable. There are 33 populations of B. crenulatum across the Okanogan portion of the Forest, 15 of which are in the Methow Valley Ranger District; three of these sites are within the existing Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman Allotments. Botrychium montanum is a Survey and Manage species. Cypripedium montanum is a Survey and Manage species. There are two known populations of B. montanum in the analysis area, and 15 known populations of C. montanum. Agoseris elata is listed as Sensitive by Washington State, and is a Survey and Manage species. There is one known population of A. elata in the analysis area.

The rare fungi species Mycena overholtzii, Sarcosphaera eximia, Gyromitra esculenta, and Otidea onotica all occur within the project area.

Botrychium crenulatum and B. montanum On the Methow Valley Ranger District, B. crenulatum and B. montanum prefer nearly identical habitats. For this reason, as well as strong similarities in their lifecycles, they will be discussed together. B. crenulatum and B. montanum can both be found in two slightly different habitats; the first typified by moist coniferous riparian zones and seeps dominated by western red-cedar (Thuja plicata), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) from 3100 to 5800 feet in elevation, while the second is characterized by red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), mountain alder (Alnus incana), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and/or black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) in moist riparian habitats, wet swales, or pond margins in the same elevation range.

Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments contain three known populations of Botrychium crenulatum, and one of Botrychium montanum. These sites were located between

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--122

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

the years 1992 and 1996 and have been monitored since 2006. Monitoring has been conducted as part of a larger District-wide effort to better understand population trends of B. crenulatum. Despite the irregular fruiting of this species, monitoring indicates a downward trend in population vigor appears to be occurring across nearly all known B. crenulatum populations on the District. In the analysis area one population of B. crenulatum and one population of B. montanum may be the exception to this trend, and are discussed below. A summary of District Botrychium monitoring data can be found in the project file.

In the analysis area, all known B. crenulatum habitats have experienced some level of grazing, resulting in an altered ecological condition. This is because the deep saturated soils at these sites are easily penetrated, trampled and churned. Two populations of B. crenulatum (T33N- R20E-S35, T32N-R20E-S01) appear to have consistently received moderate to high levels of grazing during the years they have been monitored. These populations have also shown marked declines in sporophytes from the time of their discovery. Remaining sporophytes are predominantly found under sheltering logs or bushes or on undisturbed hummocks.

One population of B. montanum (T32N-R21E-S06) occurs in a fenced wetland near Black Pine Lake, in the Newby allotment, Buttermilk unit. This wetland contained beaver ponds until the mid-1990s when the dams blew out. This population will be monitored for recovery in the future.

One population of B. crenulatum (T33N-R20E-S26) in the analysis area appears to have benefited from a fenced grazing exclosure built prior to discovery of the special-status plants within. This population occurs in the Shady Nook wetland in the Newby allotment, Scaffold unit. At the time of discovery, in 1996, 13 individuals of B. crenulatum were documented. Monitoring in 2006 counted 58 individuals, but also documented that cattle had begun to access the site. In 2007, after a year of heavy cattle usage, 10 individuals were counted. That same year, the fence around the wetland was repaired, and a remaining gap was closed with an electric fence. In 2008, a year after the fence was repaired, 20 individuals were documented. Observed fluctuations in B. crenulatum population levels at the site appear to correspond with the amount of grazing occurring. The fence has been maintained since 2008. Existing conditions at this site appear to be in the process of recovery, with evidence of historic disturbance still observable.

One population of B. montanum (T32N-R20E-S11) in the project area has also seen a very slight increase in sporophyte numbers since its discovery. The site is some distance from any official roads or trails and at the time of its discovery, in 1992, was undisturbed. Three sporophytes were recorded at this site in 1992. The site was not monitored between 1995 and 2006, during which time cattle began to access the wet seeps and riparian areas at the site. It is thought that they may access the area via an unofficial trail linking the 400 road to the north with the Libby Creek Trail to the south. Cattle use appears to have been moderate to heavy during this time, though it is unclear how many seasons the site was actually used. There was no observable recent cattle use at the site when it was monitored in 2010, though past heavy use was still very evident. Six sporophytes were observed at this site in 2010.

Cypripedium montanum Preferred habitat of C. montanum on the District ranges from dry ponderosa pine forest to wet areas with over-story of aspen and cottonwood. Populations with the greatest density of individual stems are often associated with the more mesic range of habitats, particularly in association with riparian areas or aspen stands. The preferred range of canopy cover varies from 30% to greater than 60% on the MVRD.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--123

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Fifteen populations of C. montanum are known to occur in the analysis area. At the time of initial documentation, several of these populations contained 50 or more individuals. 2010 site visits found that none contained greater than 50 individuals; however, surveys were conducted late in the growing season making this data inconclusive. Future site visits to confirm population numbers will be completed. Until population numbers are confirmed the sites will be managed as high priority sites as per the 2001 Interim Guidelines published by the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (Knecht, 2001).

Existing conditions of C. montanum habitat were similar at all sites visited. Cattle use has been moderate with no obvious over-grazing or substantial damage to sensitive plant habitat such as severe trampling. There are well-worn cow trails throughout the sites but off-trail trampling and grazing appears to be low to moderate. During recent surveys it was observed that individuals of C. montanum were typically found at the edges of or within brush rather than in open spaces. It is unknown if this is the preferred micro-habitat of the species, or the result of a factor such as grazing. These habitats are currently somewhat overgrown with brush species and young tree regeneration, possibly due to lack of fire.

Agoseris elata Agoseris elata is a species typically associated with moist rich forb meadow or riparian habitats typically found above 6,000‟ in elevation on west or south aspects on the Methow Valley Ranger District. This species is mainly found in the Caltha biflora - Trollius laxus (Globeflower- Twinflower Marshmarigold) plant association or less often in the Lupinus latifolius (Broadleaf Lupine) plant association described by Kovalchik (2004). Both plant associations are comprised of moist soils with surface water tables averaging 13” and 4” within the soil surface respectively. There is one known population of Agoseris elata in the analysis area. It occurs at an elevation of 6500 feet, in a south-facing cirque meadow near the ridgeline north of Midnight Mt. in the Midnight pasture of the Little Bridge allotment. This site has not been revisited since its discovery in 1988; however, it is not considered to be at any risk from current or proposed management. Access to the site is difficult and there is little accessible water in a large portion of the area surrounding the site. Field visits to nearby areas have marked that cattle use likely does not reach, or even come close to the site.

Rare Fungi Species Mycena overholtzii, Sarcosphaera eximia, Gyromitra esculenta, and Otidea onotica are all early spring fruiters that are most often associated with cut stumps, decaying wood litter/humus/duff or coarse woody debris. They all appear to tolerate or favor disturbance.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--124

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.7.1. General locations of known sensitive, survey and manage, or rare species in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment area. Scientific Name No. of Allotment-(Pasture) Township Section Popula -Range tions Botrychium crenulatum 3 Newby-(Scaffold, 33N-20E -26, 35 Buttermilk) 32N-20E -01 Botrychium montanum 2 Newby-(Buttermilk) 32N-20E -11 32N-21E -06 Cypripedium montanum 15 Little Bridge-(Bridge, 34N-20E -28, 26, 34, 35, 36 Lime, Myers) 33N-20E -02, 03, 08, 10 Newby-(West, 32N-20E -13 Buttermilk) 32N-21E -06, 18 Libby-(Mission) Agoseris elata 1 Little Bridge-(Midnight) 34N-19E -14 Mycena overholtzii 5 Little Bridge-(Bridge, 33N-20E -02 Myers) 34N-20E -17,27 Sarcosphaera eximia 1 Newby-(Buttermilk) 32N-30E -14

Gyromitra esculenta 1 Newby-(Scaffold) 33N-20E -34 Otidea onotica 1 Little Bridge-(Bridge) 34N-20E -33 Populations discussed in this document are identified by legal location (township-range-section). Some sections contain multiple populations. For C. montanum, high-priority sites occur in underlined sections.

Special Habitats Aspen stands, open water and wetland habitats make up a very small percentage of the land base throughout these mostly dry forest and shrub steppe vegetation zones. Wetlands, springs, seeps, and riparian zones are primary sources of shade, water, and forage for both cattle and wildlife, particularly after mid-July when upland vegetation and open shrub steppe habitats have cured and lost their palatability.

Aspen Stands Aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands are a unique habitat that is estimated to make up less than 2% of the forested landscape on the Methow Valley Ranger District. Aspen is known to support populations of Sensitive Botrychiums, especially when in association with wetlands and red osier dogwood.

Wetland/Riparian Habitats Riparian and wetland communities including seeps and springs are habitats important to sensitive plants. Wetlands are of very limited extent in the allotment. The analysis area has about 175 acres of USGS mapped wetlands. Many of these mapped wetlands have not been validated on the ground and it is likely not inclusive of all the wetland habitats found in the analysis area.

The majority of the riparian zones within the analysis area are dominated by shrubby and/or deciduous species such as aspen, alder, and red osier dogwood. Typically, the terrain and/or the woody riparian vegetation are dense enough to limit cattle access along streams, except in some small isolated areas. The largest problems, based on survey results, are associated with open water, low gradient perennially moist to wet riparian, and wetland meadow habitats. In these habitats, trampling and churning of moist/wet soils have eliminated some native species, introduced some non-native species, such as white-clover and Canada thistle, and are altering

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--125

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

native species recovery.

Environmental Consequences

Direct/Indirect Effects Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Alternatives 1 and 2 No effect is expected on any Federally Threatened or Endangered plant species because no species are known to occur within the project area.

Sensitive, Survey and Manage, and Other Rare Plant Species Botrychium crenulatum and B. montanum

Alternative 1 In the absence of grazing and range management practices, Botrychium crenulatum and Botrychium montanum populations would be expected initially to increase and inhabit larger portions of their preferred habitat. This is the state in which populations would be expected to be found after ten years without grazing. Detectable population increases or expansion would not be expected for up to five years after cessation of grazing, due to periods of underground growth. It is possible that these populations may eventually be outcompeted by climax vegetation unless natural disturbances such as fire, flooding, or biological influences (e.g. wallows, beaver dams) maintain habitat suitability. Alternative 1 is expected to have a beneficial impact on Botrychium crenulatum and B. montanum.

Alternative 2 Known populations of Botrychium crenulatum and B. montanum would continue to be affected by livestock grazing; though to a reduced degree compared to previous management. All confirmed populations of B. crenulatum in the project area (Figure 3.7.1) would be fenced under this alternative. For fenced populations, effects would be mostly indirect, caused by alterations of nearby unfenced habitat. These indirect effects would not be expected to have a substantial impact on Botrychium individuals or populations. Direct effects, similar to those described in the Existing Condition portion of this document, would be expected at unfenced populations of Botrychium. Some habitats suspected to contain B. crenulatum (e.g. T33N-R20E-S35) would not receive protection and a negative effect, continued habitat degradation, would be expected. Habitat degradation would be acute at sites utilized during late-season. Fenced populations may still be directly affected if fencing fails and is not promptly repaired or maintained, leaving the plants vulnerable to trampling by cattle.

Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Cypripedium montanum Alternative 1 Cessation of grazing in the analysis area would not substantially alter the existing condition of much of the preferred habitat of Cypripedium montanum.

Alternative 2 Effects to known populations of Cypripedium montanum would be similar if not identical to the previous management plan. No substantial effect to C. montanum (including high-priority)

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--126

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

populations is expected. Alterations to timing and movement of herds may have a positive effect on C. montanum populations.

Agoseris elata Alternative 1 and 2 The one known population of Agoseris elata in the project area would likely not be affected by either the proposed or no-action alternative as it occurs in an area that is difficult to access and lacks available drinking water over much of the intervening terrain so cows would not drift to those areas. No impact is expected under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.

Rare Fungi Alternative 1 and 2 No impact would be expected on the rare or little known fungi species Mycena overholtzii, Sarcosphaera eximia, Gyromitra esculenta, and Otidea onotica. Cattle are not turned out early enough in the spring to interfere with the reproductive cycles of these species. Cattle typically avoid stepping on logs and other coarse woody debris so disturbance to the fruiting body habitat is minimal. The timing of cattle grazing would not interfere with the viability of these species and would not substantially alter the suitable habitat within the project area. Current grazing practices are compatible with these species.

Special Habitats

Aspen Stands Alternative 1 Aspen stands, without livestock grazing, would be healthier. In particular, stands would have an increased capability to recover from fire. Stands would be expected to increase in vigor and canopy health; however, fire suppression and encroachment by conifers are a threat to aspen stands and may diminish this predicted improvement. Furthermore, proliferation of competing vegetation such as pine-grass would be expected to delay or prevent recovery.

Alternative 2 Improved herd management flexibility under Alternative 2 would provide range managers with the capacity to reduce stress on aspen stands from the existing condition by decreasing duration and intensity of grazing, as well as allowing for periods of rest. Aspen stands would be expected to receive similar or slightly lighter levels of use compared to the previous management plan, which would not inhibit perpetuation of the clone in existing stands. The aspen stand on Buttermilk Butte is expected to continue to receive moderate to high levels of disturbance and sucker browsing, decreasing stand vigor.

Wetland/Riparian Habitats Alternative 1 Wetlands and riparian areas, preferred habitats of some rare plant species, would return to a natural functioning state in terms of native vegetation in 15 to 20 years. At Mission Pond, this recovery could be delayed or prevented by infestation of reed-canary grass.

Alternative 2 Wetlands, springs, seeps, and riparian areas that are or would be fenced under Alternative 2 would achieve restored ecosystem functions in the absence of grazing. Disturbance or recovery trends at unprotected locations accessible by livestock would be expected to maintain or improve. Improved herd management flexibility would provide range managers with capacity to reduce stress on these habitats by decreasing duration and intensity of grazing, as well as

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--127

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

allowing for periods of rest.

Cumulative Effects This analysis evaluates how past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future effects of other projects may combine with effects identified in the Direct/Indirect Effects section. As no effects are expected to Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species under Alternative 1, no cumulative effects analysis is necessary for that Alternative. Alternative 2 may have effects on Sensitive and rare/little-known plant species, specifically Botrychium crenulatum and B. montanum; however, no effects are expected for Threatened or Endangered plant species. Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis will focus on the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on B. crenulatum and B. montanum under Alternative 2. The geographic extent of the cumulative effects analysis is limited to areas that contain or potentially contain populations of B. crenulatum or B. montanum. Predictions of future effects are limited by understanding of reasonably foreseeable actions, and only extend ten years into the future, when the AMP is scheduled to be renewed.

Past Actions In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past action. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions on natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Present, On-Going, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Actions likely to combine with grazing to potentially effect populations of B. crenulatum and/or B. montanum would include fuels treatments, timber stand management activities, recreation, and invasive plant treatments. While most of these actions would have little or no direct effect on B. crenulatum populations, some of them may contribute to the effects of cattle. Fuels treatments, timber stand management, and recreation may open up or maintain routes for cattle to access B. crenulatum populations or special habitats potentially containing the species. Invasive plant treatments would likely reduce or prevent negative effects of grazing by slowing the spread of invasive plants or eliminating them from habitats of B. crenulatum or B. montanum.

Survey and Manage Species

The LLBNP project is consistent with the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. The botany survey and manage species summary for the LLBNP project is in Appendix C.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--128

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.8 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

Regulatory Framework This analysis conforms to the requirements of Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision (Forest Service 2005), hereafter referred to as the 2005 PNW ROD. This project is intended to comply with the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Management and Prevention Strategy and Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 2002), the Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (USDA Forest Service 2001) supporting the February 3, 1999 Executive Order on Invasive Species, and the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA Forest Service 2004).

Both Forest Service National and PNW Regional Noxious Weed Strategies use the term “noxious weeds” to broadly encompass all invasive, aggressive, or harmful non-indigenous species. The more recent term used by the Forest Service is “invasive plants”, which are defined as nonnative plants likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112, 1999). The terms “invasive plant species”, “noxious weeds” and “weeds” are used interchangeably in this document.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines The following Forest-wide standards and Guidelines are relevant to this project: 12-1 Control noxious weeds to the extent practical. 12-2 New infestations of noxious weeds should be the first priority for eradication. 12-3 Emphasis on noxious weed control shall be the prevention of infestations, especially into un-roaded areas and wilderness.

Although the desired future condition of noxious weed populations are not specified in the original Forest Plan, it is implied by the discussions of other resources that the desired future condition of the forest would be an absence of new invader noxious weeds.

2005 PNW ROD Standards The following standards from the 2005 PNW ROD are relevant to this project: Standard 1: Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be addressed in watershed analysis; roads analysis; fire and fuels management plans, Burned Area Emergency Recovery Plans; emergency wildland fire situation analysis; wildland fire implementation plans; grazing allotment management plans, recreation management plans, vegetation management plans, and other land management assessments. Standard 3: Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch is not available, individual Forests should require sources certified to be weed-free using the North American Weed Free Forage Program standards or a similar certification process. Standard 6: Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in cooperation with the grazing permit holder.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--129

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Prevention and Management Strategy The current strategy for invasive species management has four elements (USDA Forest Service 2004): 1. Prevention – Stop invasive plants before they arrive. 2. Early detection and rapid response – Find new infestations and eliminate them before they become established. 3. Control and management – Contain and reduce existing infestations. 4. Rehabilitation and restoration – Reclaim native habitats and ecosystems.

Each of these four prevention and management strategy elements is addressed in detail in the Prevention and Management Strategy Elements document (Appendix C of this document).

Relative to noxious weeds, the prevention strategy is always preferred and employed as the initial strategy. However, due to the nature of noxious weeds, the prevention strategy is often not adequate to ensure complete exclusion of noxious weeds. Failure to attempt to control noxious weed spread and establishment is expected to result in progressive local alteration of ecosystem process, and violation of state and federal laws.

Affected Environment Invasive plant populations are present in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments and fall into three primary categories. These categories are used to prioritize invasive species for inventory and treatment. 1. Established Invaders are those species whose population levels and distribution are such that seed production cannot be prevented. 2. New Invaders are invasive plant species that occur sporadically on the Forest and that may be controlled by preventing seed production and early treatment. 3. Potential Invaders are invasive plants that occur on lands adjacent to the project area but have not been documented on lands administrated by the Forest, however, the potential for infestation is imminent.

Table 3.8.1. Established, new, and potential invaders found within or adjacent to the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments. Established New Invaders New Invaders on Potential Invaders Invaders Forest land adjacent to project area bull thistle whitetop dalmation toadflax scotch thistle Canada thistle oxeye daisy spotted knapweed Japanese knotweed common mullein houndstongue Russian knapweed yellow starthistle diffuse knapweed St. Johnswort hawkweed species hoary alyssum bulbous bluegrass sulfur cinquefoil common crupina dandelion common tansy cheatgrass Baby‟s breath curly dock

Characteristics of invasive plant species found on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments are listed in Appendix D of this document.

Noxious weed information and analysis for these allotment areas has been conducted through Okanogan National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Assessments (USDA Forest Service

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--130

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

1997, 1999, and 2000) and through more recent inventories. Informal noxious weed surveys are routinely done within the project area by range management personnel and by the permittees. The weed acres in the following table are from the 2008 inventory.

Table 3.8.2. Gross acres of invasive plants within each allotment by grazing unit. Newby Weed Species Code East West Buttermilk Scaffold Grand Total Diffuse CEDI3 115.5 35.7 38.2 169.7 359.1 knapweed Whitetop CADR 0.4 0.4 Oxeye daisy LEVU 0.7 0.7 Sulfur cinquefoil PORE5 1.5 1.5 New Invader Acres 0 1.1 1.5 1.5 4.1 Total Acres 115.5 36.8 39.7 171.2 363.2 Little Bridge Creek Weed Species Code Bridge Lime Canyon Midnight Meyers Grand Total Diffuse CEDI3 127.5 82.4 21.8 150.9 knapweed 382.6 Oxeye daisy LEVU 69.2 27.3 73.2 169.7 Sulfur cinquefoil PORE5 3.1 3.1 Common tansy TAVU 20.1 20.1 Whitetop CADR 2.2 7.5 39.4 49.1 New Invader Acres 91.5 27.3 0 7.5 115.7 242 Total Acres 219 109.7 21.8 7.5 266.6 624.6 Libby Weed Species Code Alder Smith Chicamun Mission Grand Total Diffuse knapweed CEDI3 77.8 53.4 104.1 306.0 541.3 Oxeye daisy LEVU 2.7 2.7 Sulfur cinquefoil PORE5 2.1 2.1 Whitetop CADR 1.8 1.8 St. johnswort HYPE 0.7 0.7 1.4 Houndstongue CYOF 2.1 2.1 New Invader Acres 1.8 3.4 4.9 10.1 Total Acres 80.6 55.2 107.5 310.9 551.4 Poorman Weed Species Code Blakely/ Blackpine Powderhouse Grand Grouse Total Diffuse knapweed CEDI3 1.1 14.3 30.5 45.9 Common tansy TAVU 0.6 0.6 Baby‟s breath GYPA 1.2 1.2 New Invader Acres 1.1 1.2 0.6 2.9

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--131

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Weed Species Code Blakely/ Blackpine Powderhouse Grand Grouse Total Total Acres 1.1 15.5 31.1 47.7

A total of 1,587 acres of invasive plants are present in the project area with 259 acres of the total being new invader species. Of the total 32,784 capable acres (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources) on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments, 0.8% is infested with new invader weeds and 4.8% is infested with all invasive weeds. Not all off-road upland areas have been surveyed for noxious weeds, so there is a potential for undiscovered populations. The highest risk of infestation occurs along the travel routes, since seeds are brought in on vehicles, humans or animals using these routes.

Diffuse knapweed is the dominant weed species and mostly confined to roadsides with some dense patches but there can be fairly long stretches of road with just a few scattered plants. It is the only established invader inventoried. The lower priority established invaders, such as common mullein and bull thistle, are fairly widespread in the project area and are so extensive Forest wide that they are not generally inventoried. They are less invasive and/or persistent than the high priority (new invader) weeds and generally give way to or do not out-compete desirable vegetation.

Noxious weed density and composition affect range forage availability. Some range habitat types are more susceptible to weed invasions than others. Introductions of invasive plants into native plant communities have been associated with livestock management, and some introductions have resulted in widespread invasions.

Little Bridge Allotment There are approximately 242 acres of new invader weeds including 170 acres of oxeye daisy within the Little Bridge Creek drainage. The oxeye daisy infestations are scattered in patches along open roads, on closed and decommissioned roads, and within one old harvest unit. The populations are found in the moist, forested habitat with a few scattered populations found along Little Bridge Creek. Control of this plant has been difficult using the limited herbicides approved under the current Noxious Weed Environmental Assessments. The current treatment strategy is to contain the population by targeting the outlying satellite sites. The other new invaders in the Little Bridge allotment include whitetop, sulfur cinquefoil, and common tansy and are successfully being controlled with population densities very low. There is a dense diffuse knapweed population along the lower Lime Creek road (4400-100).

Newby Allotment New invader populations are very low within the Newby allotment with only 3 small sites totaling just over 4 acres that are being successfully controlled. Knapweed is present along many of the roads but typically in lower density, scattered patches with few off-road populations. There are a few dense patches of the established invader, curly dock, throughout the allotment.

Libby Allotment New invader weed populations within the Libby allotment are relatively low. There are only a few scattered new invader sites totaling 13 acres with sulfur cinquefoil being the highest density population in the lower Ben Canyon area. There is a small houndstongue site within the Mission pasture at the end of the 4300-150 road. Diffuse knapweed is well established within the allotment with over 500 gross acres. The highest densities are in the bottoms of upper Smith Canyon and in the bottom of Chicamun Canyon. There are some high density patches in some of the old landings throughout the allotment. The bulk of the knapweed population is associated with roads but there are some off-road patches associated with historic livestock

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--132

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

disturbance. The knapweed seedhead feeding weevil, Larinus minutus, has reduced diffuse knapweed populations in Smith Canyon, however, the reductions have been cyclic over the past 10 years. On odd years when Chicamun Canyon is grazed, the cattle graze most of the dense diffuse knapweed populations in the bottom of the canyon preventing seed production.

Poorman Allotment There are only 2 known new invader sites within the Poorman allotment, baby‟s breath and common tansy which total less than 2 acres. Diffuse knapweed is scattered and patchy along the roads and on old timber landings. There are populations of the established invader, cheatgrass, scattered in patches on the south facing slopes of Blakely and Grouse Canyons.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects This analysis considered the potential for spread of existing populations and the risk of introducing new invaders through associated proposed activities. The effects of Alternative 1 and 2 were compared to the current condition.

Alternative 1:

Introduction and spread of noxious weeds by cattle, horses used by range riders and associated vehicles would not occur. Soil disturbance from cattle movement would not occur so there would be fewer places for weeds to become established. A natural rate of spread and introduction of weeds would be expected. Competitive desirable grasses and forbs would not be grazed by livestock and would provide more competition with invasive species, slowing the establishment and spread.

There would continue to be weed surveys conducted by Forest Service personnel, however there would be no livestock management and much less range vegetation management on the allotment, which could reduce the degree of new infestation recognition and reporting, thereby resulting in longer weed establishment time frames and larger infestation sizes prior to initial treatment.

Alternative 2:

Domestic grazing animals can contribute to plant invasion through: (1) selective eating of native plants which means unpreferred invasive species would be left, thus favoring an increase in invasive plants; (2) ingesting invasive plant seeds in one area and spreading them to other areas through scat, digestive products, skin, fur and hooves, and (3) disturbing the soil and creating conditions favorable to invasive plants or the germination of invasive plant seed though scarification. (R6 2005 FEIS)

In many instances cattle and other browsers will avoid areas where invasive weeds are prevalent in monocultures, and move to areas where there is desirable forage. In areas where invasive species are interspersed with desirable forage, it is likely that seed would either attach to hair or mud on hooves or even be ingested and dispersed in feces. Some weed seeds are destroyed within the gastrointestinal tract; however, seeds can pass through grazing animals with some of the seeds still remaining viable (Lacey et al. 1992). Long-lived seeds and hard seeded species of forbs and grasses consumed by grazers have been reported to survive passage through gastrointestinal tracts of cattle (Janzen 1984).

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--133

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Livestock water developments with frequent animal visitation and other range structural improvements such as corrals where the ground is disturbed have a high potential for invasive plant establishment and spread. Additionally, livestock often exhibit trailing behavior that can result in disturbed areas for invasive species to establish and spread. Areas with the highest potential for trailing impacts from livestock are fence lines, road shoulders, and travel routes between foraging areas and water sites. Also cattle loafing areas create suitable disturbance for invasive plant establishment.

This alternative proposes to graze the allotments with cattle that would be routed in from areas outside the Forest. The cattle may carry new invader weed seeds on their coats or in their intestinal tracts that could cause weed infestations. The Forest Service does not have control over weed infestations on a stock owner‟s private or leased ground. Any livestock transported or driven from private land (including animals used in recreational activities) to the National Forest may spread weeds.

A total of 1,614 acres of invasive plants occur on the allotments with 265 acres of the total being new invader species. Of the total 33,049 capable acres (Table 3.1.1) on the Little Bridge and the proposed Lookout Mountain grazing allotments, 0.8% is infested with new invader weeds and 4.8% infested with all invasive weeds.

The timing of cattle use relative to the spread potential by cattle was identified for each of the pastures in the project area. Weed populations within early season pastures grazed in May, June, and July have a relatively low potential for spread and weeds within late season pastures grazed in August, September have higher risk of spread. The following table displays the total acres of weeds by the timing of cattle use. Weed populations are highest in the early season pastures and the lowest in the late and alternating season pastures.

Table 3.8.3. Acres of weeds by pasture timing of cattle use. Early Season Late season Alternating season 1024 518 48

The potential for seed dispersal would be reduced from the existing condition in pastures with a deferred rotation grazing strategy where there is alternating early and late season rest. By annually alternating early and late season grazing, the potential for weed spread by cattle would be every other year. There would be no reduction in the potential for weed spread by cattle in those pastures that are grazed late each year.

Under this alternative range monitoring and livestock management would occur. Range personnel would survey for noxious weeds while conducting compliance checks and monitoring and the permittee would survey for weeds while performing the required management, thus allowing more early detection and treatment before threshold damage can occur.

Livestock would graze competitive desirable grasses and forbs, potentially reducing their ability to compete with invasive plants. On the landscape scale, forage utilization would be managed to maintain the vigor of desirable plants, however, within localized areas of high forage utilization (hot spots) and/or loafing areas desirable vegetation can be diminished to the extent that invasive plants can dominate the species composition. For example, there are livestock loafing areas within forest canopy openings adjacent to the road in the bottom of Chicamun Canyon where diffuse knapweed is the dominant species

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--134

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

(Figure 3.8.1). Relative to the size of the canyon bottom, these areas are small and diffuse knapweed is not present or is a very small component of the native species composition outside of these areas (Figure 3.8.2). Proper grazing management is important to on-going weed management programs to minimize these hot spots. Utilization monitoring for the grazing allotments under Alternative 2 indicates that available forage is adequate for the numbers of livestock allowed to graze (Chapter 3.1 Range Resources) and it is expected that the desirable vegetation will continue to provide competition for noxious weeds.

Figure 3.8.1. Dense diffuse knapweed site in Chicamun Canyon next to road.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--135

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.8.2. Native forest and grassland vegetation adjacent to dense diffuse knapweed showing no weed presence.

Specific instructions on weed prevention practices would be included in the Annual Operating Instructions including weed identification and mapping procedures. Instructions that the permittees use only pelletized or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System lands would be enforced. Grazing management practices, including fencing, water source development, and grazing systems would be implemented to properly distribute livestock on the Forest.

The implementation of Alternative 2 would have relatively low potential for spread of existing infestations. The effects of Alternative 2 are similar to but less than those of the existing condition. Under Alternative 2 there would be more management options available to reduce soil disturbance from livestock. The proposed changes in livestock management (reduction in numbers, splitting pastures with cross fencing, shifting pasture use periods) under this alternative would reduce soil and vegetation impacts. With the implementation of good grazing management practices and with mitigation measures and Best Management Practices for noxious weed control, this would help slow or prevent the increase in established noxious weed populations, or reduce the weed spread to new areas.

The proposed boundary changes under Alternative 2 would have a minor effect on the gross acres of weeds within the grazing area as few of the acres taken out of the allotment have weed populations. The total gross acres of weeds in Alternative 2 would be similar to the current condition.

As described above in the existing conditions section, cattle can act as dispersal vectors with the potential to spread weeds. As the authorized use within pastures is highly variable from year to year the potential for spread is also variable depending on the intensity and duration of livestock use. Under Alternative 2 intensity and duration of livestock use would be moderated so the highest use authorized in head months (HM) in any pasture would be less or equal to the highest use under the current rotation (Table 3.8.4). However, when averaging the HM over a two year period risk of spread would be higher in some pastures.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--136

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 3.8.4. Current and proposed livestock use in head months. Allotment Head Months Alternative 2 Current Condition Odd Even Average years years Little Bridge Allotment 815 409 896 661 Newby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 386 536 660 610 Libby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 758 969 335 660 Poorman (within Lookout Mt.) 200 196 194 202 Proposed Lookout Mt. Allotment Total 1344 1701 1189 1472 Little Bridge and Lookout Mt. Total 2181 2110 2085 2133

Table 3.8.5. Current and proposed livestock numbers in cow/calf pairs. Allotment Number of cow/calf pairs Alternative 2 Current Condition Little Bridge Allotment 200 277 Newby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 169 260 Libby Allotment (within Lookout Mt.) 296 (169+127) 357 Poorman (within Lookout Mt.) 127 to 169 127

Little Bridge Allotment The total number of cattle would be reduced but the total HM would increase from 661 to 815. Overall, there would be a higher potential for invasive plant dispersal by livestock under Alternative 2.

Lookout Mountain Allotment There would be a large reduction of cattle HM in the current Newby allotment where HM would be reduced from 610 down to 386 which would almost halve the potential for spread. As this area is virtually free of new invader weeds, Alternative 2 would reduce the potential for spread of new introductions. On the current Libby allotment area, the total number of cattle would be reduced but the total HM would increase from 660 to 758 and the weed spread potential would be similar to the current condition. Within the current Poorman allotment area the HM would remain about the same but with more cattle. There would be a slight increase in the spread potential.

As the established invader diffuse knapweed has been well established for over 20 years (see cumulative effects) within the project area, it has reached its ecological amplitude and maximum spread potential by livestock and therefore is not a concern for further spread. The new invader weed species listed in Table 3.6.1 are the greatest concern.

Consistency with 2005 PNW ROD Standards 1, 3 and 6

Standard 1: Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be addressed in watershed analysis; roads analysis; fire and fuels management plans, Burned Area Emergency Recovery Plans; emergency wildland fire situation analysis; wildland fire implementation plans; grazing allotment management plans, recreation management plans, vegetation management plans, and other land management assessments. Invasive plant prevention practices are addressed in this EA in the Mitigation Measures section in Chapter 2, and in the Environmental Consequences discussion in the Invasive Plants section in Chapter 3. Prevention practices are addressed in detail in the Prevention and Management Strategy Elements document (Appendix C of this document). These

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--137

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

prevention practices would be implemented through the Allotment Management Plan, the Annual Operating Instructions.

Standard 3: Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch is not available, individual Forests should require sources certified to be weed free using the North American Weed Free Forage Program standards or a similar certification process. Specific Instructions that the Permittees use only pelletized or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System lands would be included in the Annual Operating Instructions.

Standard 6: Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in cooperation with the grazing permit holder. Specific instructions on weed prevention practices including weed identification, reporting and mapping procedures would be included in the Annual Operating Instructions. Forage utilization would be managed to maintain the vigor of desirable plant species. Annual compliance checks would be made to determine if forage use levels are within Forest Plan Standards.

Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects analysis considers effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic boundary is the entire Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments project area plus adjacent private lands. The temporal boundary is the period of time when the activities associated with this project are occurring from the 1950s to 10 years in the future, when the AMP would be scheduled for renewal.

Past Actions Past actions affecting invasive plants have created conditions that are described as part of the existing condition information. Past grazing practices on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments have resulted in ground disturbance and vegetation removal that likely facilitated the invasion and/or spread of noxious weeds. Livestock moved onto these allotments from state or private lands and may have transported weed seeds. Diffuse knapweed has been well established along roads and within many disturbed areas on National Forest land for over 20 years.

Biological control agent have been released for diffuse knapweed on private, state and federal lands in the past and the most successful agent has been Larinus minutus, the knapweed seedhead weevil, which has become well established throughout the National Forest. Knapweed population control by this insect has been cyclic but overall very effective in reducing the populations. Intensive logging activity started in the 1950s. Secondary roads were completed in the 1960s and 1970s in conjunction with more timber sales through the 1990s. These timber sales resulted in skid trails and roads that facilitated the invasion and/or spread of noxious weeds on the allotment. As described above, most of the existing weed populations on these allotments are on road-sides.

The Little Bridge Creek, Buttermilk Creek, Newby Creek, and Meyers and Coal Creek areas were included in the 1997 and 2000 Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment for the Okanogan National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1997, 2000). Populations of sulfur cinquefoil, common tansy, oxeye daisy, and whitetop, were spot sprayed with herbicide from

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--138

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

2000-2010. Roadside populations of diffuse knapweed were treated in 2003-2005. With the exception of oxeye daisy, herbicide treatments have been effective in reducing populations.

Past roading, timber harvest and other soil disturbance activities have provided environments for noxious weed species establishment, vectors for noxious weed dispersal, and infestations to provide propagule source material and these conditions continue to exist that favor the presence of competing and unwanted vegetation.

Present Actions All types of recreation will continue to be vectors for disturbance and weed spread within the grazing allotments, including, but not limited to, camping in campgrounds, dispersed camping, pleasure driving, firewood gathering, OHV riding, mountain biking, and snowmobiling.

State, private, federal (BLM), and county lands adjacent to National Forest have weed populations with the potential to spread to the grazing allotments. Invasive plant species with a risk of spread potential include: Dalmatian toadflax, whitetop, Japanese knotweed, houndstongue, and baby‟s breath. Whitetop, baby‟s breath, and houndstongue are well established on private land in the Lower Libby Creek area adjacent to the Libby allotment. There is a population of Japanese knotweed along the Twisp River road located on private land in close proximity to the Poorman and Newby allotments. Dalmatian toadflax is increasing in population within the shrub steppe habitat throughout the Methow Valley. Whitetop is well established on state land in close proximity to the Little Bridge allotment. There is a population of orange hawkweed that was recently found in Winthrop and hoary alyssum is established near Twisp which could be spread through vehicles and human activity. These species pose a risk of spread potential onto adjacent Forest land and potentially into the grazing allotments where populations of these species have not yet been found or consist of only a few very small sites.

Invasive plant treatments with herbicides in Little Bridge and Newby allotments are an ongoing activity. The application of herbicides will follow standards and guidelines set forth by the 2005 PNW ROD and the 1988 R6 FEIS and the Mediated Agreement and the Okanogan National Forest Noxious Weed EAs under which treatment is currently occurring. All of the known noxious weed sites within the project area will continue to be prioritized for integrated weed management. Many of the sites will be treated with herbicides which will reduce the size of the populations and prevent seed production and greatly reduce the rate of spread. Not all sites can be treated each year and not all treated sites are treated prior to seed set. Treatment later in the season can be very effective in killing the plants but allows some seed production with potential for dispersal. Invasive plant seed dispersal generally occurs in late August, September, and early October.

Ongoing road maintenance would contribute to the introduction, spread and establishment of invasive plants by providing a disturbed soil seedbed suitable for weed germination and transporting seeds and vegetative fragments in the soil at infested sites to areas that may not be infested.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Mission forest and fuels project is scheduled for planning in 2012 and may increase the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. The Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Prevention Strategy and Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, 2002) would be followed along with the 2005 PNW ROD standards and guidelines for these projects. It is foreseeable that follow-up treatments to weed populations in Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments would occur in the future under existing Noxious Weed EA

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--139

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

decisions.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Forestwide Site-Specific Invasive Species Treatment EIS is a reasonably foreseeable action. This project would authorize the treatment of currently existing invasive species across the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and would allow for treatment of infestations that are not currently inventoried through an early detection/rapid response (EDRR) strategy. The proposed invasive species treatments would begin within the next 2 years and continue for 15 years. Invasive plants would be treated using one or a combination of manual, mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical methods. Priorities for treatment and selection of treatment methods would be consistent with those described in the R6 2005 FEIS and ROD. It is foreseeable that this action would increase the number of weed treatment options available within the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments. Early detection, rapid response to newly discovered infestations would increase treatment effectiveness and reduce the potential for spread of new populations. Integrated weed management including herbicide treatment and revegetation would be implemented. Under the reasonably foreseeable future action for the Invasive Plant EIS and ROD, the population of oxeye daisy, which has not been controlled with the herbicide picloram applications under the 1997 and 2001 decisions could be controlled with herbicide aminopyralid, which is effective on this species.

When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered with the effects of the proposed action, the overall effect would be in an improvement over existing conditions. Livestock grazing in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments, with the implementation of the proposed actions, weed prevention best management practices, EDRR and sufficient efforts to control weeds at livestock impacted sites and spread corridors, continued grazing would have little effect on the spread on noxious weeds.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--140

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.9 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

Affected Environment The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are located in Okanogan County, Washington. All three of the current permit holders for these allotments have base ranches in Okanogan County, and two of the three reside in Okanogan County. Federal lands make up 46% of the land base in Okanogan County and the current level of livestock production depends on the use of Federal lands. These four allotments provide summer forage for cattle, while two of the three base ranches are being used to grow hay for winter feeding. The three base ranches contribute to open space and all of the benefits associated with it in a rural community.

The local economy is benefitted by the operations of these cattle ranches. In 2005 cattle ranches were the second most numerous type of agricultural operation in Okanogan County, and livestock production made up approximately 16% of Okanogan County‟s agricultural economy (Haggerty and Gude 2008). Gross income from livestock and related production was approximately $32 million in Okanogan County in 2006 (Haggerty and Gude 2008). Currently, the total livestock permitted to graze on these four allotments is 528 cow/calf pairs. In an average summer grazing season a calf could gain approximately 250 pounds live weight. These four allotments could annually produce approximately 132,000 pounds of beef worth between $79,000 (2006) and $145,000 (2011) depending on the market price.

For 2011 the federal grazing fee for Forest Service grazing permits is $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM). The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments are 4 of 64 Forest Service grazing allotments in Okanogan County and 22 on the Methow Valley Ranger District. The AUMs/HM on these 4 comprise approximately 6% of the total in Okanogan County and approximately 23% of those in the Methow Valley (Table 3.9.1).

Table 3.9.1. Forest Service grazing allotment data for the project area, Methow Valley, and Okanogan County. LLBNP Project Methow Valley Okanogan County Allotments 4 22 64 Permittees 3 10 47 AUMs 2849 12,230 46,230

Administration and monitoring is required for active grazing allotments. Allotments with streams that are inhabited by Federally listed fish species typically require more monitoring than others. The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments all have streams with listed fish species. Additional range improvements, such as water developments and new fencing, are methods to mitigate the effects of cattle grazing on listed fish species and their habitat.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--141

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1. The discontinuation of grazing on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments and the cancellation of the associated grazing permits would have an adverse effect on the permittees and their employees. Comparable grazing opportunities would be difficult, if not impossible, to find near their home ranches. There would be no contribution to livestock production or to the local ranching economy. Their contribution to the local community and economy would not be realized. If the permit cancellation resulted in the end of their ranching businesses, the benefits of open space provided by these properties could be diminished or lost if properties are sold or developed.

These allotments make up approximately 20% of the range program on the Methow Valley Ranger District, so annual administration costs would be reduced accordingly. Grazing fee income to the Forest Service would be reduced. There would be no mitigation costs.

Existing range improvements (fences and water developments) would be abandoned. Subsequent decisions would need to be made regarding the retention or removal of these improvements and how to fund their maintenance or removal.

Table 3.9.2. Economic comparison of the two alternatives. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Active Allotments 0 2 Permits 0 3 Contribution to Livestock 0 ~124,000 lbs Production Grazing Fee Income 0 $3065 AUMS 0 2270 Mitigation Costs 0 1 water development, 10 mi fence, 4 cattle guard, reconstruction of existing improvements =~$120,000 Administration/Monitoring Costs 0 ~$12,500

Alternative 2. The continuation of grazing on the Little Bridge and proposed Lookout Mountain allotments would allow the current permittees to maintain their ranching operations. They would continue to contribute to the livestock based portion of the local economy. Their base properties would continue to contribute to open space in the Methow Valley. Contribution would be less than the existing due to the reduction in cow/calf pairs from 232 to 200 on the Little Bridge allotment.

The grazing fee income would be $3065.

Mitigation for Alternative 2 includes approximately 10 miles of new fence construction, 4 cattleguards, 1 new water development, and reconstruction of 13 existing improvements. New fencing costs range between $8600 and $12,000 per mile. The salvage and installation of used cattleguards would be approximately $2500 each. The purchase of materials and installation of a new water development would be approximately $1800. The total mitigation costs for Alternative 2 would be between $97,800 and $132,200. In the past, some mitigation costs have been covered by other organizations as well as by the Forest Service.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--142

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

The Libby and proposed Lookout Mountain allotments make up approximately 20% of the range program on the Methow Valley Ranger District. Approximately 170 person-days are spent annually to administer the district range program. Monitoring requirements on these allotments would be greater than the average due to the presence of Federally listed fish species. Total administration and monitoring requirements for Alternative 2 would be approximately 50 person- days which is approximately $12,500.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--143

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The following is a summary of a detailed cultural resources analysis that is part of the project file (Neider 2011).

The Area of Potential Effect [APE] considered with respect to the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA 1966] for this project is the extent of the range allotment areas under analysis. Certain management practices and situations related to grazing are considered to have a greater potential to affect cultural resources. Some of these situations include: [1] when earth-disturbing projects are authorized (eg. fences and water developments) [2] when grazing is intensified in any area to the point where there could be a substantial increase in surface disturbance, [3] when there are potential impacts from cattle to known historic properties

Impacts to cultural resources from livestock grazing tend to be found where cattle congregate or remain for long periods of time. The effect of breakage and dislocation of surface artifacts, soil horizon bioturbation, and the accumulation of acids from cattle waste could affect surface and subsurface features and artifacts. Chemical actions on subsurface and surface sensitive materials might be expected if high concentrations of waste occur on that site. For these reasons, cattle rotation patterns and schedules, livestock driveways, as well as watering and salting locations become an element to consider in managing cultural resources within grazing allotments.

Affected Environment Historically, the greatest impact on sites within allotments occurred during the early years of this century when much larger numbers of livestock were grazed with little range management. Cattle tended to congregate around natural water sources, which tended to be areas of greatest site density or probability. Modern range management practices include creating water sources that will dilute the effects of grazing by spreading it over a much larger area or luring cattle away from sensitive areas. In addition, pasture rotation and other management plan details such as salting locations are used as a means of controlling damage to resources.

In the last 35 years, cultural resource surveys have been completed on 36 separate projects in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area. A search of district files indicated that a total of 18 cultural properties have been identified in the planning area. These properties include historic features such as mines, lookout towers, cabins, trail shelters, and camps. No prehistoric properties have been identified in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area. Tribal consultation with the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes has been completed and no concerns were expressed. In the event that an issue is raised, it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, following standard procedures that incorporate current laws, guidelines, understandings and agreements and are documented in an appropriate manner.

Environmental Consequences Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1. This is the baseline for comparison and represents a landscape with wildlife grazers and browsers only. This alternative proposes no authorized livestock grazing. The direct and

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--144

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

indirect effects include no bioturbation by cattle and the reduction of erosion due to greater groundcover. The alternative also results in additional fire-carrying fuels (i.e. grasses would no longer be grazed). Groundfire would pose the greatest hazard to fire-sensitive sites (e.g., rock shelters, rock art, historic structures) that have moderate to high fuels on site with resultant higher temperatures of longer duration. This alternative offers a good deal of benign protection to remaining cultural resources regardless of their eligibility.

Alternative 2. The types and kinds of heritage resource sites presently known for the planning area are not susceptible to impacts from cattle grazing, and no effect to the properties are anticipated from continued use of the allotment.

In the event that a significant new property is identified by future surveys, heritage specialist would work with the allotment administrator and/or permittee to identify methods to adjust grazing practices and allotment use to protect cultural resources.

No negative effects to heritage resources are anticipated from continued use of the allotment. Pursuant to the 1997 Programmatic Agreement regarding The Management of Cultural Resources on National Forests in Washington State, a qualified Forest Cultural Resource Specialist determined that renewal of the allotment use permit would have “no effect” on historic properties provided the stipulations above are met (Neider 2011; Forest Report 2011060804011).

Cumulative Effects All proposed future ground- disturbing projects associated with the allotment would be inventoried prior to implementation, with appropriate Section 106 consultation completed in accordance with current Forest Standards. No cumulative effects to heritage resources are anticipated from future ground-disturbing activities, combined with the proposed continued use of the allotment.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--145

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

3.11 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

Social Groups, Civil Rights and Environmental Justice

Civil Rights would not be affected by the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman Allotment Management Plan Revision project. The project includes Forest Service employee accomplished work. The U. S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in its employment practices based on race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status.

Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed, Reg. 7629, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. The proposed activities would not adversely affect minority or low-income populations.

The proposed action would not have any disproportionate effects on consumers, minority groups, women, civil rights, or social/ethnic groups. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status.

Floodplains and Wetlands

No impacts to designated floodplains are projected. Project activities would occur in some wetlands and effects are described in the aquatics, wildlife, and botany sections. Project activities would occur in some Riparian Reserves and effects are described in the hydrology, aquatics, and botany sections. Floodplains and wetlands would be protected through project design features, which conform to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.

Prime Range Land, Farm Land and Forest Land

The proposed action complies with the Federal Regulations for prime land. No prime forest land within the project are would be affected because no trees would be removed. Prime forestland would not be affected by this project because no trees would be cut. The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotments area does not contain any prime rangeland or prime farmland. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have any effect on prime rangeland and farmland.

Inventoried Roadless Areas/Potential Wilderness Areas

The Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) lies at the upper elevations of the Libby, Little Bridge, and Newby allotments. None of the proposed activities in the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman Allotment Management Plan Revision project would change the roadless character in this IRA. Draft potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) have been identified as part of the Forest Plan Revision process with the proposed action. Livestock grazing will not change the character of those PWAs.

This project is consistent with the Secretary of Agriculture's reservation of decisions to construct and reconstruct roads in inventoried roadless areas, because no roads would be constructed or reconstructed. The project is consistent with the Secretary's reservation relating to tree cutting because no trees would be cut in inventoried roadless areas.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--146

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan recommends that Congress designate the segment of Twisp River adjacent to the project area as a Scenic River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Forestwide standards and guidelines within 1/4 mile of the Twisp River require potential scenic classification attributes to be protected pending congressional action, including restricting off-road use, minerals development, and prohibiting above ground utility lines and new impoundments or diversions. None of these activities are part of the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman AMP alternative. Although some of the streams in the project area were found potentially eligible in the 2000 inventory, no activities that would change wild, scenic or recreational river characteristics are proposed.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives

With relation to national and global petroleum reserves, the energy consumption associated with the proposed action would be unsubstantial. Energy consumption associated with this project would be unsubstantial at the local, regional or national scale. Fossil fuel needed for operations and transportation associated with this project would be irreversibly lost, but this is unsubstantial in the context of regional, national or global use.

Public Health and Safety

No public health or safety impacts are anticipated with either alternative. No potential mechanisms for impact to public health and safety were identified during scoping or analysis of the alternatives. Waters considered impaired under the Clean Water Act are listed in Table 3.5.3 and are not likely caused by grazing on the LLBNP allotments. See Hydrology discussion above for more information.

American Indian Treaty Rights

No American Indian Treaty Rights would be affected by the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman Allotment Management Plan Revision project. The Tribal governments for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and Yakama Nation were contacted during government to government consultation; no concerns about the project were raised by either tribal government.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects

There are no known substantial, irreversible, or irretrievable commitments of resources connected with the proposed action. Fossil fuel needed for operations and transportation associated with this project would be irreversibly lost, but this is unsubstantial in the context of regional, national or global use.

Visual Quality Objectives

None of the proposed activities would change the visual quality of the area. The small range improvement projects would not be evident to the casual observer.

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3--147

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix A: Response to Scoping Comments

A letter describing the proposed action was sent to 167 interested groups and individuals on April 14, 2010. Twelve responses were received. As a result of public scoping, concerns were generated from public responses to the initial proposed action. Some of the concerns had already been identified by the interdisciplinary team and had already been addressed in the proposed action. Three of the concerns resulted in alternatives that were considered but eliminated from consideration (Chapter 2). Other public concerns that were raised were outside the scope of this analysis or were addressed by the no- action (no grazing) alternative. Several of the letters contained comments that were substantively the same; therefore, the following is a summary of the comments received and the rationale for their dismissal.

Comment One: Impacts to aquatic resources, including springs, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives, watershed function, and threatened and endangered fish species, should be considered. Response One: Impacts to aquatic resources are considered in the Aquatics and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy sections in Chapter 3.

Comment Two: Cattle cross over onto private property. One respondent recommended that the Forest Service monitor boundary fences. Another respondent stated that a permit holder had helped monitor and fix boundary fences, but that is no longer happening. Response Two: Forest Service Manual 2230.6 states, “The United States is not responsible for intrusion of permitted livestock upon private lands or for the settlement of controversies between the owner of the livestock and the owner of the land. Federal courts have rendered decisions (Shannon v. United States, l60 Fed. 870 (Cir. 9 1908); Light v. United States, 220 U.S., 523; United States v. Gurley, 279 Fed. 874 (N.D. GA. 1922); United States v. Johnston, 38 F. Supp. 4 (S.D.W.VA. 1941)) holding that the United States is not required to fence its lands to protect them against unauthorized livestock or to control the livestock permitted to graze on the National Forest”. Boundary fences are not the property of the Forest Service and therefore we do not monitor or maintain them. Although past permit holders may have chosen to assist landowners by fixing boundary fences, they did so voluntarily and are under no obligation to continue.

Comment Three: There are concerns about the management and spread of noxious weeds in grazing areas. One comment recommended that the Forest Service post signs in various locations along roads encouraging use of weed free seed and mow along roadsides instead of using herbicides. The Proposed Action, Chapter 3 and Appendix D describe invasive species management practices and the impacts that would result from grazing cattle in the allotments. As described in the analysis in Chapter 3, with the implementation of good grazing practices, weed prevention best management practices, early detection rapid response, and efforts to control weeds at livestock impacted sites and spread corridors, continued grazing would have little effect on the spread of noxious weeds.

Appendix A A--1

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

This environmental assessment evaluates the authorization of grazing permits on the Libby, Little Bridge, Newby and Poorman allotments; therefore, posting signs to educate the general public and roadside weed management are outside the scope of this analysis.

Comment Four: Include an analysis of the economics of issuing grazing permits, including cost comparison of alternatives and costs of administration. Response: See Economic and Social analysis in Chapter 3 for discussion of costs and economic impacts of this project.

Comment Five: People who are anti-grazing are interfering with grazing and water and these people should be kept off of the allotments. Response Five: Intentional interference with allotments, including cattle and improvements, is an issue for law enforcement and should be reported promptly. Such situations would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Comment Six: Garbage should be removed from allotments. Response Six: Garbage dumped on Forest Service lands is not directly associated with authorization of grazing permits for the LLBNP allotments and therefore is outside the scope of this analysis.

Comment Seven: There should be a requirement for real estate disclosures for all properties adjacent to allotments. Response Seven: It is not within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to require real estate disclosures and therefore this is outside the scope of this analysis.

Comment Eight: Four wheelers do more damage than cattle or horses. Response Eight: The opinion of the commenter is noted. See Chapter 3 for analysis of impacts from grazing.

Comment Nine: The analysis should disclose impacts of fences on wildlife. Predators can trap animals against fences and animals often get caught on fences. Response Nine: Fencing can impact movement of wildlife and individuals may become trapped. However, cases of movement barriers or entanglements in the project area have not been reported or documented. See Chapter 3 for the analysis of impacts from fences to wildlife.

Comment Ten: Cattle should be allowed to graze riparian areas to limit overgrowth, mosquitoes, rodents and small mammal nesting. Response Ten: Grazing in riparian areas with the intent of reducing vegetation and aquatic species does not meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. No data was provided by the commenter nor identified by the interdisciplinary team specialists to support the benefit of such practice.

Appendix A A--2

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Comment Eleven: Cattle should be removed from X allotment and/or from areas such as wetlands and sensitive plant habitat. Response Eleven: A number of comments asked that cattle be eliminated from various allotments and sensitive areas. Elimination of cattle from the allotments is considered under analysis of the no action alternative, Alternative 1. Elimination of cattle from certain sensitive areas is addressed through the fencing described in the Proposed Action, the impacts of which are analyzed in Chapter 3.

Comment Twelve: Smith Canyon (Libby allotment) is drier than other areas and therefore should be grazed on a three year rotation to allow for two years of recovery between each season of use. Response Twelve: See Chapter 2 for alternatives dismissed from further consideration.

Comment Thirteen: Government Spring had no surface water the last two years. Response Thirteen: Monitoring data from May 21 and June 2, 2009 indicated that there was adequate surface flow to support cattle grazing at the level proposed. The Range Resources analysis in Chapter 3 discusses the availability of water and the amount of water necessary to support cattle.

Comment Fourteen: Number of cattle on each allotment should be based, in part, on availability of water. Response Fourteen: See the response above.

Comment Fifteen: The Forest Service should charge more for grazing permits. Response Fifteen: Determination of grazing fees does not occur at the Forest level and is therefore outside the scope of this analysis. The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.

Comment Sixteen: Allotments should not be used for a period of five years after logging in order to allow for recovery and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Response Sixteen: See Chapter 2 for alternatives dismissed from further consideration.

Comment Seventeen: Permittee use of ATVs causes damage and creates trails that then attract illegal use. Response Seventeen: No off-road ATV use would be authorized under the proposed action; therefore ATV damage caused by permittees is not relevant to this analysis. Additionally, the interdisciplinary team did not identify damage from ATV use during field surveys.

Comment Eighteen: The public process for this environmental assessment is constricted and the decision to continue grazing has already been made. The public should be involved in the process. Response Eighteen: A scoping letter was sent to members of the project mailing list on April 14, 2010, a public meeting was held on May 7, 2010, and the Forest Service attended a meeting held by the residents of Libby Creek to discuss the proposed action. There will also be a 30-day comment period on

Appendix A A--3

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

the environmental assessment. The decision will be made by the Forest Supervisor after public comments have been considered and notice will be sent to all parties who comment on the environmental assessment. Public involvement for this project has met the requirement of 40 C.F.R. 1506.6(a) for federal agencies to “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” and the requirements of the Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 for implementing the requirements of NEPA.

Comment Nineteen: Effects of grazing to recreation should be considered. Response Nineteen: The commenter did not raise any specific concerns about recreation use or conflicts with grazing. The interdisciplinary team did not identify any recreation related concerns, as only cross country ski trails were identified in the analysis area and their use would not overlap with the authorized grazing season.

Comment Twenty: Beaver habitat has been degraded by grazing. Response Twenty: Please see the Aquatic Resources and Aquatic Conservation Strategy sections in Chapter 3 for discussion of impacts to beavers.

Comment Twenty One: If grazing continues there should be measurable terms and conditions to protect natural resources. Response Twenty One: Please see the proposed action for information on the conditions that will monitored as part of permit administration and a list of mitigation measures.

Comment Twenty Two: The cost of monitoring should be identified in the EA. Response Twenty Two: See Economic and Social analysis in Chapter 3 for information on costs associated with monitoring. The consequences of permit violations are irrelevant to understanding or analyzing the impacts of the proposed action; therefore, they are not discussed in the environmental assessment.

Comment Twenty Three: The grazing season should not be extended for the Newby allotment. Response Twenty Three: See Chapter 2 for alternatives dismissed from further consideration.

Comment Twenty Four: Analysis should show what science is used to establish “take” of listed fish species. Response Twenty Four: Take is a term defined by the Endangered Species Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct". In compliance with Section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act, “statements of take” are issued by NOAA Fisheries or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not by the agency undertaking an action. This is not within the authority of the Forest Service and therefore is outside the scope of this analysis.

Appendix A A--4

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Comment Twenty Five: Is excluding cattle from riparian areas actually the “best management practice” based on the best available science? Response Twenty Five: See Aquatics analysis in Chapter 3 for discussion of impacts of to riparian areas from cattle exclusion. All analysis used the best available science and literature used is cited throughout the document. As described in the analysis, measures such as reducing the number of cattle on a unit or altering the period or length of time during which a unit is used can also reduce impacts of grazing to riparian areas.

Comment Twenty Six: Have previous disturbance regimes impacts on fish been factored into decision making? Response Twenty Six: As described in the description of past actions found in Chapter 3, past actions were not catalogued or considered separately in the analysis. Impacts that resulted from past disturbance regimes are reflected in the existing conditions for each resource analyzed in the environmental assesment.

Appendix A A--5

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix B: Aquatic Management Indicator Species Analysis The Okanogan Forest Plan identifies a number of fish species as Management Indicator Species (MIS) for healthy stream/riparian habitats. These include the westslope cutthroat, redband /rainbow trout, steelhead, spring Chinook, summer Chinook, bull trout, and eastern brook trout (USDA 1989). Steelhead and Chinook salmon are anadromous. Westslope cutthroat trout are not present in the Little Bridge Allotment, but are present in the Libby and Newby allotments. Eastern brook trout are introduced, non-indigenous species, native to the eastern United States. Eastern brook trout compete for food and living space against the native resident, less aggressive redband trout. Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy stream and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic ecosystem includes: cold and clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy streamside vegetation; complex channel habitat created by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and provide for instream wood recruitment. The fish bearing stream systems in the project area are the Little Bridge, Buttermilk, Poorman, and Libby Creek drainages. Habitat for the MIS species exists within or is adjacent to the project area and is included in the analysis area. Table A.1 below describes the MIS, the habitat they represent, and whether they are present in the project analysis area. Table A.2 describes the MIS fish distribution within and adjacent to the project area. Table A.1. MIS and habitat description for the Little Bridge/Lookout Mountain project area.

Habitat Present Species Present in MIS Habitat Description in Analysis Area Analysis Area

Westslope Cutthroat* Yes Yes Rainbow Trout/ Yes Yes Redband Trout Steelhead (known) Streams/riparian habitats Yes Yes Chinook Yes Yes Bull Trout Yes Yes Brook Trout* Yes Yes *These species are not present in Little Bridge Creek Table A.2. MIS distribution within and adjacent to the Little Bridge and Lookout Mountain Grazing management areas. SCS O.m. BT WSCT EBT Species1 Dist.2 CH Dist.2 CH Dist.2 CH Dist.2 Dist.2 Twisp River 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 30- Little Bridge Cr. - - 7.7 5.1 2.13 7.7 - - - - feet Canyon Cr. - - - - 2.7 ------Buttermilk Cr. 1.1 1.1 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 - - WF Buttermilk - - - - 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - - - - Cr. Appendix A B--1

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

EF Buttermilk Cr. - - - - 5.5 - - 5.5 5.5 2.2 - - Poorman Cr. 0.2 0.2 2.4 ------2.4 Libby Creek unk. - - 6.0 3.4 6.03 - - 3.0 1.03 1 SCS - spring Chinook; O.m. – O. mykiss, includes IRRT, steelhead and resident rainbow trout of unknown genetics; BT - bull trout; WSCT - westslope cutthroat; EBT – eastern brook trout 2 Known distribution in miles. 3 Based on limited data

In general, the aquatic MIS selected for the Okanogan National Forest have similar stream and riparian ecosystem requirements. However, they do represent a range of minor differences in habitat conditions found and utilized across the forest. As an example, bull trout require slightly colder water when compared to redband trout. Because the habitat requirements for each species are generally similar and often overlap, they were collectively chosen to represent healthy stream and riparian ecosystems. Methods used to document fish distribution include field presence/absence surveys, aquatic inventory surveys, escapement data and redd surveys. The origin of this data has come from several sources including Forest Service watershed baseline updates, Forest Service and Bureau of Reclamation Level II stream survey reports on major fish-bearing streams, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) spawning ground surveys, cooperative bull trout redd surveys, and Wells Dam fish counts. Geographic Information System data (GIS) catalogs miles of MIS distribution by fish species. Dam counts and population estimates made available by WDFW are used to characterize population trends for spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. Only presence/absence surveys have been completed for westslope cutthroat, redband trout/rainbow trout, or eastern brook trout in the project area. Westslope Cutthroat, Redband/Rainbow Trout, and Eastern Brook Trout –Most of the resident salmonid habitat in the project area can be categorized as moderate gradient (<7%). Mainstem Little Bridge, Buttermilk, and Libby Creeks are medium sized streams with approximately 5-8m bankfull widths, and fish bearing tributaries to are range from slightly smaller streams with 3-4m bankfull widths to a few small streams less than 2m wide (Humling, M., personal communication). Smaller streams provide important habitat for rearing juvenile salmonids, and sometimes the highest densities are found in streams less than 5m wide (Rosenfeld et al, 2002; Rosenfeld, Porter, and Parkinson, 2000). Smaller streams with functioning ecological processes are often disproportionally important as related to the persistence of sensitive coldwater fish species such as coastal cutthroat trout and early life histories of coho (Rosenfeld and Hatfield, 2006; Rosenfeld, Porter, and Parkinson, 2000). Similar studies conducted for bull trout have found preferential use of deeper, slow water pools with complex cover (Al- Chokhachy et al, 2010; Al-Chokhachy and Budy, 2007). All of the studies referenced emphasize the importance of protecting small stream habitat complexity because of the documented preferential use by salmonids. Only presence/absence surveys have been completed for resident salmonid species in the Little Bridge and Lookout Mountain project area. In the absence of MIS population trend data, the Methow Valley Ranger District has measured key habitat variables, and then modeled changes expected to occur as a result of project activities (modeled effects are presented later in this analysis). This MIS analysis assumes that activities that maintain and improve aquatic/riparian habitat would provide for resident fish population viability on Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest lands.

Habitat Condition – The Methow Valley Ranger District has completed Forest Service Region 6 Stream Surveys in fish-bearing streams in the grazing project area. The stream survey protocol guides collection of field data for stream channels, riparian vegetation, and fish presence. Data collected from these surveys are then rated using habitat indicator benchmarks developed by NMFS and FWS (USDA, USDC, and USDI 2004). In the following paragraphs, measured habitat data is summarized for Little Bridge, Buttermilk, and Libby Creeks.

Appendix A B--2

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Little Bridge Creek – This stream provides important spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead and provides habitat for redband rainbow and to a lesser degree bull trout and Chinook. Aquatic and riparian habitat attributes in Little Bridge Creek are mostly functioning at risk from past and present management activities. There are moderate levels of fine sediment and low numbers of deep pools that were noted as being filled in with fine sediment. Road densities and their close proximity to streams put it in the not properly functioning category. Riparian vegetation has been altered due to cattle grazing, past timber harvest, and riparian roads.

Table A.3. MIS habitat summary for Little Bridge Creek (2005 USFS survey).

Habitat Element Value Rating Road Density 2.7 mi/sq mi Not properly functioning Fine Sediment (<6mm) 16%avg Functioning at risk Temperatures >17C Functioning at risk Streambank Stability >98% Properly functioning Pool Frequency/Quality 54.6 pools per mile Function at risk Large Wood 13-88 pieces per mile Functioning at Risk Some loss due to roads, Riparian Vegetation Functioning At Risk cattle, and past harvest Fish Barrier No man-made barriers Functioning Properly

Buttermilk, EF and WF Buttermilk Creeks – The Buttermilk Creek drainage provides important steelhead and bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. Redband rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout spawn and rear in the upper reaches and Chinook rear in the lower reach. The upper half of the drainage is in wilderness. Aquatic and riparian habitat attributes in the mainstem, EF, and WF Buttermilk Creeks are mostly functioning at risk according to ESA standards. There are moderate levels of fine sediment and moderate numbers of deep pools. Road densities and their close proximity to streams put it in the not properly functioning category. Riparian vegetation has been altered due to cattle grazing and riparian roads.

Table A.4. MIS habitat summary for Buttermilk Creek Drainage (1996 USFS Survey).

Habitat Element Value Rating Road Density 1.8 mi/sqmi Functioning At Risk Fine Sediment (<6mm) 17.3% Avg Functioning at Risk Temperatures 17C Functioning at Risk Streambank Stability >98% Properly Functioning Pool Frequency/Quality 28 pools per mile Functioning at Risk Large Wood Noted as adequate Functioning at Risk Minor loss due to roads cattle Riparian Vegetation Functioning at Risk grazing Fish Barrier Push-up dam Functioning at Risk

Libby Creek – Libby Creek supports spawning and rearing of steelhead and a single bull trout was captured in 2005. Other fish include redband rainbow, westslope cutthroat trout, and there is some Chinook rearing in the lower reaches. Aquatic and riparian habitat attributes in Libby Creek are mostly

Appendix A B--3

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

functioning at risk from past and present management activities. There are moderate levels of fine sediment and low numbers of deep pools. Road densities and their close proximity to streams put it in the not properly functioning category. Riparian vegetation has been altered due to cattle grazing, past timber harvest, and riparian roads.

Table A.5. MIS habitat summary for Libby Creek (2010 USFS Survey)

Habitat Element Value Rating Road Density 4.9mi/sqmi Not properly functioning Fine Sediment (<6mm) 16%avg Functioning at risk Temperatures >18C Not properly functioning Streambank Stability 97% Properly Functioning Pool Frequency/Quality 41.5 pools per mile Functioning at Risk Large Wood 26 pcs/mi Functioning at Risk Some loss due to roads, Riparian Vegetation cattle grazing and past Functioning At Risk harvest Fish Barrier No known fish barriers Properly Functioning

Project Effects -The amount of occupied MIS habitat on the Okanogan National Forest ranges from about 90 miles to over 400 miles, depending on the species (Table A.6.). On Okanogan National Forest lands, Chinook have the smallest range because most of their habitat is on private lands and brook trout have the widest range. Within the grazing project area, steelhead have the most miles and brook trout and westslope cutthroat have the fewest miles. Based on known fish distribution and GIS analysis, the amount of MIS habitat in the project area (~4 - 30 miles) represents a small fraction of the overall miles of habitat for the entire forest for all species but steelhead. In the project area, steelhead have the highest proportion of habitat compared to their range on the National Forest, at about 25%.

Table A.6. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the Okanogan National Forest range.

Forest MIS in Proportion of MIS MIS Distribution Analysis habitat in Project Area (mi)* Area (mi) out of total on Forest Westslope Cutthroat 339 7.7 2% Rainbow Trout/ 359 29.7 8% Redband Trout Steelhead (known) 107 27 25% Chinook 91 2.8 3% Bull Trout 206 19.1 9% Brook Trout 423 3.4 1% *Miles calculated for the Okanogan National Forest.

Cattle directly access MIS habitat in the LLBNP allotments except spring Chinook, which occur below the allotments or on the lower portions where cattle do not have access. Therefore, we expect direct effects to all MIS, except Chinook. Potential direct effects include disturbing juvenile, adult, and spawning fish as well as trampling redds. Indirect effects to MIS habitat impacts from grazing are Appendix A B--4

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

expected as well. The most susceptible life stage of MIS to direct effects from cattle grazing is during the spawning and egg incubation period. During this period, cows can disrupt spawning activity (startling spawners) and trample eggs in gravels. A key design criterion for this project is to prevent disturbing bull trout and steelhead spawning adults or redds because they are a federally threatened species. Subsequently, the Forest Service proposes to exclude cattle access to streams during the spawning periods with fences and pasture rotations for these species. Redband rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout spawning habitat overlaps with steelhead and they are also spring spawners, but with a slightly later incubation period until mid August. Preventing cattle access to steelhead spawning would protect nearly all of the spawning period for redband and cutthroat trout. There is a one-month period from mid July to mid August where there would be potential for cattle to trample redds. Redband and cutthroat trout typically spawn in smaller pockets of habitat in remote higher elevation reaches where cattle access is very low. This presents some risk of redband and cutthroat redds being trampled, but we consider the probability to be very low due to limited cattle access. Brook trout occur in Poorman Creek and Libby Creek and are fall spawners. Cattle would have access to these streams in the fall, but access is limited and effects to spawning are expected to be low.

There is potential for disturbing rearing juveniles, sub-adults, and adult MIS when cattle access occupied streams. Expected effects are sub-lethal and include displacing fish from cover to areas with heightened exposure to predators and disruption of normal feeding and sheltering behavior. Cattle access to MIS streams across the allotment is limited due to steep terrain and dense vegetation. Features of the proposed action such as pasture rotations, upland salting and water sources, and active herding would minimize the amount of time cattle spend in MIS habitat and the risk for direct effects. Additionally, the project would require the permittee to remove cattle if move triggers are met, which would minimize the amount of time cattle would spend along Little Bridge Creek. Any disturbance to individuals is likely to be brief (minutes) and limited to once or twice a day for 1 month while cattle are in the pasture. The few individuals affected are likely to respond by moving upstream or downstream 20 or 30 feet. Therefore, MIS exposed to short-duration and infrequent cattle disturbances are not expected to result in physical harm and would recover fully, with no reduction in survival and lifetime reproduction. The FWS estimate up to 30 bull trout total would be adversely affected from direct disturbance. We expect similar numbers of other MIS species would be adversely affected from the proposed project.

In general, the grazing effects to important MIS habitat features were determined to be minor. As cattle access streambanks and riparian vegetation, we expect some bank trampling and vegetation browse. Based on previous monitoring, the proposed project would result in some small-scale, localized effects to streambanks and riparian vegetation sufficient to adversely affect a few individual MIS over the 10- year period. Localized degradation to streambanks and riparian vegetation may reduce the capacity of habitat across the allotments to support MIS. With limited cattle access and measures such as placement of salt in the uplands, off-site watering, active herding, and pasture rotations, the extent of these habitat impacts would minimize these impact areas. Additionally, the project has a monitoring and adaptive management strategy that would require the permittee to remove cattle if move triggers are met, which would minimize habitat effects and the amount of time cattle would spend along MIS streams. These measures would limit habitat impacts to a few dispersed areas across the allotments. At larger habitat scales, such as stream reaches (>1/2 mile) or larger, the grazing impacts to streambanks and riparian vegetation would be minor. The FWS estimates the few isolated habitat effects would result in adverse effects to <20 individual bull trout over the 10-year permit period. We expect similar numbers of other MIS would be impacted by habitat effects associated with the proposed grazing plans. This magnitude of effects is unlikely to result in any long-term reduction in survival or reproduction of these species.

Effects of the proposed action on MIS species or their habitat across the project area, when considered cumulatively with other activities in the project area, would maintain or improve existing conditions. We Appendix A B--5

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

expect some localized improvements where redistribution of cattle would reduce pressure on aquatic/riparian resources. However, not all known livestock affected riparian areas in the allotments would be fenced or otherwise excluded from livestock use and some degree of existing impacts would continue across the project area. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 1989).

Summary The Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing project area covers less than 10% of suitable westslope cutthroat trout, redband rainbow trout, Chinook, bull trout, and eastern brook trout habitat across the Forest. Steelhead have a higher proportion of habitat within the project area at 25%. We expect some localized negative effects to streambanks and riparian vegetation that could lead to a low level of adverse effects to MIS. A very small proportion of MIS habitat in the project area and the Forest would be impacted by the action. This is because: (1) access to MIS habitat is very limited due to the expanse of steep terrain and dense riparian vegetation; (2) the proposed grazing plan (e.g. upland water developments and salting) and associated adaptive management strategies (e.g. move triggers) all contribute to limiting the potential effects of the action on critical MIS habitat elements to low levels; (3) relatively low cow densities; and (4) continued riparian improvement, as exhibited during recent past grazing, is expected to further limit cattle access to streams over time. Consequently, the proposed grazing plan would have proportionately small impact to aquatic and riparian habitats across the project area and have very minor effects to aquatic and riparian habitat at the reach scale or larger. In the long term (years to decades), MIS habitat features are expected to continue to improve because grazing would be implemented with closely monitored compliance and utilization data followed with subsequent adaptive management decisions that would continue to allow riparian vegetation and stream channels to recover to appropriate conditions. Therefore, the effects of the action to MIS are consistent with the Forest Plan and continued viability of the MIS is expected on the Okanogan National Forest.

Appendix A B--6

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix C: Region 6 January 2008 ISSSSP list of Threatened, Endangered, and/or Sensitive Plant Species, 2011 Survey and Manage List of Species, as well as other Rare Species which are Documented or Suspected to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee N.F.

R-6 ISSSSP Sensitive and Federally Listed Species

ISSSSP -

Scientific Name Common Name Status 1/2009 WNHP RANK# Fed Status+ OKW@ 2011 S&M Cat egory AGROSTIS BOREALIS (A. MERTENSII) NORTHERN BENTGRASS WA-SEN T D ANEMONE NUTTALLIANA PASQUEFLOWER WA-SEN T D ANTENNARIA PARVIFOLIA NUTTALL'S PUSSY-TOES WA-SEN S D ASTRAGALUS ARRECTUS PALOUSE MILK-VETCH WA-SEN T D ASTRAGALUS MICROCYSTIS LEAST BLADDERY MILK-VETCH WA-SEN S S BOTRYCHIUM ASCENDENS UPWARD-LOBED MOONWORT SEN S SC D BOTRYCHIUM CRENULATUM CRENULATE MOONWORT SEN S SC D OR-STR/ BOTRYCHIUM HESPERIUM WESTERN MOONWORT T D* WA-SEN BOTRYCHIUM LINEARE SLENDER MOONWORT SEN T S BOTRYCHIUM PARADOXUM TWIN-SPIKED MOONWART SEN T D BOTRYCHIUM PEDUNCULOSUM STALKED MOONWORT SEN S SC S CAREX CAPILLARIS HAIRLIKE SEDGE SEN T D CAREX CHORDORRHIZA CORDROOT SEDGE WA-SEN S D OR-STR/ CAREX COMOSA BRISTLY SEDGE S D WA-SEN CAREX DIOICA VAR. CYNOCRATES YELLOW BOG SEDGE SEN S D CAREX MACROCHAETA LARGE-AWN SEDGE SEN T S CAREX MAGELLANICA SSP. IRRIGUA POOR SEDGE WA-SEN S D CAREX MEDIA (C. NORVEGICA) INTERMEDIATE SEDGE SEN S D CAREX PAUCIFLORA FEW-FLOWERED SEDGE WA-SEN S S CAREX PROPOSITA SMOKEY MTN. SEDGE WA-SEN T D* CAREX ROSTRATA BEAKED SEDGE WA-SEN S S CAREX SCIRPOIDEA VAR. CANADIAN SINGLE-SPIKE WA-SEN S D SCIRPOIDEA SEDGE CAREX STYLOSA LONG-STYLED SEDGE WA-SEN S S CAREX SYCHNOCEPHALA MANY-HEADED SEDGE WA-SEN S D CAREX TENUIFLORA SPARSE-LEAVED SEDGE WA-SEN T D CAREX VALLICOLA VALLEY SEDGE WA-SEN S D CASTILLEJA CRYPTANTHA OBSCURE INDIAN-PAINTBRUSH WA-SEN S SC D CHAENACTIS THOMPSONII THOMPSON'S CHAENACTIS WA-SEN S D CHRYSOSPLENIUM TETRANDRUM NORTHERN GOLDEN-CARPET WA-SEN S D BULB-BEARING WATER- OR-STR/ CICUTA BULBIFERA S D HEMLOCK WA-SEN SPLEENWORT-LEAVED A COPTIS ASPLENIIFOLIA WA-SEN S S GOLDTHREAD CRYPTOGRAMMA STELLERI STELLER'S ROCKBRAKE SEN S D CYPRIPEDIUM FASCICULATUM CLUSTERED LADY'S-SLIPPER SEN S SC D CYPRIPEDIUM PARVIFLORUM YELLOW LADY'S-SLIPPER WA-SEN T D DELPHINIUM VIRIDESCENS WENATCHEE LARKSPUR WA-SEN T SC D DRABA AUREA GOLDEN DRABA WA-SEN S D DRABA CANA LANCE-LEAVED DRABA WA-SEN S D

Appendix B C--1

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

DRYAS DRUMMONDII YELLOW MOUNTAIN-AVENS WA-SEN S S ERIGERON SALISHII SALISH FLEABANE WA-SEN S D GREEN KEELED COTTON- ERIOPHORUM VIRIDICARINATUM WA-SEN S D GRASS ERITRICHIUM NANUM VAR. PALE ALPINE FORGET-ME-NOT WA-SEN S D ELONGATUM GALIUM KAMTSCHATICUM BOREAL BEDSTRAW SEN W S A GENTIANA GLAUCA GLAUCOUS GENTIAN WA-SEN S D GENTIANELLA TENELLA SLENDER GENTIAN WA-SEN S D GEUM RIVALE WATER AVENS WA-SEN S D GEUM ROSSII VAR. DEPRESSUM ROSS' AVENS WA-SEN E D

HACKELIA HISPIDA VAR. DISJUNCTA SAGEBRUSH STICKSEED WA-SEN S D

HACKELIA VENUSTA SHOWY STICKSEED E E D HETEROTHECA OREGONA OREGON GOLDENASTER WA-SEN T D HOWELLIA AQUATILIS WATER HOWELLIA T T S ILIAMNA LONGISEPALA LONGSEPAL GLOBEMALLOW WA-SEN S D JUNCUS HOWELLII HOWELL'S RUSH WA-SEN T D LOISELEURIA PROCUMBENS ALPINE AZALEA WA-SEN T D LUZULA ARCUATA CURVED WOODRUSH WA-SEN S D* LYCOPODIUM DENDROIDEUM TREELIKE CLUBMOSS WA-SEN S S STALKED-LEAVED MIMULUS PATULUS WA-SEN T D MONKEYFLOWER MIMULUS PULSIFERAE PULSIFER'S MONKEY-FLOWER WA-SEN S D MIMULUS SUKSDORFII SUKSDORF'S MONKEY-FLOWER WA-SEN S D MONTIA DIFFUSA BRANCHING MONTIA WA-SEN S D NICOTIANA ATTENUATA COYOTE TOBACCO WA-SEN S D OXYTROPIS CAMPESTRIS VAR. SLENDER CRAZYWEED WA-SEN S S GRACILIS KOTZEBUE'S GRASS-OF- PARNASSIA KOTZEBUEI WA-SEN T D PARNASSUS

PEDICULARIS RAINIERENSIS MT. RAINIER LOUSEWORT S D WA-SEN PELLAEA BRACHYPTERA SIERRA CLIFFBRAKE WA-SEN S D PELLAEA BREWERI BREWER'S CLIFF-BRAKE WA-SEN S D PENSTEMON ERIANTHERUS VAR. WHITED'S PENSTEMON WA-SEN S D WHITEDII PETROPHYTON CINERASCENS CHELAN ROCKMAT WA-SEN E SC D PHACELIA MINUTISSIMA DWARF PHACELIA SEN E SC D PHYSARIA DIDYMOCARPA VAR. COMMON TWINPOD WA-SEN S D DIDYMOCARPA

PILULARIA AMERICANA AMERICAN PILLWORT T D SEN PLATANTHERA CHORISIANA CHORIS' BOG-ORCHID WA-SEN T S PLATANTHERA OBTUSATA SMALL NORTHERN BOG-ORCHID SEN S D PLATANTHERA SPARSIFLORA CANYON BOG-ORCHID WA-SEN T D POLEMONIUM VISCOSUM SKUNK POLEMONIUM WA-SEN S D POTENTILLA NIVEA SNOW CINQUEFOIL WA-SEN S D PYRROCOMA HIRTA VAR. STICKY GOLDENWEED WA-SEN S D SONCHIFOLIA RIBES OXYACANTHOIDES SSP. IDAHO GOOSEBERRY WA-SEN T D IRRIGUUM ROTALA RAMOSIOR LOWLAND TOOTHCUP SEN T D

Appendix B C--2

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

RUBUS ACAULIS NAGOONBERRY WA-SEN T D SALIX GLAUCA GLAUCUS WILLOW WA-SEN S D SALIX MACCALLIANA MACCALL'S WILLOW WA-SEN S D* SANICULA MARILANDICA BLACK SNAKE-ROOT WA-SEN S D SAXIFRAGA CERNUA NODDING SAXIFRAGE WA-SEN S D SAXIFRAGOPSIS FRAGARIOIDES JOINT-LEAVED SAXIFRAGE SEN T D WENATHCEE CHECKER- SIDALCEA OREGANA VAR. CALVA N/A E E D MALLOW SILENE SEELYI SEELY'S SILENE WA-SEN S SC D SISYRINCHIUM SEPTENTRIONALE BLUE-EYED GRASS WA-SEN S D SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS UTE LADIES’ TRESSES E T S SPIRANTHES PORRIFOLIA WESTERN LADIES-TRESSES WA-SEN S D THALICTRUM DASYCARPUM PURPLE MEADOWRUE WA-SEN S S TRIFOLIUM THOMPSONII THOMPSON'S CLOVER WA-SEN T SC D VACCINIUM MYRTILLOIDES VELVET-LEAF BLUEBERRY WA-SEN S D SCHISTOSTEGA PENNATA MOSS SEN S2 D A OR-STR/ SCOULERIA MARGINATA MOSS S2 D WA-SEN TETRAPHIS GENICULATA MOSS SEN S2 S A

DENDRISCOCAULON INTRICATULUM LICHEN M S WA-SEN DREMATOCARPON MEIOPHYLLIZUM LICHEN SEN S D LEPTOGIUM BURNETIA E LICHEN SEN S (L. BURNETIA VAR HIRSUTIUM) A LEPTOGIUM CYANESCENS LICHEN M D SEN E NEPHROMA BELLUM LICHEN E D WA-SEN E PELTIGERA PACIFICA LICHEN N/A S SEN

THOLURNA DISSIMILIS LICHEN S D* SEN B ALBATRELLUS ELLISII FUNGI N/A D WA-SEN B CLAVARIADELPHUS OCCIDENTALIS FUNGI N/A D WA-SEN B CLAVARIADELPHUS SACHALINENSIS FUNGI N/A D WA-SEN B CUDONIA MONTICOLA FUNGI N/A D SEN GOMPHUS BONARII FUNGI SEN N/A D B E GOMPHUS KAUFFMANII FUNGI N/A D SEN B LEUCOGASTER CITRINUS FUNGI N/A D SEN PLATISMATIA LACUNOSA LICHEN SEN S+ E PSEUDORHIZINA CALIFORNICA B FUNGI SEN N/A D (GYROMYTRA CALIFORNICA) B RAMARIA AMYLOIDEA FUNGI PRI-2 D SEN B RAMARIA AURANTIISICCESCENS FUNGI PRI-2 D SEN B RAMARIA LARGENTII FUNGI N/A D SEN B RAMARIA RUBRIEVANESCENS FUNGI N/A D WA-SEN B RAMARIA RUBRIPERMANENS FUNGI N/A D WA-SEN

Appendix B C--3

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

OR-STR / B SARCODON FUSCOINDICUS FUNGI N/A D WA-SEN SPATHULARIA FLAVIDA FUNGI WA-SEN N/A D B

2008 R-6 STRATEGIC SPECIES

ISSSSP - OKW@

Scientific Name Common Name Status 1/2009 WNHP RANK# Fed Status+ 2011 S&M Cat egory R CAREX ATROSQUAMA BLACKENED SEDGE OR-SEN/ D WA-STR 1

CICUTA BULBIFERA BULB-BEARING WATER-HEMLOCK OR-STR/ S D WA-SEN ELEOCHARIS ROSTELLATA PEAKED SPIKE-RUSH WA-STR S S R PACKERA PORTERI PORTER'S BUTTERWEED D WA-STR 1 POTAMOGETON FILIFORMIS VAR. R WESTERN FINELEAF PONDWEED D OCCIDENTALIS WA-STR 1 POTENTILLA DIVERSIFOLIA VAR. DIVERSE-LEAVED CINQUEFOIL S S PERDISSECTA WA-STR POTENTILLA QUINQEFOLIA FIVE-LEAVED CINQUEFOIL WA-STR T S SALIX VESTITA VAR. ERECTA ROCK WILLOW WA-STR X D R SILENE SARGENTII SARGENT'S CATCHFLY D WA-STR 1 2011 RECORD OF DECISION SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES (If not present on 2008 Regional Forester’s List) AND OTHER

RARE SPECIES.

Common Name ISSSSP - OKW@ OKW@

Scientific Name Status 1/2009 WNHP RANK# Fed Status+ 2011 S&M Cat egory AGOSERIS ELATA TALL AGOSERIS N/A S D AGOSERIS LACKSCHEWITZII PINK AGOSERIS N/A S D ALECTORIA NIGRICANS LICHEN N/A T D ALECTORIA OCHROLEUCA LICHEN N/A T D AHTIANA SPHAEROSPORELLA LICHEN N/A M D BOTRYCHIUM MONTANUM MOUNTAIN MOONWORT N/A W D A P A BRIDGEOPORUS NOBILISSIMUS FUNGI N/A R S 1 BRODOA OROARTICA LICHEN N/A S D CAREX HETERONEURA VAR. BLACKENED SEDGE N/A S D EPAPILLOSA CHAENOTHECA FERRUGINEA LICHEN N/A M D COPTIS TRIFOLIA GOLDTHREAD N/A T S A CORYDALIS AQUAE-GELIDAE CLACKAMAS CORYDALIS N/A S SC S A CORNICULARIA NORMOERICA LICHEN N/A S D CYPRIPEDIUM MONTANUM MOUNTAIN LADY’S-SLIPPER N/A W D CYSTOCOLEUS EBENEUS LICHEN N/A M D DERMATOCARPON LURIDUM LICHEN N/A S D DERMATOCARPON MOULINSII LICHEN N/A S D N A EUCEPHALUS VIALIS (ASTER VIALIS) WAYSIDE ASTER N/A / S+ A GITHOPSIS SPECULARIOIDES COMMON BLUE-CUP N/A S D HACKELIA TAYLORIA (H .SP. NOVUM) TAYLOR’S STICKSEED N/A T D N C HYPOGYMNIA DUPLICATA LICHEN N/A / S A

Appendix B C--4

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

LOBARIA LINITA VAR TENUOIR LICHEN N/A M D A S MEESIA ULIGINOSA MOSS OR-SEN D 1 S MEESIA TRIQUETRA MOSS N/A D 1 MIMULUS WASHINGTONENSIS WASHINGTON MONKEY-FLOWER N/A X D NEPHROMA OCCULATUM LICHEN N/A E D A NIEBLA CEHPALOTA LICHEN N/A E S+ A S ORTHOTRICHUM PYLAISII MOSS N/A D 1 N C PLATANTHERA ORBICULATA VAR LARGE ROUNDLEAF ORCHID N/A / S ORBICULATATA A S POLYTRICHUM STRICTUM MOSS OR-STR D 2 N A PSEUDOCYPHELLARIA LICHEN N/A / S RAINIERENSIS A N RAMALINA THRAUSTA LICHEN N/A / S A R RANUNCULUS PYGMAEUS DWARF BUTTERCUP N/A D 1 SALIX TWEEDYI TWEEDY’S WILLOW N/A S D SAXIFRAGA RIVULARIS PYGMY SAXIFRAGE N/A S D TALINUM SEDIFORME OKANOGAN FAMEFLOWER N/A W D S TAYLORIA SERRATA MOSS OR-SEN D 1 N A TELOSCHISTES FLAVICANS LICHEN N/A / S+ A UMBILICARIA ANGULATA LICHEN N/A M D UMBILICARIA DECUSSATA LICHEN N/A M D UMBILICARIA HAVAASII LICHEN N/A M D UMBILICARIA PHAEA LICHEN N/A E D UMBILICARIA POLYRRHIZA LICHEN N/A M D UMBILICARIA VELLEA LICHEN N/A M D R UTRICULARIA MINOR LESSER BLADDERWORT N/A D 1 *Species on the Regional Forester’s list that are recently documented on the Okanogan. +Species that are highly unlikely to occur east of the Cascades, but are suspect. # For explanation of codes see www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/ +Federal Status: Species of Concern (SC), Listed Endangered (E), Listed Threatened (T). @Documented (D) or Suspected (S) on the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF.

Appendix B C--5

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix D: Invasive Plant Species Prevention and Management Strategy for Grazing Allotments

1. Prevention The Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Prevention Strategy includes Best Management Practices for grazing allotment management as follows. a. Ensure weed prevention and controls are considered in management of all grazing allotments. Include practices and control measures in Annual Operating Plans (now Annual Operating Instructions) when other plans do not already address noxious weeds. (Required) Develop weed management plans with permittees for each allotment when other plans do not already address the weed issue. Items to be addressed in plan may include: minimizing ground disturbance, weed seed transportation, maintaining healthy vegetation, control methods, revegetation, monitoring, reporting and education. Develop weed ID and mapping program for permittees. (Recommended) b. Minimize ground disturbance and bare soil. Revegetate bare soil from grazing activities. (Required) Check areas of concentrated livestock use for weed establishment. (Required) a. Treat new infestations. (Recommended) Monitor areas of concentrated livestock use for weed establishment. a. Treat new infestations. (Recommended) Armor constantly disturbed areas like cattle trails at road/stream crossings. (Recommended) c. Minimize transport of weed seed into and within allotments. Avoid driving vehicles through off-road weed infestations. (Recommended) Clean all ground disturbing equipment prior to entering and leaving the project site. Note: Cleaning not required for departing vehicles if project area is weed free. (Required) Use weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw in permitted areas. (Required; FSM 2080.03) Exclude livestock from sites with new invaders or treat new invaders in these areas before entry by livestock. (Recommended) Feed weed-free feed to livestock for several days prior to moving them onto the allotment to reduce the introduction of new invaders and spread of existing weed species. Consider using transitional pastures when moving animals from weed infested areas to the NF and before leaving NFS lands. Transitional pastures are designated fenced areas that can be logistically and economically maintained. (Recommended) d. Maintain healthy desirable vegetation that is resistant to noxious weed establishment Manage forage utilization to maintain the vigor of desirable plant species as described in the AMP. (Required) Minimize and/or exclude grazing on restoration areas until vegetation is well established. (Required)

Appendix C D--1

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Invasive Species EIS and ROD, 2005

Invasive plant species prevention standards from the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005b) will be implemented. Herbicide applications are implemented under the Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessments (USDA Forest Service 1997, 1999, and 2000) and not a part of this project analysis. Prevention standards that will be applied to this project are:

a. Address prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread in watershed analyses; roads analyses; fire and fuels management plans, Burned Area Emergency Recovery Plans; wildland fire situation (new process is wildland fire decision support system) analyses; wildland fire implementation plans; grazing allotment management plans, recreation management plans, vegetation management plans, and other land management assessments.

b. Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on National Forest System lands.

c. Use only pelletized or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System lands.

d. Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in cooperation with the grazing permit holder.

2. Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) The capacity for EDRR depends on three factors (Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS, 2005): Number and distribution of people able to recognize potential new invaders. Regulatory noxious weed designations for new invaders of limited distribution. Capacity to respond quickly and effectively to new discoveries. New weed infestations are detected primarily through coordinated efforts between the District resource departments. New Invader designation is by the State and County Noxious Weed Control Boards. The most appropriate treatment response is then rapidly implemented within the limitations of budget and priority.

3. Control and Management There are five strategies to control noxious weeds. Weed strategies and relation to damage threshold are described below. The damage threshold identifies how much of what kind of weed is too much to permit meeting a site’s management objective. Prevention - This preferred strategy would detect conditions that favor the presence of noxious weeds and change them to prevent establishment. Early Treatment - This strategy would control noxious weed populations before the damage threshold is reached.

Appendix C D--2

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Maintenance - This strategy would support the current condition, keeping it below the damage threshold. Correction - This strategy would take action after the damage threshold is exceeded. No Action - With this strategy, no activity would be taken to interfere with natural process on the site. This would be used if noxious weed populations remain below the damage threshold.

The prevention strategy is always preferred and employed as the initial strategy. However, due to the nature of noxious weeds, the prevention strategy is often not adequate to ensure complete exclusion of noxious weeds.

Treatment methods would be implemented in phases, like that described in the 1997 and 2000 Weed EAs. Phase one would use a combination of correction and early treatment strategies. The objective of this phase would be to substantially reduce the noxious weed population. Phase two would include the follow-up treatment on phase one sites with a combination of early treatment, maintenance, and prevention strategies. The objective would be to continue reducing the size of the populations, and change site conditions to minimize or eliminate additional treatment. Phase three would combine prevention and early treatment strategies. The objective would be to prevent or minimize the re-establishment of noxious weeds. All sites would be monitored by District weed crew to determine the effectiveness of treatments and ensure that weed populations do not establish in the future.

Weed treatments within this project area are based on integrated weed management principles that may include any combination of manual and mechanical, biological, cultural, and chemical techniques as described in the Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS, 2005 and the 1997 and 2000 Weed EAs.

Manual and Mechanical Control. These treatments physically remove and destroy, disrupt the growth of, or interfere with the reproduction of invasive plants. Manual treatment would use hand pulling, digging and seed head removal. For very small weed sites, manual treatment can be very effective. For larger weed sites, manual methods are listed as having fair effectiveness for diffuse knapweed and St. Johnswort but poor for oxeye daisy, Sulfur cinquefoil, and Common tansy as the root system makes it difficult to effectively handpull. Manual methods work with small populations of diffuse knapweed, but are not cost effective for large populations. Youtie and Soll (1994) found that hand pulling at least three times per year are needed for effective control. Pulling would need to go on for several years to be effective (Youtie, 1997). Currently, hand pulling is the being conducted on the smaller New Invader sites. Manual methods would be proposed for most all sites listed above in the weed site table, and new detections of small populations.

Mechanical Control consists of mowing road right-of-ways and landings prior to operations and before weeds have gone to seed. This method is not very practical in a forest environment, although it might be used along roads.

Biological. The use of biological control organisms is intended to be a permanent change to the environment. Biological control agents are used when weed eradication is not possible. The agent is released to coexist with the weed while bringing the weed population down to acceptable levels. The knapweed weevil, Larinus minutus, has been released on diffuse knapweed in Okanogan County and has been very successful in

Appendix C D--3

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment becoming well established throughout the county. Recent monitoring of the distribution of Larinus minutus on the Methow Valley Ranger District has found that it is well established with some successful suppression of diffuse knapweed in some areas but not within the project area. Collecting this insect from known populations elsewhere on the District and releasing on to the larger populations within the project area is preferred method where herbicides are not approved. Biological control is not available for the other weeds listed above.

Cultural. Cultural methods are generally targeted toward enhancing desirable vegetation to minimize invasion. This includes grass seeding to out-compete the noxious weeds, the addition of fertilizer/soil amendments, competitive planting, or any other cultural practice known to be useful for treating invasive plants. Nitrogen fertilizer has been effective on suppressing Oxeye daisy. Based on a study in an eastern Washington mountain meadow, application of nitrogen fertilizer was almost as effective as herbicides at reducing canopy cover of oxeye daisy (WSDA 2005).

Chemical. Chemical control is generally spot spray applications. There has been no noxious weed control with the use of herbicides within the project area prior to 2005 and only two weed sites are currently being treated with herbicide with the project treatment units. Most of the weed sites within the project area are not approved for herbicide treatment. The two herbicide sites were analyzed under the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Noxious Weed Environmental Assessments (EAs, 1997, 2000). Only two herbicides are available, Picloram and Glyphosate. Application is with hand-held nozzles attached to backpack sprayers or a tank mounted on an ATV. Within 100 feet of fish bearing streams, only aquatic formulations of Glyphosate are used and applied with hand sprayers or wicking to minimize or eliminate the risk of toxic effects to aquatic organisms and no-target plants. All mitigation measures required for herbicide application in the EAs are followed.

4. Rehabilitation and Restoration Site restoration or revegetation is part of any long term strategy to reduce invasive plants. Determining the need for active restoration/revegetation versus passive restoration (allowing plats on site to fill in treated area) is the first choice when addressing this need. Passive restoration may be appropriate where treated sites leave only small gaps of bare ground and native vegetation on site can provide adequate seed source to fill in such gaps (Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS, 2005). For noxious weeds, this is accomplished primarily with competitive grass seeding. Native plant materials are the first choice for restoration, rehabilitation, and revegetation efforts; however, nonnative, non-invasive plant species may be used when: 1. Needed to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability and water quality, to prevent establishment of invasive plants) 2. As an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the reestablishment of native plants (unless natural soil, water, and biotic conditions have been permanently altered) 3. Native plant species are not available. 4. In permanently altered plant communities (Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS, 2005)

Appendix C D--4

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix E: Characteristics of invasive plant species found on Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman grazing allotments.

Species Characteristics

New Invaders within project area whitetop A deep rooted perennial reproducing from root segments and seeds; highly competitive with other species once it becomes Carderia draba established; will set seed by early summer. oxeye daisy An aggressive perennial; invader of open forest, meadows and

roadsides; strong sprouting from roots with branched rhizomes; Chrysanthemum reproduces vegetatively along rhizomes and by seed. leucanthemum Baby’s breath A persistent perennial plant with a thick, deep penetrating root system which allows it to survive in arid conditions; a problem where the native grasses have been disturbed; a single plant averages 13,700 seeds; wind appears to be the most important dispersal agent; both manual and chemical control have limited Gypsophila paniculata effectiveness. St. Johnswort A perennial reproducing by seed or short rhizomes; easily established on roadsides; very slow in spreading off of roadside; Hypericum perforatum difficult to control; biological control available. sulfur cinquefoil A competitive long-lived perennial; unpalatable to grazing animals reducing forage for livestock and wildlife; adapted to a wide range Potentilla recta of environmental conditions; reproduces by seed and uses early emergence to establish. common tansy Spreads mainly by seeds, and less commonly from creeping

rhizomes, to form dense clumps of stems; an invader of disturbed Tanacetum vulgare sites; commonly found on roadsides, fence rows, pastures, stream

banks and waste areas. houndstongue A biennial; seeds are 4 prickly nutlets (seeds) that attach to people, livestock, vehicles, for easy dispersal; a very strong competitor with desirable forage; generally non-palatable but toxic properties capable of poisoning livestock; shade tolerant and thrives in wetter Cynoglossum officinale grasslands. New New Invaders on Forest land adjacent to project area dalmatian toadflax A perennial reproducing by seed and rhizomes; it is aggressive on

roadsides and rangeland; difficult to control. Linaria dalmatica spotted knapweed A short-lived perennial; tolerates shade; spread by vehicles, wind,

animals; highly competitive. Centaurea maculosa A creeping perennial; reproduces from seed and vegetative root Russian knapweed buds; toxic to horses; very competitive in heavier soils of bottomlands; invades degraded areas dominating the plant Acroptilon repens community.

Appendix D E--1

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Species Characteristics orange and yellow A perennial with creeping stolons; forms dense patches and rapidly (meadow) Hawkweed invades new areas; mostly vegetative reproduction; dispersed by wind, animals, and people, seeds not carried far by the wind - Hieracium presumably dispersed > 1 km, minute barbs on the seeds stick to aurantiacum, fur, clothing and vehicles; suitable habitat well above 5000 ft. in Hieracium pratense mountain meadows. Potential Invaders scotch thistle A biennial that often grows 8 feet or more in height and 6 feet in width; a problem on western rangelands; can form dense stands of the large, spiny plants and constitute a barrier to livestock movement; spreads rapidly; thrives in well-drained sandy soils; Onopordum acanthium plants produce 8,400 to 40,000 seeds, dispersed by wind, humans, water, livestock, and wildlife. An escaped ornamental becoming increasingly common along Japanese knotweed stream corridors and rights-of-way in Washington; a perennial with spreading rhizomes, can reach 8 feet in height and is often shrubby,

very aggressive, capable of crowding out all other vegetation, rarely established from seed, primary spread is through mechanical Polygonum cuspidatum movement of plant parts; several sites in Methow Valley bottom, one on Twisp River. yellow starthistle A winter annual with long sharp spines; a deep taproot; performs best in deep silt loams on south slopes but high adaptability to most

arid rangelands; abundant seed production - 150,000 per plant per season; seeds are plumed and plumeless, plumed seed is spread Centaurea solstitialis by wind A member of the mustard family; can be an annual, biennial or hoary alyssum perennial; toxic to horses; spreads rapidly due to the high number of seeds per plant; most abundant in disturbed sites but is also Berteroa incana found in meadows and pastures and along roadsides; well adapted to dry conditions, particularly in area with sandy to gravelly soils. A Washington State Class A Noxious weed; A fall germinating common crupina annual, primary habitat is southern slopes in steep canyon

grasslands, reproduces by seed but seeds not persistent in soil; Crupina vulgaris adapted to a wide range of soil and climate conditions; can form

solid stands replacing native plants and decreasing forage

productivity and livestock carrying capacity.

Appendix D E--2

LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

LITERATURE CITATIONS

Chapters 1 and 2

Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation—Multiple Indicators. Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-01, BLM/ID/G1- 07/001+1150, U.S. Department of Interior, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, and Intermountain Region U.S. Forest Service. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/info/publications/technical_bulletins/tb_07-01.html

U.S. Congress. 1995. Public Law 104-19, Section 504. Rescissions Act. In: Emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance, for antiterrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, July 27, 1995. United States Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/104publ.html

USDA Forest Service. 1989a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan National Forest. p. IV-50. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/oka/projects/index.shtml and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects/plans.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 1989b. Okanogan National Forest land and resource management plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan, WA. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/oka/projects/index.shtml and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects/plans.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Middle Methow River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District. Winthrop, WA. March 1997. 147 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Twisp River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District. Winthrop, WA. June 1995. 151 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Libby Watershed Analysis and Sawtooth Late Successional Reserve Interim Assessment. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District. Winthrop, WA. October 1995. 101 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

Literature Citations F--1 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Forest Service Manual USDA Forest Service, National Headquarters, Washington DC. Chapter 2200 – Range Management. Available online at http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsm2000.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05. November 2005. Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm

USDA and USDI. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; Standards and Guidelines for management of habitat of late-successional and old-growth related species within the range of the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. April 1994. Available online at http://www.reo.gov/general/aboutnwfp.htm

Range

Borman, M., Michael. 2004. Forest Stand Dynamics and Livestock Grazing in Historical Context. Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 5, October 2005.

Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith, 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation—Multiple Indicators. Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-01, BLM/ID/G1- 07/001+1150, U.S. Department of Interior, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, and Intermountain Region U.S. Forest Service. http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/info/publications/technical_bulletins/tb_07-01.html

Cowley, E. R. 2002. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Levels of Streambank Alteration. Grazing Management Support Documents.

Ehrhart, Robert C., Hansen, Paul L. 1998. Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 4

Host, L.A. 1988. Understory production response to tree stocking reduction in a central Washington mixed-conifer forest. M.S. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

McConnell B.R. and J.G. Smith. 1970. Response of understory vegetation to pondersoa pine thinning in eastern Washington. Journal of Range Management, 23(3):208-212.

Naumburg, E. and L.E. DeWald. 1999. Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, light characteristics, and understory graminoid species presence and abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 124. pp. 205-215.

Reese, Patrick. 1991. Evaluation of a Practical Use of Research Results for Developing Grazing Strategies. Animal Science Dept. Range Beef Cow Symposium.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Okanogan National Forest land and resource management plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan, WA.

Literature Citations F--2 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/oka/projects/index.shtml and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects/plans.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Grazing Capability and Suitability Assessment, Okanogan/Wenatchee/Colville Forest Plan Revision

Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian Area Management: Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. Denver, CO: National Science and Technology Center, USDI BLM. 105 pp. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm

Aquatic Resources

Agouridis, C.T., Workman, S.R., Warner, R.C., and Jennings, G.D. 2005. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 41 (3): 591-606.

Ballard, T.M., and W.C. Krueger. 2005. Cattle and Salmon II: Interactions Between Cattle and Spawning Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in a Northeastern Oregon Riparian Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 58: 274-278.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.

Belsky, J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1997a. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Oregon Natural Desert Association. 38 p.

Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54:419–31.

Burton T.A., S.J. Smith and E.R. Cowley. 2008. Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) - Monitoring the Effects of Management on Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation. USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management Interagency Technical Bulletin.

Clary, W.P., and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263.

Cowley, E. 2002. Guidelines for Establishing Allowable Levels of Streambank Alteration. Bureau of Land Management. Copy available at Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

Department of Ecology, Washington (DOE). 2008. 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/wq_assessments.html

Ferguson, R.G.. 1958. The preferred temperature of fish and their midsummer distribution in temperate lakes and streams. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 15, pp. 607–624.

Literature Citations F--3 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Fish Passage Center. 2011. Adult Passage Data. Internet Reference: http://www.fpc.org/adultsalmon/adultqueries/Adult_Table_Submit.html

Green, D. M., and J. B. Kauffman. 1995. Succession and livestock grazing in a Northeast Oregon riparian ecosystem. J. Range Manage. 48:307-313.

Jobling, M. 1994. Fish bioenergetics. Chapman & Hall, London. 309p.

Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications...a review. J. Range Manage. 37:430-437.

Kondolf, G.M. 1994. Livestock grazing and habitat for a threatened species: land-use decisions under scientific uncertainty in the White Mountains, California, USA. Environ. Manage. 18:501-509

McCullough, D.A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids with special reference to chinook salmon. EPA 910-R-99-010, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR. , pp 279

Meehan, W.R. (ed.). 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publ. 19, Bethesda, Maryland.

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Monogr. I. 489pp.

Murphy, M.L., and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream Ecosystems. In W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influence of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, p. 17-46. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 19, Bethesda.

NOAA (NMFS). 2005. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66.

Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources in western riparian habitats. p. 245-279. In: P.R. Krausman (ed.), Rangeland wildlife. Soc. for Range Manage., Denver CO.

Overton, K. C., G. L. Chandler, and J. A. Pisano. 1994. Northern/intermountain regions’ fish habitat inventory: Grazed, rested, and ungrazed reference stream reaches, Silver King Creek, California. General Technical Report INT-311. Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Pacific Watershed Institute (PWI), 2000. Forward Looking Infrared Temperature Monitoring Data for Chewuch River. Unpublished data.

Platts, W. S., and twelve coauthors. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats, with implications for management. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-221.

Literature Citations F--4 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock: a guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada Dept. of Wildlife.

Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell, and J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221. Ogden, Ut.

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Meehan WR (ed) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, pp 389–423. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 9. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD

Platts, WS. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems--an overview. In Grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems Forum proceedings, Trout Unlimited, Vienna, Virginia, USA.

Platts, W. S., and R. L. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:374-379.

Porath M.L., P.A. Momont, T. DelCurto, N.R. Rimbey, J.A. Tanaka, and M. McInnis. 2002. Offstream water and salt as management strategies for improved cattle distribution and subsequent riparian health. J. Anim. Sci.80:346-356.

Proebstel, DS, RJ Behnke, and SM Noble. 1998. Identification of salmonid fishes from tributary streams and lakes of the mid-Columbia basin. USFWS, Leavenworth, WA.

Roberts, B. and R. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre-emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12:450-459.

Rosgen. D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Wildland Hydrology. Catena 22:169–99.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA.

Snow, C.G, C. Frady, A.M. Fowler, and A.R. Murdoch. 2008. Monitoring and evaluation of Wells and Methow hatchery programs in 2007. Prepared for Douglas County PUD and Wells HCP Hatchery Committee. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Snow, Charlie. Fisheries Biologist, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Methow Field Office, Twisp, WA. Personal communication.

Thurow, R.F., B.E. Rieman, D.C. Lee, PJ Howell, RD Perkinson. 2007. Distribution and status of redband trout in the interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Research Station, Boise, ID.

Trimble, S. W. A. C. Mendel, 1995. The Cow as a Geomorphic Agent - A Critical Review. Geomorphology 13:233–253.

Literature Citations F--5 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1989a. Land and Resource Management Plan. Okanogan National Forest.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1989b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Land and Resource Management Plan. Okanogan National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Chewuch River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Goat Creek Watershed Analysis and Interim Late Successional Reserve Assessment. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Middle Methow River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1999a. Eightmile Creek Survey Report. Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1999b. Falls Creek Survey Report. Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1997. Middle Methow River Watershed Analysis. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2001. Goat Creek Survey Report. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Cub Creek Survey Report. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2008a. Chewuch River Stream Survey Report. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2008b. Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List – Sensitive Vertebrates. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy

USDA Forest Service (USDA FS). 2009a. Lower Chewuch River Watershed Baseline Biological Assessment. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2009b. Middle Methow River Watershed Baseline Biological Assessment. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2009c. Methow Sub-basin Bull Trout Redd Survey Report. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDA FS and USDI BLM). 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan).

Literature Citations F--6 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2008. Lower Chewuch River Stream Survey Report. Copy available at Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD.

USDA Forest Service, USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USDA, USDC, USDI, USDI). 2004 Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. Available at the MVRD, Winthrop WA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS). 2002. Chapter 22, Upper Columbia Recovery Unit, Washington. 113 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.

Waitt, R.B., 1972. Geomorphology and Glacial Geology of the Methow Drainage Basin, Eastern North Cascade Range, Washington. In: Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.

Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method for sampling coarse river-bed material: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 35, n. 6, pp. 951-956

Soils

Battigelli, J.P. and G.S. McIntyre 1998. Effects of Long-Term Grazing on Abundance and Diversity of Soil Mesofauna. EarthWorks Research Group

Froehlich, H.A. (no date). Soil Compaction: Why the Controversy? College of Forestry, Oregon State University. Publication Unknown. p. 20-22.

Greene, A. 2006 Field Notes, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF.

Roberson, E. 1996. Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Soils and Recommendations for Management. CNPS

Stoffel, K.L. and M.F. McGroder. 1990. Geologic map of the Robinson Mtn. 1:100,000 quadrangle, Washington. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 90-5, 39 pp., 1 plate.

USDA-SCS. 1975. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook 436. 754 pp., illus..

USDA 2004 Landtype Associations of North Central Washington, Final Report, Forest Service.

USDA NRCS. 2005 Okanogan-Methow Highlands Area, Okanogan County, Washington. Natural Resource Conservation Service Spokane, WA.

USDA-NSH 1996.National Soils Handbook. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington,D.C. 920pp.

Literature Citations F--7 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

USDA-FSM 2000. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2521 R-6 Supplement 2500-98-1, 6 pages.

Waitt, 1972 Geomorphology and Glacial Geology of the Methow Drainage Basin, Eastern North Cascade Range, Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Washington

Water Resources

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26951, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 117.

Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121.

Rashin, E.B., C.J. Clishe, A.T. Loch, and J.M. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(5):1307-1327.

Troendle, C.A., and Leaf, C.F., 1980. Water Resources Evaluation Non-Point Sources in Silviculture. Chapter III Hydrology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 173 p.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service (USFS) 1999. Lower Methow Watershed Analysis.

USDA Forest Service 2007, Technical Guide to Managing Ground Water Resources, FS-881, May 2007.

USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest. 2007. Annual Report on the Okanogan Land and Resource Management Plan: Implementation and Monitoring for Fiscal Year 2005. Okanogan National Forest.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1976. Water Resources Management Program, Basin Program Series 4: Methow River Basin. Kris G Kauffman, P.E, James R. Bucknell. Publication number 76-11-005. Olympia, WA. Internet reference: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/7611005.html

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2002. A Water Quality Index for Ecology’s Stream Monitoring Program. Environmental Assessment Program. Publication No. 02- 03-052, Olympia, WA. 23 Pages. Internet Reference: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0203052.pdf

Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). 2008. 2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment. Retrieved 2/2/2011 from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html.

Literature Citations F--8 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). 2011. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Explorer (website). Accessed 4/01/2011 at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterresources/map/WaterResourcesExplorer.aspx

Washington State Forest Practices Board. 1997. Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis Under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 4.0. Olympia, WA. Internet reference: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/WatershedAnalysis/Pages/fp_watershe d_analysis_manual.aspx

WRCC. 2011. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Winthrop 1 WSW, Washington. Accessed 3/17/2011from: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa9376.

Washington State (WA). 2006. Washington Administrative Code. Chapter 173-201A WAC. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

Terrestrial Wildlife

Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Wooten, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin, and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem evaluation; final report.

Almack, J.A. and S.H. Fitkin. 1998. Grizzly bear and gray wolf investigations in Washington state, 1994-1995. Final Progress Report. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Apps, C. D. 2000. Pages 351-372 in Ruggiero et al. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Aubry, K.L., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat associations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2147-2158.

Bangs, Ed, Mike Jimenez, Carter Niemeyer, Joe Fontaine, Mark Collinge, Rod Krsichke, Larry Handegard, Jhon Shivik, Carolyn Sime, Steve Nadeau, Curt Mack, Douglas Smith, Val Asher, and Suzanne Stone. 2006. Non-lethal and lethal tools to manage wolf- livestock conflict in the northwestern United States. Proc. 22nd Vertebr. Pest Conf., Univ. of California, Davis, Pp 7-16.

Bartels, Peggy. 1995. Western gray squirrel- Sciurus griseus, Region 2 1995 Survey. Washington Department of Wildlife. Unpublished Report.

Bock, Carl E., Victoria A. Saab, Terrell D. Rich, and David S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America, Pages 296-309 in Deborah Finch and Peter Stangel (eds). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229.

Literature Citations F--9 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Boyd, D.K., R.R. Ream, D.H. Pletscher, and M.W. Fairchild. 1994. Prey taken bycolonizing wolves and hunters in Glacier National Park Area. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(2):289-295.

Boyd, Diane. 1999. Carnivores-wolves, Chapter 7 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coords., Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Bull, Evelyn. 2009. Dispersal of newly metamorphosed and juvenile western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) in northeastern Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4:236-247.

Bull, Evelyn, Jerry Deal, and Janet Hohmann. 2001. Avian and amphibian use of fenced and unfenced stock ponds in northeastern Oregon Forests. Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-RP-539. 9pp.

Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, N.H. Schumaker, and D.W. Smith. 2003. Impacts of landscape change on wolf restoration: a reintroduction program based on static and dynamic spatial models. Conservation Biology 17(2):536-548.

Christy, R. E. and S. D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR-308.

Coe, Priscilla, Gruce Johnson, John Kern, Scott Findholt, John Kie, and Michael Wisdom. 2001. Responses of elk and mule deer to cattle in summer. J. Range Manage. 54:A51-A76.

Copeland, Jeffrey. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho. 138 pp.

Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, C.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D. Long, and C.E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2201-2212.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Harris, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. 625pp.

Frame, Paul, Dean Cluff, and David Hik. 2005. Response of wolves to experimental disturbance at homesites. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:316-320.

Fritts, S. H. and L. N. Carbyn. 1995. Population viability, nature reserves, and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North America. Restoration Ecology 3:26-38.

Fritts, Steven, Robert Stephenson, Robert Hayes, and Luigi Boitani. 2003. Wolves and humans, pages 289-316 in L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, 448pp.

Literature Citations F--10 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. USDA Forest Service. 79pp.

Hadfield, James and Roy Magelssen. 2004. Assessment of aspen condition on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee, WA. 26pp.

Haggerty, Sarah and Kent Woodruff. 1997. Survey of potential peregrine falcon nest sites in north-central Washington. Unpublished Forest Service report, Methow Valley Ranger District files. 59 pp.

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, Tech. Editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO, USDA Forest Service. 214 pp.

Hodges, K.E. 2000. Pages 163-206 in Ruggiero et al. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Ivey, Gary L. 1996. Effects of rangeland fires and livestock grazing on habitat for nongame wildlife. Pages 130-139 in Daniel Edge and Sally Olson-Edge (eds). Proceedings of a symposium on sustaining rangeland ecosystems. Oregon State University Extension Service, Special Report 953, Corvallis, OR. 213pp.

Johnson, D. H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 736pp.

Johnson, Sara Jane. 1981. Impacts of domestic livestock grazing on small mammals of wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Johnston, Aaron and Robert Anthony. 2008. Small mammal microhabitat associations and response to grazing in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1736-1746.

Kauffman, J. Boone, William C. Krueger, and Martin Vavra. 1981. Impacts of late season grazing scheme on nongame wildlife in a Wallowa mountain riparian ecosystem. Pages 208-220 in Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Krausman, Paul, Vernon Bleich, David Naugle, William Block, Michael Frisina, Mark Wallace, Rick Northrup, and Jeffrey Wright. 2009. Livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and rangeland values. Society of Range Management, Rangelands, Oct 2009, pages 15-19.

Krebs, John, E. C. Lofroth, and I. Parfitt. 2007. Multi-scale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2180-2192.

Linders, Mary and Derek Stinson. 2007. Western gray squirrel recovery plan. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 128pp.

Literature Citations F--11 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of fishers (Martes pennant) in south-central British Columbia, western Washington, western Oregon, and California-Volume I: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Mackie, Richard. 1981. Interspecific relationships, Chapter 13 in Mule and black-tailed deer of North America, Olof Wallmo, ed. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 604pp.

Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1313-1320.

McClean, A. and W. Willms. 1981 Competition between cattle and mule deer on winter range in British Columbia. Pages 479 -484 in Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

McKelvey, K.S., Y.K. Ortega, G.M. Koehler, K.B. Aubry, and J.D. Brittell. 2000. Pages 307-336 in Ruggiero et al. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Mech, L. David. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 384pp.

Mech, L.D. 2000. Leadership in wolf, Canis lupus, packs. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114(2):259-263.

Mech, L. David and Luigi Boitani. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, 448pp.

Musconi, Sandra and Richard Hutto. 1981. The effect of grazing on the land birds of a western Montana riparian habitat. Pages 221-233 in Proceedings of the wildlife- livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Nagorsen, D. W. and R. M. Grigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Royal BritishColumbia Museum Handbook. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Neal, Donald. 1981. Improvement of great basin deer winter range with livestock grazing. Pages 61-73 in Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Oakleaf, J.K., D.L. Murray, J.R. Oakleaf (and others), 2006. Habitat selection byrecolonizing wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. J.Wildl. Manage. 70(2):554-563.

Oldemeyer, John L. and Lydia R. Allen-Johnson. 1988. Cattle grazing and small mammals on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, NV. Pages 391-398 in Robert Szaro, Kieth Severson, and David Patton (tech. coords.). Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. USDA Forest Service GTR RM-166.

Literature Citations F--12 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Packard, Jane. 2003. Wolf behavior: reproductive, social, and intelligent, Pages 35-65 in L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, 448pp.

Partners in Flight. 2001. East-slope Cascades conservation plan. Unpublished rpt. 86p.

Perkins, J. M. 1989. Three year bat survey for Washington national forests: results of year three-Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville national forests. Unpublished report. Contract #53-04H1-7-4240. Portland, OR. 57pp.

Powell, R. A. and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher, Chapter 3 in American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States; the scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. USDA Forest Service general technical report RM-254, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Richards, Joe Ellen. 1989. Spotted owl food habits and prey availability on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University. 44pp.

Robinson, W. L. and E. G. Bolen. 1989. Wildlife ecology and management, Chapter 14 wildlife and rangelands. Macmillan Pub. Co., NY. 574pp.

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, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480pp.

Schulz, T. T. and W. C. Leininger. 1991. Nongame wildlife communities in grazed and ungrazed montane riparian sites. Great Basin Naturalist 51:286-292.

Squires, J.R., J.P. Copeland, T.J. Ulizio, M.K. Schwartz, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2007. Sources and patterns of wolverine mortality in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2213-2220.

Stinson, D. W. and J. C. Lewis. 1998. Draft Washington state status report for the fisher. Unpublished Report. Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 64pp.

Stone, S.A., N. Fascione, C. Miller (and others). 2008. Livestock and Wolves: a guide to nonlethal tools and methods to reduce conflicts. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington, DC.

Stone, Suzanne, 2009. Personnal communication, Defenders of Wildlife.

Literature Citations F--13 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Interior. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the west coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); proposed rule. Federal Register volume 69, No. 68.

Washington State Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. WSDW. Olympia, WA. 33pp.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Washington State management plan for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus): draft. Game Div., Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 94 pp.

Washington State Department of Wildlife. 1998. Blue grouse. Pages 15-1 to 15-4 in Priority habitats and species, Volume IV: Birds.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Gray wolf biology. http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009, ―Wolves in Washington‖ pamphlet

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin; Broad-scale trends and management implications. USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-485.

Invasive Plants

Lacey, J.R., R. Wallander, and K. Olson-Rutz. 1992. Recovery, germinability, and viability of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) seeds ingested by sheep and goats. Weed Technology 6:599-602.

Sheley, Roger L. and Janet K. Petroff, Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds, 1999.

Janzen, D. 1984. Seed dispersal of small seeds by big herbivores; foliage is the fruit. The American Naturalist 1223:338-353.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Okanogan National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Okanogan, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices.

Literature Citations F--14 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests weed management and prevention strategy and best management practices. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Version 1.0. 21 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004 . National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. October 2004. 24 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/Invasive_Species.pdf (April 12, 2007).

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05. November 2005. Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm

Botanical Resources

Ahlenslager, K, and Potash, L. 2007. conservation Assessment for 13 Species of Moonworts (Botrychium Swartz Subgenus Botrychium). USDA FS Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 57 pages.

Chadde, S.W.; Shelly, J.S.; Bursik, R.J.; Mosely, R.K.; Evenden, A.G.; Mantas, M.; Rabe, R.; Heidel, B. 1998. Peatlands on National Forest of the Northern Rocky Mountains: Ecology and Conservation. USDA FS RMRS. RMRS-GTR-11. 75 pgs.

Hadfield James and Magelssen Roy. 2004. Assessment of Aspen Condition on the Okanogan And Wenatchee National Forests. USDA. Okanogan-Wenatchee NF. Wenatchee Washington. February 2004. 26 pgs.

Harkins K. C.; Neuenschwander, L. F., Boteler, F. E.. 2001. Farragut State Park Natural Resource Plan And Gis Database. College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID and Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Olympia, WA. on line at: http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/contents/docs/development/farragut_resourc e_plan.pdf

Henderson D.H.; Mosely, R.K.; Cholew, A.F. 1990. A new Agoseris (Asteraceae) from Idaho and Montana. Systematic Botany. 15:3:462-465.

Johnson-Groh, C.; Riedel, C.; Schoessler, L.; Skogen, K. 2002. Belowground Distribution and Abundance of Botrychium Gametophytes and Juvenile Sporophytes. American Fern Journal 92(2):80-92.

Klinkenberg, Brian. (Editor) 2008. E-Flora BC: Electronic Atlas of the Plants of British Columbia [eflora.bc.ca]. Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. [Accessed: 12/18/2008 11:20:43 AM]

Kovalchik, B.L. and R.R. Clausnitzer. 2004. Classification and management of aquatic, riparian, and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: series description. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-593. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In cooperation with: Pacific Northwest Region, Colville, Okanogan, and Wenatchee National Forests. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr593/

Literature Citations F--15 LLBNP Allotment Management Plan Revision Draft Environmental Assessment

Lawton, Elva. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory, Michinan, Miyazaki, Japan. 389 pages plus plate drawings.

Leonard, S.; Kinch, G.; Elsbernd V.; Borman, M.; Swanson S. 1997. Riparian Area Management: Grazing management for riparian-wetland areas. USDI BLM Technical Report 1737-14. 63 pgs.

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: December 18, 2008 ).

Swartz, L. 2007. Personal Communication. Botrychium taxa specialist, USDA Forest Service. Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Washington Natural Heritage Program, 2008 updated lists of vascular and non-vascular species. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plants.html.

Cultural Resources

Neider, Tonya. 2011. Libby, Little Bridge, Newby, and Poorman allotment management plan renewal; NHPA Section 106 compliance documentation #2011060804011. Unpublished report, USDA FS Region 6, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, MVRD. 25 pages.

Literature Citations F--16