Queets Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment

Queets Vegetation Management

United States Environmental Assessment Department of Agriculture Olympic National Forest Forest Service Jefferson County, Washington Pacific Northwest Region

June 2015

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Abstract: This Environmental Assessment documents the proposed action, two alternatives to the proposed action, and the no action alternative considered for commercially thinning timber; conducting road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; treating activity-generated slash (fuels); and implementing connected actions within the Late-Successional Reserve, Adaptive Management Area, and Riparian Reserve land allocations of the Queets River watershed on the Olympic National Forest, Pacific Ranger District. The Queets Vegetation Management project proposed treatment units are located within the Late-Successional Reserve and Adaptive Management Area land allocations, and also include Riparian Reserves which overlay these other land allocations. Late-Successional Reserves are to provide habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. The Forest’s Late-Successional Reserve Assessment recognized a need for commercial thinning in stands less than 80 years old with the objectives of accelerating growth, increasing plant species diversity, increasing structural diversity, and to provide a mechanism to create snags and down wood where needed. The project seeks to implement the recommendations from both the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment and watershed analyses, which suggest thinning in forests that are mid-seral, in order to accelerate the goal of developing Late-Successional Reserve conditions. Adaptive Management Areas serve to provide opportunities for development, demonstration, and testing of techniques that place an emphasis on the restoration of late-successional forest conditions and riparian reserves. This project seeks to integrate commercial timber harvest with the ecological objectives of late- successional habitat by adding structural diversity.

The primary purpose and need is to accelerate late-successional habitat in mid-seral stands in order to support fish and wildlife species. To meet the purpose and need, the Forest is proposing to restore habitat by thinning 5,005 acres of young forest stands.

Through public scoping and a Forest Service interdisciplinary process, the Forest identified four relevant issues regarding implementation of the proposal. These issues included indirect effects to water quality and water temperature variation, effects to Federally listed species, potential effects to sensitive soils from ground-based logging activities, and economic feasibility of implementing the project.

Responsible Official: For More Information, contact: Dean Millett, District Ranger Kim Crider, Environmental Coordinator Pacific Ranger District 1835 Black Lake Blvd SW 437 Tillicum Lane Olympia, WA 98512 Forks, WA 98331 Email: [email protected] Phone: (360)956-2376

Cover Photo Credit: Betsy Howell

Contents 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 9 1.1.1 Document Structure ...... 9 1.1.2 Changes Between the Draft and Final Environmental Assessments ...... 9 1.2 Relationship to the Forest Plan and Other Management Direction ...... 10 1.3 Project Location ...... 13 1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 13 1.5 Proposed Action ...... 18 1.6 Decision Framework ...... 18 1.7 Project Implementation ...... 19 1.8 Scoping ...... 19 1.9 Issues ...... 19 2.0 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 21 2.1 Development of the Proposed Action ...... 21 2.2 Development of Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...... 21 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 21 2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 21 2.4.1 Alternative A No Action...... 22 2.4.2 Alternative B The Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ...... 22 2.4.3 Alternative C Minimize Soil Disturbance and Preserve Water Quality and Temperature ...... 31 2.4.4 Alternative D Maximizing Economic Viability ...... 33 2.5 Summary of Alternatives ...... 35 2.6 Project Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices ...... 36 2.6.1 Riparian no-cut buffers ...... 37 2.6.2 Wildlife and wildlife habitat ...... 38 2.6.3 Botany and invasive plants ...... 42 2.6.4 Heritage and archaeological sites ...... 44 2.6.5 Fire and fuels – activity-generated slash ...... 45 2.6.6 Aquatics – fisheries, soils, hydrology, and water quality ...... 45 2.6.7 Monitoring ...... 53 2.6.8 Operating Seasons and Seasonal Restrictions ...... 53 2.6.9 Summary of Alternatives and Effects to Resources ...... 56 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 63 3.1 Silviculture and Stand Development ...... 63 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 63

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 72 3.2 Wildlife ...... 77 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 77 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 136 3.3 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants ...... 187 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 187 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 189 3.3.3 Invasive Plants ...... 194 3.4 Soils and Landslide Risk ...... 197 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 201 3.4.2 Environmental Effects...... 209 3.5 Aquatic Resources and Fisheries ...... 237 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 237 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 248 3.6 Cultural Resources ...... 263 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 263 3.6.2 Environmental Effects...... 266 3.7 Recreation ...... 267 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 267 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 268 3.8 Fire and Fuels ...... 269 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 269 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 270 3.9 Economic Viability ...... 276 3.9.1 Background and Methodology ...... 276 3.9.2 Economic Effects ...... 278 3.10 Climate Change ...... 279 3.11 Other Effects ...... 284 4.0 List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted ...... 289 5.0 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 290 6.0 References ...... 291 Appendices Appendix A: Roads, Haul Routes, and Proposed Rock Pit Development……………………………………………….A-1 Appendix B: Silvicultural Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………. B-1 Appendix C: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Compliance……………………………………………………………………..C-1 Appendix D: Maps 1-14……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….D-1 Appendix E: Public Contributions During the Scoping and Comment Periods………………………………………E-1 Appendix F: Other Contributions Received During the 30-day Comment Period………………………………… F-1

List of Tables Table 2-1. Alternative B – Summary of Proposed Treatment ...... 22 Table 2-2. All Alternatives - Summary of proposed road development by road type ...... 24 Table2-3. All Alternatives - Summary of proposed miles of road development for conversion to specified system road (ML 1) ...... 24 Table 2-4. All Alternatives - Summary of proposed miles of temporary road development for decommissioning after use ...... 25 Table 2-5. Proposed sale area improvements...... 30 Table 2-6. Alternative C – Summary of proposed treatment acres by logging system and land management allocation ...... 31 Table 2-7. Alternative D - Summary of proposed treatment acres by logging system and land management allocation ...... 33 Table 2-8. All Alternatives- Summary of Management Area by Land Type...... 35 Table 2-9. Comparison of proposed logging system acres by action alternative...... 35 Table 2-10. Comparison of proposed temporary and specified road development in RR by action alternative ...... 36 Table 2-11. Riparian no-cut buffer widths (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 37 Table 2-12. Protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 39 Table 2-13. Measures to protect sensitive plant species (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 42 Table 2-14. Measures to prevent introduction and spread of invasive plant infestations (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 43 Table 2-15. Measures to protect heritage sites (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 44 Table 2-16. Measures to treat project-generated fuels (slash) (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 45 Table 2-17. Project Criteria – Hydraulic requirements for all road construction (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 46 Table 2-18. Project Criteria – Reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of existing system roads (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 46 Table 2-19. Project Criteria – Log haul (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 47 Table 2-20. Project Criteria – Location, construction, and use of temporary roads, log landings, and helicopter landing sites (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 48 Table 2-21. Project Criteria – Rehabilitation of unclassified roads, temporary roads, skid trails, & landings (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 50 Table 2-22. Project Criteria – Construction and storage of new system roads (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 50 Table 2-23. Measures for protection of soils and soil productivity – ground-based skidding (measures apply to all alternatives) ...... 51 Table 2-24. Operating periods for project work (felling and yarding operations) within the Queets project stands. Total acres for each operating period are displayed in bold...... 54 Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives...... 56 Table 3-1. Survey Information within the project area for Northern Spotted Owl...... 84 Table 3-2. Current habitat information within the project watershed for the Northern Spotted Owl...... 87 Table 3-3. Survey information for marbled murrelet sites within the project ...... 93 Table 3-4. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species...... 97 Table 3-5. Survey and Manage mollusk species...... 104 Table 3-6. MIS species within the Olympic National Forest.1 ...... 107

Table 3-7. Listing status of primary excavator species...... 114 Table3-8. General habitat descriptions of snag associated MIS. Habitat descriptions are taken from general reference books (Marshall et al. 2003, Wahl et al. 2005) and research (Huff and Raley 1991, Wisdom et al. 2000)...... 115 Table 3-9. Tolerance levels for cavity nesting birds...... 116 Table 3-10. Outcome likelihoods for ONF species under the preferred alternative under the NWFP. ... 117 Table 3-11. From Table 1 in Raphael and Jones (1997), comments added: Structures (%) used as resting and denning sites by American marten in the Washington Cascade Mountains...... 120 Table 3-12. Acres of Montane Mixed Conifer Forest within the project area providing marten habitat (by tolerance level)...... 121 Table 3-13. Area and density of roads within the planning project area...... 125 Table 3-14. Federal species of concern...... 128 Table 3-15. Mapped murrelet sites, associated habitat, and disturbance...... 138 Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores...... 142 Table 3-17. Mapped Spotted Owl Sites and Associated Habitat Improvement and Disturbance within 2.7 mile home ranges...... 150 Table 3-18. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative B...... 156 Table 3-19. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative B...... 158 Table 3-20. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative C...... 164 Table 3-21. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative C...... 166 Table 3-22. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative D...... 169 Table 3-23. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative D...... 171 Table 3-24. Sensitive vascular plant species with potential habitat in the planning area...... 189 Table 3-25. Sensitive bryophytes with potential habitat in the project area...... 190 Table 3-26. Invasive plant species documented in the Project Area...... 195 Table 3-27. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative B...... 216 Table 3-28. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative C...... 224 Table 3-29. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative D...... 232 Table 3-30. Watersheds within the planning area...... 238 Table 3-31. Stream miles of anadromous and resident fish presence in planning area...... 239 Table 3-32. Current status (stock health) of salmonids in the Queets River watershed...... 239 Table 3-33. Acres Riparian Reserve in planning area by watershed...... 241 Table 3-34. Near-term LWD recruitment potential...... 242 Table 3-35. Near-term LWD recruitment potential...... 242 Table 3-36. Summary of water temperature data...... 244 Table 3-37. Quality of rearing habitat of selected reaches in the Sams River and Matheny Creek (Based on USFS 1992 Survey)...... 244 Table 3-38. Drainage/Watershed planning area road densities...... 246 Table 3-39. Alternative B acres in RR by logging system...... 252 Table 3-40. Specified roads within RRs...... 253 Table 3-41. Percentage of 6th field watershed treated...... 257 Table 3-42. Expected timber sale volumes and bid rates for all alternatives...... 277

Table A-1. Summary tables of roads proposed for development and use ...... A-1 Table A-2. Forest Service System Roads within the planning area proposed as haul routes for the QVMP ...... A-6 Table A-3. Rock sources and recommended development actions ...... A-12 Table B-1. Physical and administrative characteristics of stands proposed for treatment ...... B-1 Table B-2. Historic Vegetation Treatments ...... B-10 Table B-3. Stand stratification for formal stand exams ...... B-15 Table B-4. Vegetation characteristics ...... B-16 Table B-5. Snags and Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) ...... B-18 Table E-1. Comments received during the opportunity to provide scoping comments, and the Forest Service’s responses ...... E-1 Table E-2. List of Commenters during the 30-day comment period ...... E-4 Table E-3. Comments and responses to comments from the 30 day comment period ...... E-5

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Queets project area vicinity map...... 16 Figure 1-2. Land Management Allocations within the Queets project area...... 17 Figure 3-1. Flame Length on a 90th percentile day in the current un-altered stand condition...... 272 Figure 3-2. Flame lengths in the current stand conditions classified as Low (0-4ft), Medium (4-8ft), High (8-10ft), and Very High (10ft+)...... 273 Figure 3-3. Flame length change in harvested areas...... 273 Figure 3-4. ROS change in harvested areas...... 274 Figure 3-5. Flame length change with only a 20% reduction in canopy coverage...... 274 Figure 3-6. ROS change with only a 20% reduction in canopy coverage...... 275 Figure Map 1 Queets Area Watersheds ...... D-2 Figure Map 2 Alternative B - Preferred Alternative ...... D-3 Figure Map 3 Alternative B - Preferred Alternative Temporary and Specified Road Development ...... D-4 Figure Map 4 Alternative C ...... D-5 Figure Map 5 Alternative C – Temporary and Specified Road Development ...... D-6 Figure Map 6 Alternative D ...... D-7 Figure Map 7 Alternative D – Temporary and Specified Road Development ...... D-8 Figure Map 8 Distribution of Mapped Soil Types Within the Queets Project Area ...... D-9 Figure Map 9 Distribution of Sensitive Soil Types Within the Queets Project Area ...... D-10 Figure Map 10 Soil Geomorphic Units Within the Queets Project Area ...... D-11 Figure Map 11 Dominant Soil Parent Materials Within the Queets Project Area ...... D-12 Figure Map 12 Dominant Soil Parent Materials and Ground Based Harvest Units within Project Area D-13 Figure Map 13 Proposed Harvest Units Adjacent to Escarpments Within the Queets Project Area ..... D-14 Figure Map 14 Potentially Unstable Landforms Within the Queets Project Area ...... D-15

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1.1 Document Structure This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the analysis of the proposed action and a range of alternatives for commercial thinning and associated activities in the Queets area, located on the Pacific Ranger District of the Olympic National Forest (ONF). Chapter 1 describes the purpose of and need for action, the proposed action, and alternatives for the Queets Vegetation Management Project (QVMP). This chapter also identifies and describes the project area, outlines applicable management direction, addresses the scope of the decision to be made, and lists the issues identified during scoping. Chapter 2 describes the proposed action and alternatives, the process by which the proposed action was designed, the alternative development process, and the project design criteria and mitigation measures that would apply to the project. Chapter 3 describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the no action alternative. The chapter is divided into sections based on resource area. Chapter 4 includes a list of preparers and agencies consulted during this EA process. Chapter 5 contains acronyms used throughout this document. Chapter 6 contains references used within this document. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F include supplementary information tables, maps, and a review, summary, and response to public comments received. 1.1.2 Updates and Clarifications Since the Comment Period The environmental analysis presented during the comment period was modified to incorporate corrections to errors and clarification of information identified during or after the comment period. The following list is a summary of those changes:  Tables were renumbered throughout the document within chapters to improve navigation.  The purpose and need statement dealing with economics was clarified to note direction from the Northwest Forest Plan relating to economics in the Adaptive Management Area.  Table 2-25 was added to the end of Chapter 2 that summarizes the alternatives and provides a comparison of their effects to resources.  Minor corrections and clarifications were made to the Recreation Section in Chapter 3.  Many stands were surveyed for marbled murrelet Suitable Nest trees since the draft EA was released. These stands are listed in Table 2-12 and on page 95 in the Wildlife Section 3.2.2.  Minor corrections were made to the Wildlife Section 3.2.2, Tables 3-17 and 3-18.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

 Maps from the Soils and Landslide Risk Resource Report were added to the EA in Appendix D: Maps and appropriate references were added to the Soils Section.  Several editorial corrections were made to the References section.  The list of preparers of this document was updated to reflect changes in personnel for the duration of the project planning.  Additional Appendices were added, and Appendices were reorganized. (see Table of Contents for a list of Appendices).  Compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives was summarized and added as Appendix C.  Scoping comments, comments received during the 30-day comment period, and Forest Service responses to these comments are now included in Appendix E. Attachments provided during the public comment period are included in Appendix F and include various recommended references and summaries thereof. FS responses to the attachments are also included in Appendix F (pg. F-1). 1.2 Relationship to the Forest Plan and Other Management Direction 1.2.1 Forest Plan The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations §1500-1508) as well as those requirements established by Federal environmental laws and regulations. It is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the ONF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a) and the 1990 ONF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990b), as amended. Major plan amendments include:  Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994a) as adopted and modified by the April 1994 Record of Decision (ROD), which provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994b). These two documents are commonly referred to as the 1994 ROD or the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).

The 1994 ROD added seven land allocations to the allocations in the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan. The standards and guidelines it established for these land allocations supersede management direction in the 1990 ONF Land and Resource Management Plan unless the 1990 ONF Land and Resource Management Plan is more restrictive or provides greater benefits to late-successional-forest-related species. The 1994 ROD also includes an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), designed to protect and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems. For the ONF, the land allocations established by the 1994 ROD are Late-Successional Reserves (LSR), Adaptive Management Areas (AMA), and Riparian Reserves (RR). The objective of the LSR allocation is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species,

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project including the northern spotted owl. The AMA allocation was designated to encourage the development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives. RR includes land adjacent to streams, and unstable and potentially unstable areas. RR are managed to maintain and restore riparian structures and functions, confer benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species other than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for many terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of the watershed. RRs overlie all other management allocations. In this EA, the term “Forest Plan” refers to the 1990 LRMP as amended by the 1994 ROD and other amendments currently in force. 1.2.2 Survey and Manage In December 2009, the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order on partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs finding inadequacies in the NEPA analysis supporting the Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FS et al. 2007)(2007 ROD). The District Court did not issue a remedy or injunction at that time. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into settlement negotiations that resulted in the 2011 Survey and Manage Consent Decree, adopted by the District Court on July 6, 2011. The Defendant-Intervenor subsequently appealed the 2011 Consent Decree to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The April 25, 2013 ruling in favor of Defendant-Intervenor remanded the case back to the District Court. On February 18, 2014, the District Court vacated the 2007 RODs. Vacatur of the 2007 RODs has the result of returning the Forest Service to the status quo in existence prior to the 2007 RODs. The QVMP applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 ROD related to Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006). Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines, including both pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs: “Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground- disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to:

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old; b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.”

The QVMP is a thinning project in stands under 80 years of age (Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1), and so meets Exemption A. 1.2.3 Other Documents This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the following documents:  FEIS for the ONF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a). This FEIS discloses the environmental consequences of six alternatives for managing the land administered by the ONF.  ONF Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990b). The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes standards and guidelines for the ONF.  FSEIS on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994a) as adopted and modified by the April 1994 ROD, which provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994c). These two documents are commonly referred to as the 1994 ROD or the NWFP.  The ONF Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The Strategic Plan used an interdisciplinary process to identify priority areas for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, restoration needs, and opportunities to integrate projects to achieve multiple benefits.  The ONF Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) (USDA Forest Service 2004b). The ATM documents priorities for road management objectives on the ONF.  Quinault North and Quinault South Late Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) (USDA Forest Service 1996). The LSRAs examines the historic and current uses of the Quinault North and Quinault South LSRs; discusses vegetative condition and late-successional forest associated species known to exist within the LSR; presents criteria for developing treatments for achieving LSR objectives; and identifies areas for potential treatment.  ONF FEIS and ROD – Beyond Prevention: Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment (USDA Forest Service 2008). This environmental impact statement (EIS) provides forest-level direction for the site-specific treatment of invasive plant infestations.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

 Tacoma Creek-Queets River Sub-watershed: A Report on the Effect of Past Land Management Activities on National Forest Lands and Their Potential Impact on the Aquatic Environment (DeCillis 2013).  Salmon River Watershed Analysis (QIN 2002), Sams River Watershed Analysis (USDA 1997) and Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995). The watershed analyses provide a scientifically-based understanding of the ecological structures, functions, processes, and interactions within the watersheds and identify desired trends, conditions, and restoration opportunities.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the ONF Headquarters in Olympia, Washington. The project record and all references cited are hereby incorporated by reference into this EA. 1.3 Project Location Areas where activities are proposed lie within Willamette Meridian T23N R10W Sections 1, 4; T23N R11W Section 1; T24N R9W Sections 19, 20,30; multiple sections of T24N R10W; T24½N R10W Sections 31,32,33,34:, and T24N R10 W Sections 1,2,11,12,13,14. Stands were selected on the basis of the need for treatment, accessibility by existing system roads, and economic feasibility. The 44,000-acre project planning area is located within the Queets, Sams, Salmon, and Matheny River 6th field watersheds which all lie within the larger Queets River 5th field watershed. The majority of the area is within the LSR allocation, with small portions of AMA in the western part of Sams River and Matheny Creek watersheds; the Queets watershed area consists mostly of AMA. Sams River is within the River Corridor Forest Plan allocation and there are three Botanical Research Areas within the planning area. 1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action Desired Future Condition The general desired condition for this area arediverse, multi-storied stands that provide improved habitat for late-successional and old-growth dependent species. Such stands would also contain openings and enhance herbaceous plants on the forest floor. Existing Condition The forest in the project planning area has been heavily influenced by past timber harvest activities. Approximately 20,000 acres of National Forest System land in the planning area were clear cut between 1948 and 1992. Most of that acreage was replanted after harvest. As a result of this activity- much of the current forest consists of relatively dense second growth plantations in a structurally simplified stage. These stands do not provide high-quality habitat for species associated with old-growth and late-successional forests. Riparian areas that once supported large conifers now have high percentages of small-diameter conifers and hardwoods, and the available supply of trees for recruitment of large wood, an important component of fish habitat, into streams has been reduced. Land allocations within the planning area are LSR (40,215 acres), and AMA (3,712 acres). The management objective for the LSR allocation is to protect and enhance conditions of late-

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project successional and old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species. The management objective for the AMA allocation is similar, with the added goal of encouraging the development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving the desired outcomes. RRs overlie all other allocations and cover about one-third of the planning area. Management objectives for RR are to maintain and restore riparian structures and functions of streams, lakes, and wetlands and confer benefits to riparian-dependent species. The desired future condition for the portions of proposed project stands in RR is similar to that for the underlying land allocation, with additional considerations to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. The purpose and need was developed to close the gap between existing and desired conditions, and effectively implement management objectives within the Forest Plan. The purpose and need of the QVMP is four-fold. 1. Increase structural and habitat diversity and accelerate the development of late- successional forest characteristics by decreasing stocking in dense, previously managed stands in Late-Successional Reserve.

The purpose of LSR is to maintain and enhance late-successional forest as a network of existing old-growth forest ecosystems [(USDA and USDI 1994b)]. The following are characteristics of old-growth forest (Old-Growth Definition Task Group 1986; Carey and Johnson 1995; Carey and Curtis 1996; Rapp 2003) that describe the desired future condition of the stands proposed to be treated in this project:  a patchy, multilayered forest canopy with high crown closure and trees of several age classes;  a variety of herbs, shrubs, and coniferous tree seedlings and saplings on the forest floor;  over-story trees exceeding 36 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) with large crowns, large branches, broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood in some of them;  understory trees with a range of diameters and ages;  large standing dead trees; and  coarse woody debris on the forest floor.

2. Manage Riparian Reserves for desired conditions needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b, p.B-11; C-32). RRs are a central component of the ACS, and include areas along streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas. Generally, standards and guidelines for RRs prohibit or restrict activities that delay or prevent attainment of ACS objectives. Silvicultural practices “to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands,

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain ACS objectives” are allowed within RRs. Desired conditions include:  late-successional characteristics (see purpose 1., above);  appropriate stream shading;  accelerated growth of conifers to provide future large wood for recruitment into streams (in-stream large wood is an important structural component of aquatic habitat).  maintenance of streambank and hillslope stability.  appropriate instream habitat conditions and connectivity.  stable roads that do not impact streams and waterbodies.  appropriate hydrology and soil productivity.

3. Increase structural and habitat diversity and accelerate the development of late- successional forest characteristics in dense, previously managed stands in the Adaptive Management Area. Test a variety of techniques intended to restore late-successional forest and riparian conditions. AMA land allocation is also meant to provide opportunities for development, demonstration, and testing of techniques that emphasize restoration of late- successional forest conditions and riparian zones, and integrate commercial timber harvest with ecological objectives (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b, p.C-21;D-1). The silvicultural objective within AMA is to add structural and tree species diversity to the stands, which includes many of the desired conditions described above.

4. Contribute directly and indirectly to the viability of local community economies. While maintaining and enhancing late successional forest is the primary objective, there is a secondary need to contribute positively to the viability of the local economy. The Olympic AMA allocation in the NWFP ROD stated emphasis is to …”test innovative approaches at the stand and landscape level for integration of ecological and economic objectives…”Implementation of an economically viable project alternative that directly meets the primary benefit of accelerating late successional conditions in LSR, RR, and NWFP land allocations, will provide a secondary benefit to local economies through utilization of local industry capabilities and infrastructure.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Figure 1-1. Queets project area vicinity map.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Figure 1-2. Land Management Allocations within the Queets project area. 17

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

1.5 Proposed Action The Olympic National Forest proposes to commercially thin second growth forest stands to accelerate the development of some of the structural and compositional features of late- successional forests and accelerate growth of forest stands in LSR, AMAs and RR land management allocations (as described in Section 1.4) within the Queets River 5th field watershed in Grays Harbor County, Washington. The approximately 44,000 acre planning area includes approximately 5,005 acres proposed for commercial thinning in forest stands that are between 35 and 65 years old. Under the Proposed Action, the selected stands would be commercially thinned using variable density thinning. On the majority of the treated acres, the thinning would utilize a "thinning from below" treatment which generally retains the larger trees, and would include skips (un-thinned areas), gaps (small openings), and some more heavily thinned areas to provide increased structural and spatial heterogeneity within the stands proposed for treatment. Minor tree species would generally not be cut. Logging systems would include a combination of ground-based, cable, and helicopter logging. Current National Forest system roads, unclassified or abandoned road grades, and new temporary roads would be used to access the stands. Preliminary field reconnaissance has identified approximately 18.4 miles of unclassified or abandoned roads and 1.4 miles of decommissioned roads for reconstruction, and construction of about 2.4 miles of new roads. About 16 miles of the 22.2 total miles of roads proposed for development are proposed for reconstruction or new construction as specified system road. This would provide the opportunity to access treatment units for future vegetation restoration activities by reducing the cost and disturbance of reconstructing these roads in the future. The roads will remain on the Forest road system as Maintenance Level (ML) 1 roads and will be closed after project completion. The remaining 6 miles of developed road will be decommissioned following project completion as funding allows. For more details regarding road development see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2 and Table A-1 in Appendix A of this document. Opportunities may exist to decommission additional system and non-system roads, improve drainage on additional system roads, and to implement other restoration and habitat improvement work with funds generated by the project. The Proposed Action is the preferred alternative and is presented as Alternative B in Chapter 2. 1.6 Decision Framework The Responsible Official is the Pacific District Ranger of the ONF. The District Ranger will review the proposed action and other alternatives proposed, the environmental effects associated with the alternatives, and comments received during the public comment periods. Based on that review, the District Ranger will decide:  How much thinning will be accomplished, and where;  Which logging systems and associated road access are appropriate;  What management requirements, project design criteria, and mitigation measures to include in the project; and  How many miles of roads would be added to the system for future re-entry access.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

1.7 Project Implementation Anticipated implementation of this project would begin the first summer after a decision is signed. The earliest possible start of implementation is the fall of 2014. 1.8 Scoping The project was first listed in the ONF’s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), a public database. The project status will remain on the SOPA until a decision is made, and through the calendar quarter following the decision. The project has appeared on the forest’s public website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=41044 . Letters initiating formal consultation with the Quinault Indian Nation, the Quileute Indian Nation and the Hoh Indian Tribe were distributed on June 12, 2013. A public scoping letter was sent to interested individuals on July 1, 2013. Responses ranged from supportive to neutral to non-supportive. All of the responses received were considered by the project’s Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) as they developed the project proposal and alternatives. The Forest Service’s response to public scoping comments can be found in Appendix E. 1.9 Issues Through scoping and internal review, three key issues identified by the IDT drove the development of alternatives to the proposed action: 1. Minimizing potential impacts on the Federally listed endangered species. Metrics to assess the success of addressing this issue could include:  Acres treated  Seasonality of thinning activities  Miles of road built  Miles of road decommissioned  Number of helicopter landings

2. Minimizing the potential for detrimental effects to sensitive soils from ground-based logging operations; metrics to assess the success of addressing this issue could include:  Extent and degree of anticipated detrimental soil conditions  Seasonal operating period for ground-based yarding operations  Miles and locations of roads to be constructed/ reconstructed  Seasonal operating period for road construction activities  Strategic location of skid trails  Amount and type of activities on steep slopes  Depth of scarification for road decommissioning

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3. Addressing concerns expressed by the Quinault Tribe by minimizing the potential for detrimental effects to water quality and water temperature variation; metrics to assess the success of addressing this issue could include:  Use of riparian no-cut buffers along streams and rivers  Seasonal operating period for road construction activities  Strategic location of skid trails  Amount and type of activities on steep slopes  Depth of scarification for road decommissioning  Amount of commercial thinning and road construction in RRs

4. Maximizing the economic benefit from the planned vegetation treatment. Metrics to assess the success of addressing this issue could include:  Acres treated  Acres of helicopter yarding proposed  Miles of road construction an reconstruction Other issues contributed to the development of the proposed action and all action alternatives. These issues include maintaining and enhancing tree species diversity in the treated stands, retaining existing snags and down wood, minimizing new temporary road construction, addressing the potential for soil disturbance, protecting water quality, and minimizing road closures associated with project operations. Some of these issues are addressed in the design criteria established for the project, which are described in chapter 2 of this EA.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2.0 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes the process used to develop the proposed action and its alternatives. Included in this section is a description of the Proposed Action (Alternative B), two alternatives to the proposed action (Alternatives C and D), and the No Action alternative (Alternative A) which was included to provide a baseline for comparison between the alternatives and an alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study. This chapter also includes a discussion of potential improvement and restoration projects that might be implemented in association with the project. The chapter concludes with a discussion and list of the management requirements – project design criteria, mitigation measures, and best management practices – that would be part of project design and implementation. 2.1 Development of the Proposed Action The development of the proposed action began with an identification of previously harvested stands in the Queets project area that would respond favorably to a silvicultural thinning treatment designed to accelerate the development of late-successional forest habitat conditions for old-growth associated wildlife species, including the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. The stands identified for this project ranged in age from 35 and 64 years of age as of 2012. A total of 5,005 acres of such stands were identified and included in the proposed action (Alternative B). The Proposed Action has been designed to meet the Purpose and Need. 2.2 Development of Alternatives to the Proposed Action The IDT identified four key issues that drove the development of alternatives to the proposed action: 1) minimizing disturbance to marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls and to the owl’s primary prey species, the northern flying squirrel (Alternative B); 2) minimizing aquatic concerns (water temperature and sedimentation) by not thinning in RRs (Alternative C); and 3) maximizing the economic viability of the project by removing all helicopter yarding, stands less than 43 years of age, and high cost of road construction segments (Alternative D). The alternatives differ primarily in the number of stands/acres treated, in logging systems, miles of road added to the system, and to some extent in the seasonality of operations 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis None of the responses received during the public scoping period raised issues that were considered either substantive enough or consistent enough with the project’s purpose and need to drive the development of additional action alternatives that were eliminated from further analysis. 2.4 Alternatives Considered in Detail This EA considers three action alternatives, and includes a no-action alternative (Alternative A) as a baseline for comparison. Alternative B is the Proposed Action; Alternative C was developed to minimize impacts to aquatic resources, including reduction of sedimentation and related water temperature concerns. Alternative D was developed to reduce high costs (units

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project designated for helicopter harvest and expense of road construction) associated with implementation of the project, thereby increasing the project’s economic viability. 2.4.1 Alternative A No Action This alternative is included to provide a baseline of the existing condition for comparison with the action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, no thinning treatments or associated activities would be implemented. Forest stands in the project area would remain untreated. This alternative would also retain all existing roads – authorized system roads, decommissioned roads, and unclassified abandoned roads – in their current condition. No timber harvest or related economic activity would take place. There would be no potential for funds to be generated from this project for additional restoration opportunities in the project area. The No Action alternative does not represent a static condition. Forested stands would continue to develop along their current trajectories. 2.4.2 Alternative B The Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Treatment acres and logging systems Alternative B includes approximately 5,005 acres (includes skips as treated acres; skips are described below) of commercial thinning treatments. Proposed logging systems include ground-based skidding, cable yarding, helicopter yarding, and helicopter yarding with ground- based pre-bunching equipment (Table 2-1). Alternative B also includes 222 acres of pre- designated skips, which would receive no thinning treatment. These skips are located in portions of units in which other resource concerns or conditions preclude either access for or feasibility of available logging systems. They are within thinning unit boundaries (described as the boundaries of the original clear cut harvest units) and would be identified as skips in the silvicultural prescription. Of the total, 3,809 acres designated for treatment are in LSR, 1,195 acres designated for treatment are in AMA and 1,894 acres are overlain by RRs. Table 2-1 displays a summary of treatment acres by logging system and NWFP land allocation. Although 5,005 acres are designated for thinning; skips, riparian no-cut buffers, and other resource protection buffers and exclusions described in the project design criteria section of this chapter would decrease the number of acres that would actually be thinned by approximately 25 to 30 percent.

Table 2-1. Alternative B – Summary of Proposed Treatment Land Allocation (acres)

Logging System LSR AMA RR1 Total

Ground-based yarding (G) 290 698 273 988

Cable yarding (C) 2888 482 1374 3370

Cable yarding – downhill (DC) 55 0 13 55

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-1. Alternative B – Summary of Proposed Treatment Land Allocation (acres)

Logging System LSR AMA RR1 Total

Helicopter/prebunching (HP) 32 0 10 32

Helicopter yarding (H) 396 0 165 396

Designated skip areas (no thinning) (SKIP)2 148 15 59 163

Subtotal – potential treatment acres 3809 1195 1894 5005

1 RR (Riparian Reserve) is an overlay on all land allocations, and does not contribute to the sum of total acres. 2 Skips are included as part of total treatment acres.

Temporary and specified road development Reconstruction of existing unclassified and decommissioned roadbeds and construction of new temporary road segments is necessary to access treatment units for feasible implementation of this alternative. Reconstructed unclassified and decommissioned roads and newly constructed temporary roads will be decommissioned following project implementation to restore local hydrology, water infiltration capacity, and soil productivity; promote revegetation by native species; and discourage use by motor vehicles. Decommissioning will entail removal of all culverts and associated fills. Waterbars will be installed as needed to control drainage. The roadbed will be scarified as needed to improve infiltration and help restore soil productivity. Seed, mulch, and coarse woody debris (CWD) will be applied to disturbed areas as needed to control erosion and promote revegetation by native species. Decommissioned roads will be blocked to discourage motor vehicle use. Some segments of existing unclassified roads, existing decommissioned roadbeds, and new roads will be reconstructed or constructed as specified system road. This would provide the opportunity to access treatment units for future vegetation restoration activities by reducing the cost and disturbance of reconstructing these roads in the future. The roads will remain on the Forest road system as ML 1 roads. After use for this project, these roads will be waterbarred to control drainage, and blocked to discourage motor vehicle access. Streamcrossing culverts will be removed at the end of the project, while cross drain culverts may be left in place. After the future work is completed and the road is no longer needed, the road would be decommissioned as funding becomes available. Field reconnaissance has identified approximately 18.4 miles of unclassified or abandoned roads, 1.4 miles of decommissioned roads for reconstruction, and construction of about 2.2 miles of new road, for a total of 22.2 miles of road development. Of these 22.2 miles of developed road or existing roadbed, a total of 16.0 miles will be added to the National Forest

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

System road as ML 1 roads and treated as described above. The remaining 6.2 miles of road developed will be decommissioned following project completion. Additional temporary road segments may be identified for use during timber sale layout. Any additional segments of temporary roads will be decommissioned (as described above) following implementation. (See Appendix A, Table A-1 for a list of road segments proposed for development).

Table 2-2. All Alternatives - Summary of proposed road development by road type Alternative

Type of Road Construction B C D

Reconstruction of existing unclassified road 18.4 10.5 17.0

Reconstruction of existing decommissioned road 1.4 1.2 1.2

New road construction (specified system and temporary) 2.4 1.4 1.9

Table2-3. All Alternatives - Summary of proposed miles of road development for conversion to specified system road (ML 1) Alternative

Type of Road Construction B C D

Existing unclassified road proposed as specified system road 12.6 8.5 11.3

Existing decommissioned road proposed as specified system road 1.4 1.2 1.2

New road construction proposed as specified system road 1.9 1.4 1.4

Total miles of specified system road 16.0 11.1 13.8

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-4. All Alternatives - Summary of proposed miles of temporary road development for decommissioning after use Alternative

Type of Road Construction B C D

Existing unclassified road proposed as temporary road and decommissioning following project 5.7 2.0 5.7

New temporary road construction proposed for decommissioning following project 0.5 0 0.5

System road use – log haul System roads are used for log hauling. System roads are existing roads that are part of the authorized road system. Log haul would occur on about 86 miles of existing Forest system roads, including about 24 miles of closed roads (ML1) that would be reopened, and then closed again after project use (See Appendix A, Table A-2 for a list of roads used for log haul). Of the roads that would be used for log haul, 2.83 miles pass through RRs. Road maintenance and upgrading would need to occur on some of these roads to bring them up to a standard suitable for log haul. The ML1 roads, of which 2.0 miles are located in RRs, would generally need the most reconstruction to minimize direct impacts to the waterways. Helicopter landings Alternative B includes up to 12 proposed helicopter landing sites to accommodate the units proposed for helicopter yarding. To allow for safe operations within the landing, each helicopter landing would entail the clearing of approximately one acre. Landings designated as service landings may be smaller. Rock sources Ten existing rock sources in the planning area would provide material for road development and maintenance associated with this project. A list with locations of associated rock pits can be found in Table A-3, Appendix A. Up to two acres of development per pit is proposed for the Queets project. Rock source development may include clearing trees and other vegetation, and blasting. All identified rock source pits are located within the planning area of Queets, Sams, Salmon, and Matheny watersheds. These identified pits have been previously used in the past for operations.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Summary of Proposed Vegetation Treatment To place the project stands on a trajectory to attain the desired future condition, a variable- density thinning treatment would be implemented within the project stands. The objective of the proposed treatment would be to increase structural diversity and to accelerate the development of late-successional characteristics. The proposed treatments are designed to reduce stand density, enhance structural and spatial complexity, maintain or increase crown and branch size and diameter growth of individual trees, introduce or continue to develop an understory of seedlings and saplings, shrubs, and herbs, increase the number of snag recruitment trees, which provides suitable habitat for cavity nesters, and contribute to CWD recruitment. The concept of variable-density thinning developed from research that emphasized the inclusion patches of differing tree density with an overall thinning treatment, including features such as skips, gaps, and heavily thinned areas (Carey and Curtis 1996, Muir et al. 2002). One objective of variable-density thinning is to increase structural heterogeneity (both vertical and horizontal) through the inclusion of patches receiving different treatment intensities in the overall stand treatment. The sections below detail the components of the proposed variable-density thinning and differences in stand treatments related to stand conditions and land designation. Commercial thinning A thinning from below silvicultural treatment would be applied in the areas identified for treatment. The boundary of the dense, plantation conifer stand type and the PDC given in Chapter 2 would be used to locate boundaries. The Designation by Description contract specification would be used to implement the prescription, which results in variably spaced trees and a wider range of leave-tree diameters than a strict thinning from below prescription, but generally removes smaller trees and leaves larger trees. Thinning would generally remove trees of the most abundant conifer species, while leaving less abundant conifer species and hardwood species in the stand, however individual trees (less abundant conifer or hardwood species) would be cut if they pose a safety hazard or for operational reasons, such as for skid trails, yarding corridors, landings and road locations that would be used for the proposed treatment. In stands where red alder is abundant, individual trees would be removed to improve the growth of adjacent conifers (see section below). Leave trees would be selected irrespective of whether the tree has any damage, so that trees with defects, potential cavity or nesting trees and other similar features of structural diversity may be retained in the stands (Knowles 1996a). In this case, the term “damage” refers to breakage, double tops, crooks, heart rots, ants, etc., that cause loss of wood volume, but usually won’t kill the tree. Similarly, trees with fading crowns or bleeding boles indicative of root disease that may kill some trees and create snags and CWD over time would not be favored for cutting by the proposed treatment. In stands where off-site Douglas-fir is exhibiting the symptoms of foliar diseases, treatments will favor retention of a higher proportion of western hemlock, but will retain sufficient Douglas-fir trees to meet the long-term structural and species diversity objectives.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Cut-tree diameter limits Within LSR stands, trees greater than 20 inches DBH would not be cut as part of the thinning treatment, and where possible, individual trees greater than 20 inches DBH cut for safety or operational reasons would remain on site as CWD (Knowles 1996a). Within AMA stands there would not be an upper diameter limit on trees cut as a part of the thinning treatment, however based on individual stand conditions, an upper diameter limit may be specified in some cases. Trees of this size may be converted to snags or CWD. Trees less than 8 inches DBH would generally be retained in all stands. Skips (no-cut areas) Skips are undisturbed areas within thinning operations that continue to suppress the development of an understory and maintain a component of dense overstory lacking much understory vegetation, and would provide for species that prefer closed canopy forest. Skips provide for the continued production of small diameter snags through competition-induced tree mortality, patches of smaller trees, thermal and visual cover for wildlife species, and protection for snags and CWD. Skip areas would include no-cut riparian buffers, buffers for suitable nest trees, legacy trees, legacy snags, and additional no-cut buffers designated in the PDC for protection or conservation of other species or features. Potential additional skip locations could include rock outcrops, concentrations of CWD, groups of snags, brushy areas, vine maple clumps or other unique features that would benefit from protection. The use of skips to protect sensitive features within stands would increase stand heterogeneity by adding an element of randomness to the placement of skips. Additional designed skips 0.5 to 1.5 acre in size would be assigned as needed in areas that lack these features. Heavy thinning and gaps Patches of heavy thinning and gaps would be incorporated in the thinning treatment to increase structural and spatial complexity, obtain desired characteristics such as longer live crowns and larger live branches on individual trees and encourage growth of understory trees and vegetation. Low tree density within heavy thinning patches would allow the maximization of individual tree growth and the development of understory trees and vegetation. Gaps would allow the development of very large crowns and stems on edge trees that are able to occupy additional growing space and would allow the rapid introduction and development of a mid- level canopy of conifers and hardwood trees and shrubs. Heavy thinning patches and gaps would be located to enhance existing desirable stand characteristics or to develop these characteristics in areas that lack these features. Possible locations could include patches of leave trees with the potential to more quickly develop desired crown structure, locations designed to ensure the continued presence of minor tree species in the stand and existing concentrations of understory trees or vegetation. Heavily thinned patches would be thinned to 20 to 50 trees per acre (TPA) (Knowles 1996a, Muir et. al 2002), retaining hardwoods and minor conifer species. All conifers larger than the minimum diameter limit (but not over 20 inches

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

DBH in LSR stands) would be removed from gaps (except any cedar and western white pine), while all hardwoods would be retained. Treatment specific to LSR stands The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) provided general recommendations for variable- density thinning within LSR which were deemed to “have a high likelihood of benefiting late- successional forest conditions” (Knowles 1996a, Knowles 1996b). The REO recommendations provide the basis for the general prescription proposed for the LSR stands, which would be a thinning-from-below (generally removing smaller trees and leaving larger trees) with at least 10% of the stand area in skips (unthinned areas) and up to 10% of the area in a combination of areas of heavy thinning and gaps (small openings). Areas of heavy thinning ranging up to 1.5 acre in size would be included in the prescribed treatment of the stands, and gaps 0.1 to 0.25 acre in size would be designed for these stands in areas protected from wind and away from roads and landings. The thinning treatment would reduce stand relative density to between 30% and 40% of maximum SDI, a level between maximizing growth at the stand level and maximizing individual tree growth (Drew and Flewelling 1979, Long 1985). Approximately 100 to 180 TPA would remain in the post-treatment stands with an average range of 60% to 90% canopy closure. Treatment specific to AMA stands The treatments proposed for stands in the AMA meet the definition of a variable density thinning by incorporating patches of differing tree densities within a stand, however patch sizes would be larger and fewer trees would remain than in stands treated with a prescription following the REO recommendations for LSR stands. Consistent with the intent of AMA under the NWFP, the application of a wider range of potential commercial thinning treatments within AMA stands would be an alternative approach (to the REO recommendations for LSR stand) to meeting desired future condition in these stands. The proposed treatments for AMA stands would be based on the research which indicates that lower stand density following thinning treatments may allow for the more rapid development of late-successional characteristics (Chan et al. 2006, Garman et al. 2003, Newton and Cole 1987, Tappeiner et al. 2007, p.356-7). A thinning from below treatment would reduce stand density to 20% to 30% of maximum SDI, a level that should allow for greater individual tree growth (Drew and Flewelling 1979, Long 1985) and provide more resources for the growth of trees, shrubs and herbs in the understory of the stand. Following the thinning treatment (and subsequent creation of snags and CWD) an average of approximately 50 to 100 TPA would remain in the stands, and estimated average canopy closure would range from about 40% to 60% at the stand level. Minor tree species would be retained; however, in locations designated for lower tree density following treatment, some minor species may be cut to maintain tree species diversity in the overstory of the stand. Skips would be incorporated in the thinning treatment and total up to 20% of the stand area.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Created gaps 1 to 5 acres in size and areas of heavy thinning would collectively total up to 30% of stand area. Treatment Specific to Alder-Dominated Stands In red alder-dominated or mixed red alder/conifer stands, individual red alder trees would be removed to enhance the growth of existing conifers. Stands with this species composition include A1, A2A, C6 and likely small patches in other stands in the project. Rather than the complete removal of red alder, individual red alder (generally 8 inches and greater DBH) would be removed from within a set distance (determined for each stand) of live conifers that are 4 inches DBH and greater in size. Utilizing a spacing distance will ensure that a component of red alder is retained in the stand, and will provide the most effective means of allocating additional resources to the conifer component of these stands. Pure conifer patches would be given a treatment corresponding to the land designation for the stand location (LSR or AMA) as described in previous paragraphs. Along the Forest Service system roads within the project area proposed as haul routes red alder often overtops conifers adjacent to the road. Individual red alder trees would be removed within about 30 feet of the edge of the road prism to increase conifer growth and reduce road maintenance issues associated with the presence of red alder. Alder trees directly on the bank of stream crossings would not be removed unless reviewed by a fisheries biologist. Treatment Specific to RRs Treatments in RRs would be designed to meet ACS objectives. The portions of stands adjacent to streams or wetlands would be left untreated as specified by the PDCs in Chapter 2 (this chapter, Section 2.6.1). The portion of the RRs outside the specified no-cut buffers would receive a variable density thinning treatment similar to the surrounding stand. Gaps or heavy thins would not be located adjacent to riparian no-cut buffers along fish-bearing streams. Reforestation Post-harvest surveys would be conducted to evaluate reforestation needs for created gaps, temporary roads and landings. Where there would be insufficient natural reseeding, or where resource concerns warrant, reforestation would be accomplished with an appropriate mix of native species. Additional Restoration and Improvement Projects There are restoration, habitat enhancement, and sale area improvement activities that may be implemented after commercial thinning activities in an area are complete. In general, “sale area” refers to the thinning units themselves and the surrounding area within one quarter of a mile of unit boundaries. In the case of a stewardship contract rather than a standard timber sale, the sale area improvement refers to the overall project planning area. This EA assumes that all the activities listed here would be implemented, and takes into account the environmental effects of implementing them. However, implementation is dependent on

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project funding and market conditions. Recommended sale area improvements are presented here by resource area. They apply to all three action alternatives. Aquatics Table 2-5 contains recommendations for road restoration treatments. These roads are medium to high priority for treatment due to their potential to deliver sediment to aquatic habitat or, in the case of non-system roads to negatively affect soil productivity.

Table 2-5. Proposed sale area improvements.

Location Action Priority Description 0.4 miles of classified road adjacent to ephemeral stream, one fish blockage culvert on road. Accesses UC road that should be treated as part of 2180032 Decommission H decommissioning. 2100 Rd MP AOP Culvert Great habitat above for cutthroat trout, 6.9 Replacement H high densities above and below. 2140200 MP AOP Culvert Two cutthroat fish barrier pipes to replace 0.04 and 0.10 Replacement M with AOP designed pipes. ML 1 road that crosses through and partially dams a wetland. Documented cutthroat use, improve road crossing while 2140211 Decommission H retaining wetland levels. Pull three shallow crossings on fish bearing Level 1 tributaries, and remove cross drains from 2180030 Storage MH prism. Remove 2140200 MP Plugged Plugged culvert, water over road, should be 2.9 Culvert M removed. 2140180 Decommission MH Road crosses a wetland.

Wildlife Limited mortality, windthrow or breakage of leave trees is expected following the commercial thinning treatment, however given the generally low levels of snags within project stands, the active creation of snags (and possibly CWD) would enhance the habitat values provided by the project stands. An inventory of CWD should be conducted three to five years after the commercial thinning treatment, however at least 5 years and preferably 10 years should be allowed prior to a snag inventory so that the contribution of natural mortality to desired snag numbers can be more fully assessed in the project stands. Where post-thinning inventories reveal a large disparity between the current condition and the desired future condition, snag and CWD creation could be used to make progress toward the long-term goals. Snag creation

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project should employ a variety of methods (girdling, topping and fungal inoculation) that will delay mortality of some trees and produce snags in multiple decay classes. Additionally, nesting structures for flying squirrels have proven useful in stands with few natural cavities and these may be placed in some of the proposed thinning units. Log pyramids may be constructed to resemble large coarse wood material on the landscape. Planting trees and shrubs in the understory of the stands and along decommissioned roads and landings following the commercial thinning would increase species diversity and contribute to desired late-successional characteristics. Western redcedar and western white pine are absent or underrepresented in most stands, and could be planted throughout the stands or concentrated within heavy thin patches and gaps (approximately 25 to 50 trees per acre) to supplement the anticipated natural regeneration of western hemlock. Planting of shrub species would increase species diversity, provide forage for ungulates and accelerate the development of the desired future conditions. Formal stand prescriptions would specify the species and planting density for each stand based on site conditions and current stand composition.

2.4.3 Alternative C Minimize Soil Disturbance and Preserve Water Quality and Temperature Alternative C was developed to minimize impacts to aquatic species, including reduction of sedimentation and water temperature concerns. This Alternative is different from Alternative B in that no temporary roads would be constructed in RRs. This alternative also excludes all commercial thinning within RRs. Alternative C includes approximately 1,800 acres of commercial thinning treatments. Proposed logging systems include ground-based skidding, cable yarding, helicopter yarding, and helicopter yarding with ground-based pre-bunching equipment (Table 2-6). Alternative C includes 34 acres of pre-designated skips, which would receive no thinning. This alternative excludes all treatment within RRs, including areas adjacent to unmapped streams located during project implementation.

Table 2-6. Alternative C – Summary of proposed treatment acres by logging system and land management allocation Land Allocation (acres)

Logging System LSR AMA RR1 Total1

Ground-based yarding (G) 145 263 0 408

Cable yarding (C) 946 128 0 1074

Cable yarding – downhill (DC) 28 0 0 28

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-6. Alternative C – Summary of proposed treatment acres by logging system and land management allocation Land Allocation (acres)

Logging System LSR AMA RR1 Total1

Helicopter/prebunching (HP) 15 44 0 59

Helicopter yarding (H) 103 79 0 182

2 87 Designated skip areas (no thinning) (SKIP) 85 2 0

Subtotal – potential treatment acres 1322 516 0 1838

Riparian Reserve is an overlay on all land allocations, and does not contribute to the sum of potential treatment acres. 2 Skips are included as part of total treatment acres.

Temporary and specified road development Alternative C includes a total of approximately 13.1 total miles of road development. Of this total, about 0.6 miles are within RRs. Field reconnaissance has identified approximately 10.5 miles of unclassified or abandoned roads, 1.2 miles of decommissioned roads for reconstruction, and construction of about 1.4 miles of new road. Of the 13.1 miles of developed road or existing roadbed, a total of 11.1 miles will be added to the National Forest System road as ML 1 roads. The remaining 2.0 miles of road developed will be decommissioned following project completion. See tables 2-2 through 2-4 for summaries of proposed temporary road development by road type for Alternative C and section 2.4.2 for a detailed description of proposed road closure and decommissioning actions. (See Appendix A, Table A-1 for a list of road segments proposed for development). System road use – log haul Miles of log haul routes for Alternative C are reduced compared to Alternative B with a total of about 64 miles of roads used for haul, 11 miles of which are ML1 roads that would be reopened for log haul and closed after use. (See Appendix A, Table A-2 for a list of system roads used for log haul).

Helicopter landings Alternative C includes up to 14 proposed helicopter landing sites to accommodate the units proposed for helicopter yarding. To allow for safe operations within the landing, each helicopter landing would entail the clearing of approximately one acre. Landings designated as service landings may be smaller.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Rock sources Rock source (Table A-3, Appendix A) development for Alternative C is the same as that proposed for Alternative B.

Summary of Proposed Vegetation Treatment The proposed vegetation treatment design for Alternative C is the same as the treatment described for Alternative B. Additional Restoration and Improvement Projects The proposed additional restoration and improvement projects are the same for Alternative C is the same as those described for Alternative B. 2.4.4 Alternative D Maximizing Economic Viability Alternative D was developed in response to the key issue of maximizing the economics of the restoration project. This Alternative differs from Alternatives B and C in the number of helicopter yarding units, stands less than 43 years of age, and those units which include the high expense of road building or reconstruction. Alternative D includes approximately 3,395 acres of commercial thinning treatments. Proposed logging systems include ground-based skidding and cable yarding. Alternative D includes 109 acres of pre-designated skips, which would receive no thinning treatment. The table below displays a summary of treatment acres, logging systems, and land management allocations for Alternative D. Table 2-7. Alternative D - Summary of proposed treatment acres by logging system and land management allocation Land Allocation Logging System LSR AMA RR1 Total Ground-based yarding (G) 228 698 255 926 Cable yarding (C) 1972 333 935 2305 Cable yarding – downhill (DC) 55 0 13 55 Helicopter/prebunching (HP) 0 0 0 0 Helicopter yarding (H) 0 0 0 0 Designated skip areas (no thinning) 94 15 43 109 (SKIP)2

Subtotal – potential treatment acres 2349 1046 1245 3395

1RR overlies all other land allocations. 2 Skips are included as part of total treatment acres.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Although 3,395 acres are designated for thinning, skips and the riparian and other resource protection buffers described in the project design criteria section of this chapter would decrease the number of acres that would actually be thinned by approximately 25 to 30 percent. Multi-span cable logging system limitations may further decrease the number of acres operationally accessible (and economically feasible) for thinning. Temporary and specified road development Alternative D includes a total of approximately 17.0 total miles of road development. Of this total, approximately 2.6 miles are in within RRs. Field reconnaissance has identified approximately 17.0 miles of unclassified or abandoned roads, 1.2 miles of decommissioned roads for reconstruction, and construction of about 1.9 miles of new road. Of the 17.0 miles of developed road or existing roadbed, a total of 13.8 miles will be added to the National Forest System road as ML 1 roads for future reentry. The remaining 6.2 miles of road developed will be decommissioned following project completion. See tables 2-2 through 2- 4 for summaries of proposed temporary road development by road type for Alternative D and section 2.4.2 for a detailed description of proposed road closure and decommissioning actions. (See Appendix A, Table A-1 for a list of road segments proposed for development). System road use – log haul Log haul routes for Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C with a total of 68 miles of roads used for haul, 15 miles of which are ML1 roads that would be reopened for log haul and closed after use. (See Appendix A, Table A-2 for a list of system roads used for log haul). Helicopter landings Alternative D does not include any helicopter landing sites. Rock sources Rock source development for Alternative D is the same as that proposed for Alternative B and C. Summary of Proposed Vegetation Treatment The proposed vegetation treatment design for Alternative D is the same as the treatment described for Alternative B and C. Additional Restoration and Improvement Projects The proposed additional restoration and improvement projects are the same for Alternative D is the same as those described for Alternative B.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2.5 Summary of Alternatives The following tables provide a summary for all alternatives.

Table 2-8. All Alternatives- Summary of Management Area by Land Type. Alternative

Type of Land Management Allocation B C D

AMA 1195 519 1045

LSR 3919 1854 2397

RR 1958 0.57 1275

Table 2-9. Comparison of proposed logging system acres by action alternative.

Alt B Acres Alt C Acres Alt D Acres Logging system LSR RR AMA LSR RR AMA LSR RR AMA Ground-based 290 273 698 145 0 263 228 255 698 skidding (G) Cable yarding (C) 2888 1374 482 946 0 128 1971 935 333 Cable yarding – 55 13 0 28 0 0 55 13 0 downhill (DC) Helicopter/prebu 32 10 0 15 0 44 0 0 0 nching (HP) Helicopter 396 166 0 102 0 79 0 0 0 yarding (H) Designated skips 148 59 15 85 0 2 94 43 15 (SKIP) Total – (potential 3810 1895 1195 1321 0 516 2349 124 1046 acres treated) 5

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-10. Comparison of proposed temporary and specified road development in RR by action alternative

Alt B Alt C Alt D Type of road construction Miles in RR Miles in RR Miles in RR

Reconstruction of existing 2.83 0.4 2.5 unclassified road Reconstruction of existing 0.07 0 0.1 decommissioned road New temporary road 0.1 0 0.1 construction Reconstruction of existing unclassified road as 0 0 0 specified road (UC/Spec) Total proposed road 3.0 0 2.7 development in RR

2.6 Project Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices Project Design Criteria (PDC), mitigation measures (MMs), and best management practices (BMPs) are management requirements developed to address potential for adverse effects associated with the activities in the action alternatives. They are based on law, policy, and the professional judgment of the resource specialists on the IDT. They apply project-wide. They are embedded in the silvicultural prescription, the design and implementation of the treatments and associated activities, and in the physical layout of the project on the ground. All analyses of environmental effects in chapter 3 of this EA presume that these requirements are implemented wherever they are applicable. While they are generally arranged here by resource area, some of these requirements and restrictions intentionally serve multiple purposes: for instance, riparian no-cut buffers protect water quality (fisheries) as well as habitat for amphibians (wildlife); leaving CWD in place protects lichens and mosses (botany), habitat for terrestrial mollusks and small rodents (wildlife), and site productivity (soils and silviculture). To avoid repetition, each requirement is described only once. All logging activities will be approved by the Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator. Where there are site-specific uncertainties about the applicability of a restriction, an appropriate Forest Service specialist will be consulted. Any request for modification to a project design criterion is subject to approval by the District Ranger and Timber Sale Contracting Officer, in consultation with appropriate resource specialists.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2.6.1 Riparian no-cut buffers The objective of the no-cut riparian buffers is to retain riparian vegetation to provide shade to maintain or improve stream temperatures, minimize soil erosion, protect riparian vegetation, and provide protection for aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Buffer distances are measured along the slope. The appropriate Forest Service watershed specialist, botanist, or wildlife biologist will be consulted to determine riparian and wetland buffer location at layout stage. Table 2-11. Riparian no-cut buffer widths (measures apply to all alternatives)

Landscape feature Minimum no-cut buffer width STREAMS: Streams are defined as an area with a flowing body of water confined within a bed and banks. Those areas that may not contain flowing water at time of delineation but have the characteristics of a bed, bank, and visible scour within a channel are also classified as streams. Matheny Creek, and 200 feet, measured from outer edge of the channel North Fork and Middle migration zone on either side of channel. Fork Salmon River mainstems All other fish-bearing 100 feet, measured from the outer edge of the streams (includes streambank. intermittent fish-bearing streams). EXCEPTIONS for Units A1, A2, A4, A9: 50 feet, measured from the outer edge of the streambank, or to the top of the slope break, whichever distance is greater. Non-fish-bearing 50 feet, measured from the outer edge of the perennial, intermittent, streambank, or to the top of the slope break, and ephemeral streams whichever distance is greater.

LAKES, NATURAL PONDS, WETLANDS: The riparian area surrounding a lake, pond, or wetland includes the body of water (if any), and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of perennially saturated edge of lake, pond, or wetland. Lakes and natural ponds Riparian area or 300 feet from edge of waterbody, whichever is greater.

Wetlands greater than Riparian area or 150 feet from edge of wetland, 1.0 acre whichever is greater.

Wetlands 0.5 to 1.0 acre Riparian area or 100 feet from edge of wetland, whichever is greater.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-11. Riparian no-cut buffer widths (measures apply to all alternatives)

Landscape feature Minimum no-cut buffer width Perennial wet areas less 30 feet from edge of perennially wet area. than 0.5 acres, including seeps and springs Directionally fell trees away from these features. Upon review by a watershed specialist, the no-cut buffer width may be waived or modified to allow use of ground based equipment with appropriate protection (corduroy logs, slash placement). LANDFORMS: Potentially unstable areas based on landform, signs of instability, and history of disturbance. Headwall, inner gorge, 25 feet upslope from a major slope break that defines or potential unstable a headwall, inner gorge, or potential unstable area. areas

Unstable landforms: 25 feet upslope from the boundary of the unstable Escarpments (Ecological landform. Unstable landforms will be field verified by Unit Inventory (EUI) a watershed specialist during layout. Ecounit 663X7); Mountain Headwalls (EUI Ecounits 751K4 and 762K4); Geomorphic Map Units (GMUs) 77, 78, 90, and 91; and portions of GMUs 26, 33, 53, also 71 and 72 that are within 100 feet of stream channels.

2.6.2 Wildlife and wildlife habitat These criteria are in place to protect and benefit marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, cavity nesters, amphibians, and other wildlife species. Some of the criteria protect specific habitat structures, and some are intended to minimize the potential for disturbance during nesting and breeding seasons. The following criteria apply to all action alternatives, B, C, and D.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-12. Protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature Description Management requirement Suitable nest SNTs (individual trees with potential  No-thin buffer that includes the trees (SNTs) nesting platforms) are defined as SNT and all trees with for marbled having: a minimum of 25 inches in DBH; intermingling branches. murrelet in one branch at least 4 inches in diameter  No yarding or skidding through stands that and at a height of 33 feet or higher on buffer. have been the tree; a relatively flat surface on the  If SNTs outside of thinning unit surveyed for branch at least 4 inches in diameter need to be used as anchor trees, SNTs (The that can function as a platform and may then a Forest Service wildlife following units or may not have some amount of moss biologist should be consulted. were or lichen, mistletoe, witch’s broom, surveyed: A7, and/or other deformities; some degree B1, B5, B6, B8, of cover to the potential nesting B9, B10, B13, platforms that is provided by adjacent B20, B30, C6, trees. C11, C14, C15, C16, D7, D8, D9, D14, D15, and D16.) Potential SNTs Conifer trees over 25” DBH in stands No-thin buffer that includes the tree in stands that that have not been surveyed for SNTs. and all trees with intermingling have not been branches. surveyed for SNTs Suitable nest SNTs for northern spotted owls are defined  During the process to approve the trees (SNTs) for as being located in suitable nesting, location for temporary road D16-3, spotted owls roosting, or foraging habitat; being a the Wildlife Biologist and Silviculturist associated with conifer (alive or dead); being at least 18” will be consulted. proposed dbh; and a) either containing some kind of  All construction associated with this temporary road nesting structure (broken top, cavity, nest temporary road will be conducted D16-3 of a large raptor, mistletoe broom, or October 1-February 28, so that it branch platform large enough to support a takes place outside the spotted owl spotted owl nest), or b) being situated such breeding season. that it cannot be seen well enough to determine whether it contains such a nesting structure.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-12. Protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature Description Management requirement Legacy Trees Legacy trees are defined as having at  No-thin buffer that includes the least three of the following SNT and all trees with characteristics: 30-inch or greater DBH; intermingling branches. deeply furrowed bark (applicable to  Yarding and skidding may occur Douglas-fir only); one or more branches within buffer but should be 3 inches or greater in diameter; avoided if possible. substantially (at least 25% or more)  If legacy trees outside of thinning more crown cover than adjacent trees; unit need to be used as anchor one or more dead tops or multiple live trees, then a Forest Service wildlife tops; platforms of mistletoe (western biologist should be consulted. hemlock); platforms from epicormic branching (Douglas-fir). Legacy Snags Standing dead trees that are 30 inches Legacy snags will be retained or greater in diameter and 12 feet tall wherever possible and, where or taller. necessary for worker safety, will be given a no-cut buffer of 1.5 times the height of the snag. Microhabitats Seeps/springs, vine maple patches, Use skips to protect unique habitat patches of other minor tree species, patches. Avoid equipment entry into rocky areas all provide diversity for a these areas. variety of species.* Suitable Coniferous forest mapped as "suitable No harvest of suitable spotted Habitat habitat" and/or forest stands that meet owl/murrelet nesting habitat in late-successional characteristics (large areas of temporary road or trees and logs, multiple canopies, high helicopter landing locations, or any amount of canopy cover, etc.) other areas related to harvest activity of second-growth stands Suitable Suitable habitat adjacent to thinning No gaps, heavy thins, or new road habitat unit boundaries construction will occur within 100 feet of suitable habitat edge. Where the boundary between suitable habitat and the thinning unit is an existing system road, new temporary road construction into the thinning unit will be allowed.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-12. Protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature Description Management requirement Suitable Suitable habitat adjacent to thinning In all cases where thinning or road habitat unit boundaries construction activities take place within harassment distance (110 yards) of suitable habitat during the breeding season, there will be two-hour daily restrictions (for marbled murrelets) between April 1 and August 6: work may not commence until two hours after sunrise, and must cease two hours before sunset.

Individual Adult or young spotted owls or marbled If any individual spotted owl or spotted owls murrelets observed during project marbled murrelet is observed during or marbled operations. project operations, a Forest Service murrelets wildlife biologist will be notified and measures to minimize or eliminate harassment will be applied.

Marbled To minimize nest predation by corvids Contractors and other project murrelets (crows, ravens, jays). workers will properly store and dispose of food and garbage while working on site.

Coarse Existing dead and down wood on the CWD may be moved for access, Woody Debris forest floor exceeding 30 inches in however disturbance should be (CWD) diameter. minimized. Big, old stumps will be kept intact and not uprooted wherever possible. Fisher The fisher denning season is March 15 Timber harvest units and/or Denning to May 31. associated activities identified for Season operational restructions will be identified on the timber sale area map for areas of avoidance (0.25 miles) if known fisher dens are located. *A patch is defined as a relatively homogeneous (uniform in composition or character) area that differs from its surroundings.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2.6.3 Botany and invasive plants Sensitive plant occurrences Several occurrences of the sensitive moss Iwatsukiella leucotricha were located on host trees throughout the planning area. The criterion below is designed to protect the host trees and the moss inhabiting them, and to increase the possibility of dispersal and establishment of I. leucotricha onto adjacent substrates and adjacent forest stands. Erythronium quinaultense (Quinault fawn lily) was also found in several units. The management requirements outlined below are intended to protect or enhance areas where this species is known to occur. Table 2-13. Measures to protect sensitive plant species (measures apply to all alternatives)

Sensitive plant location Management requirement Iwatsukiella leucotricha  125’ radius no-cut and no equipment entry buffer around host sites trees. Marked host trees will not be cut or damaged.  125’ buffers will be eliminated downslope of system roads that are currently maintained and drivable when the host tree is located upslope from that road.  Clearing may occur within 125’ buffer around host tree within the road prism where existing system, existing temporary, or new temporary roads bisect the buffer. Cutting or damaging silver fir over 8” DBH will be avoided whenever possible during clearing within the road prism. Unavoidable silver fir over 8” DBH that is cut will be left on site. Marked host trees will not be cut or damaged. At locations where the new temporary road passes very close to a host tree, a Forest Service Botanist will tag specific trees that should be avoided, and the road will be routed as far from the host tree as possible.  In cases where there are multiple host trees located along a ridge top within units, the 125’ buffer around the host tree still applies, but the area along the ridge top outside of these buffers will either receive no heavy thinning and no gaps will be created, or skipped altogether. Erythronium  All of unit B63, D9 east of the 2140 road, and a portion of D7 quinaultense (Quinault have been dropped from the proposed project. fawn lily) sites  Carefully planned thinning will occur in D16 within Quinault fawn lily populations with the intent of improving habitat for this species. The response of Quinault fawn lily to thinning will be monitored to determine how to best manage this species in the future.  Reconstruction of the 2190170 road is limited to Sept 24 – Oct 31.  Harvest and ground disturbing activities in unit D16 may only

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

occur between Sept 24 – Feb 28.  Areas adjacent to current rock sources where it is likely Quinault fawn lily occurs will be surveyed prior to development to determine if this species is present.

Invasive plant infestations There are many known infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds in the project area. The following design criteria and mitigation measures are designed to prevent the spread of existing infestations in the vicinity of project activities, and to prevent the introduction and spread of new infestations. They are drawn from the ONF’s 2008 Environmental Impact Statement and ROD – Beyond Prevention: Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment (USDA Forest Service 2008)

Table 2-14. Measures to prevent introduction and spread of invasive plant infestations (measures apply to all alternatives)

Activity Management requirement Treat existing Treat existing invasive plant infestations with appropriate herbicide, infestations mechanical, or manual methods before ground disturbing activities begin when practical. If timing or resources prevent treatment before the project begins, then treat infestations in the project area upon completion of the project in order to prevent invasive plants from colonizing the disturbed ground. Equipment Clean all off-road equipment of dirt/mud, seeds, and other plant parts cleaning before it is moved onto National Forest Service land. If operating in an area infested with invasive plants, clean all equipment before moving between sites or leaving the project area. For cleaning equipment on Forest Service land, the Contractor and Forest Service shall agree on methods of cleaning, locations of the cleaning, and control of off-site impacts, if any. ‘Off-road equipment’ includes all machinery other than log trucks, chip vans, pickup trucks or vehicles used to transport personnel on a daily basis. Work/travel in Forest Service shall flag locations of high priority invasive plant infestations infested areas prior to work commencing and provide the contractor with a map of these locations. These areas shall be avoided during work and travel associated with the project unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer. If directed to work in infested area, the contractor shall be required to prevent spreading the infestation into un-infested areas by cleaning vehicles and equipment.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-14. Measures to prevent introduction and spread of invasive plant infestations (measures apply to all alternatives)

Activity Management requirement Weed-free All material (e.g. soil, gravel, sand borrow, aggregate, etc.) transported onto material, both National Forest System land or incorporated into the work shall be weed- Government- free. The Contracting Officer may request written documentation of and Contractor- methods used to determine the weed-free status of any and all materials provided furnished by the contractor. Contractor-provided expertise and methods to establish weed-free status must be appropriate for the weeds on the current Washington State noxious weed list (www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_list/weed_list.htm). A Forest Service weed specialist shall inspect proposed sources to determine weed-free status. The contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer written notification of proposed material sources 14 days prior to use. If weed species are present in the proposed source, appropriate mitigation measures may allow conditional use of the source as required by the Contracting Officer. Disposal of Fill material generated from the project site, containing or suspected to infested fill contain invasive plants, shall be stockpiled within the project area and as close to the infested source area as possible. The material shall not be broadcast for disposal. Weed-free Mulch used on the project shall be weed-free. The Contracting Officer may mulch request written documentation of methods used to determine the weed- free status of any and all materials furnished by the contractor. Contractor- provided expertise and methods to establish weed-free status must be appropriate for the weeds on the current Washington State noxious weed list (www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_list/weed_list.htm). (Refer to the North American Weed Free Forage Program standards, Regional EIS, Appendix O) Weed-free seed Seed used in the project shall be weed-free and meet state and local noxious weed laws. Plant native Give priority to seed mixes and plantings with local native species. species

2.6.4 Heritage and archaeological sites No eligible historic properties were found within the Area of Potential Effect for this project. These criteria are designed to protect previously undiscovered important archaeological, historical, and cultural sites from potential damage associated with project activities. Table 2-15. Measures to protect heritage sites (measures apply to all alternatives)

Heritage feature Management requirements

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-15. Measures to protect heritage sites (measures apply to all alternatives)

Heritage feature Management requirements Previously undetected If subsurface archaeological evidence or previously unidentified archaeological, historical, or cultural resources are located during implementation of the cultural resources project, activities will cease pending an evaluation of cultural eligibility by a qualified Forest Service archaeologist, who will determine appropriate mitigation measures. The Forest will fulfill its consultation requirements in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11.

2.6.5 Fire and fuels – activity-generated slash These project design criteria will serve to reduce the risk of a potential ignition and allow adequate response times for local initial resources to contain fires while they are still small. Options for slash treatment include hauling activity fuels back into the units and scattering or piling for habitat structures; hand piling fuels within the buffer strip for burning at a later date; or piling slash on landings by machine for burning at a later date. Table 2-16. Measures to treat project-generated fuels (slash) (measures apply to all alternatives)

Fuels consideration PDCs, MMs, BMPs Open roadways A 100-foot slope distance fuels pull-back buffer strip will be created along all affected roadways that are left open to the public after the project has been completed. This includes road-adjacent turnouts and landings used for the project. Surface fuel conditions within the buffer strip will resemble pre-thinning conditions. No-cut resource No fuel treatments will occur in no-cut buffers within units. protection buffers within units Riparian areas Fuel treatments will be designed to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and to minimize disturbance to riparian vegetation. Machine and helicopter Piles of slash created on machine and helicopter landings should be landings placed as far as possible from surrounding forest vegetation so as to reduce the risk of causing any damage to the forest when they are burned.

2.6.6 Aquatics – fisheries, soils, hydrology, and water quality These measures are designed to provide protection of fish, soil, and water resources. They cover activities associated with construction, use, and rehabilitation of roads, landings, and skid trails; and logging system equipment use. Many of these measures are standard practices or are

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project contained in standard timber sale contract language. They apply to all action alternatives except where noted. Table 2-17. Project Criteria – Hydraulic requirements for all road construction (measures apply to all alternatives)

Activity Requirement Hydraulic Project activities will follow all applicable provisions of the Memorandum of projects Understanding (MOU) between the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, regarding hydraulic projects conducted by USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (2012). Follow all applicable general and project-specific provisions found in Appendix A of the MOU. Instream work All instream work would occur between August 1 and August 15. Other timing may be allowed on a site-specific basis if the Forest Service Fisheries Biologist and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife agree that it would not be harmful to fish and fish habitat. De-watering An approved written de-watering plan is required before instream work can proceed. A Forest Service fisheries biologist should be contacted to review the plan as part of the approval process. Wetlands Construction of new roads that intersect wetlands of any size is not allowed. Reconstruction of existing system roads or unclassified roads must be reviewed by a watershed and wildlife specialist if placement or removal of fill would encroach on a wetland. Temporary Temporary culverts are instream culverts installed to accommodate a single culverts season of work, and are to be removed prior to the onset of high flows. They are not required to meet Q100 criteria, and shall only remain in place between August 1 and August 15, or as agreed upon by the Forest Service Fisheries Biologist and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Table 2-18. Project Criteria – Reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of existing system roads (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature Requirement Ditch relief Additional ditch relief culverts will be installed as needed to divert runoff culverts away from stream channels. Cutslope Cutslope vegetation will be maintained to reduce soil erosion, ditch plugging, vegetation road maintenance and impacts to water quality. Unstable Unstable sidecast located along fillslopes that are within harvest units and sidecast near landings will be stabilized and/or hauled to stable waste disposal area to the extent feasible. Sidecast of Sidecasting of waste material along fillslopes and ditchlines is prohibited. waste material

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-18. Project Criteria – Reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of existing system roads (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature Requirement Timing of All ML1 and specified road reconstruction will occur during the summer reconstruction season: from June 1 through October 31 unless otherwise agreed. of ML1 and specified roads

Table 2-19. Project Criteria – Log haul (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Road drainage Aggregate and unsurfaced road surfaces used for log haul will be bladed and cross-drained as outlined under contract provision C(T)5.31#. Ditches and culvert inlets will be kept free of debris. Erosion control To minimize the amount of sediment delivered to streams along the haul route, sediment filters (including but not limited to straw wattles, slash filter windrow, and/or sediment fence) will be placed in ditchlines along the haul route in areas where ground is disturbed and sediment has the potential for delivery to streams (i.e. stream crossing fills). Sediment filters will be maintained and adjusted as directed by the Sale Administrator. Removal of sediment filters will be done when site conditions are dry, and captured sediment will be relocated to a stable location away from streamcourses. Wet conditions Weather conditions will be monitored, and log haul temporarily suspended during prolonged periods of precipitation when soil moisture becomes elevated and there is a high likelihood of sediment being delivered to streamcourses. If maintenance cannot be performed adequately due to weather, haul will be discontinued until conditions improve. Freezing Log haul on surfaced and un-surfaced roads will be allowed during freezing conditions conditions, but will be suspended as roads begin to thaw. Purchaser will work with Forest Service Engineering Representative to develop standards for checking thaw. Snow plowing Plowing of snow will be permitted as needed, if the T-803 Snow Removal requirements are met.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-19. Project Criteria – Log haul (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Winter For winter maintenance on surfaced and un-surfaced roads, ditches will not maintenance be bladed past the last cross-drain before a stream crossing. Winter erosion If the purchaser’s plan of operations includes log haul between November 1 control and May 31, the Sale Administrator and a Forest Service watershed specialist or fish biologist will review and approve the purchaser’s plan to prevent sediment from entering stream channels. This may include, but is not limited to, placing additional road surfacing, rock armoring ditches, constructing silt fencing, and straw mulching exposed soils along cutbanks and fillslopes.

Table 2-20. Project Criteria – Location, construction, and use of temporary roads, log landings, and helicopter landing sites (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Timing of All temporary road and helicopter landing site construction will occur during temporary the summer season: from June 1 through October 31 unless otherwise road and agreed. helicopter landing construction Temporary Temporary road locations shall be approved by the Sale Administrator prior to road location construction. approval Temporary New temporary roads will be located and designed to minimize disruption to road location hydrologic flows by following the contour of the terrain; minimizing clearing limits (generally no more than 16 feet on level ground, 20 feet for curves, slightly more for steeper grades); minimizing excavation of cutslopes and fillslopes; and routing road drainage away from potentially unstable hillslopes, sidecast fillslopes and channels. Potentially Roads that are located in potentially unstable areas and/or have potentially unstable areas unstable sidecast fillslopes will have additional emphasis on road drainage or sidecast and stabilization.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-20. Project Criteria – Location, construction, and use of temporary roads, log landings, and helicopter landing sites (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Road Stabilization measures will be required if a temporary road is in place for stabilization more than one year. Cross-drains or Prior to the wet season, cross-drains or waterbars will be installed waterbars approximately every 150 feet, or more frequently where slopes exceed 5 percent. Unstable Construction or reconstruction of temporary roads and landings within or landforms directly adjacent to potentially unstable landforms will be assessed on the ground by a Forest Service geotechnical engineer or soils scientist prior to approval by the Sale Administrator. Failing culverts Existing culverts on unclassified roads that are not functioning, or whose use for log haul in the current condition may impact water quality, will be replaced as necessary. Wet conditions If roads are left open through extended wet weather, erosion and sedimentation control measures will be maintained. Spot rocking will be used as needed to reduce off-site erosion and sedimentation risk. Helicopter All helicopter landing site locations will be approved by the Sale Administrator landing prior to construction. Existing landings will be reused where possible. location approval Helicopter New helicopter landing sites will be limited to one acre in size. Some landing size vegetation may need to be removed outside of this one-acre area to facilitate flight paths and safe operating procedures Helicopter If landing sites must be located within Riparian Reserves, they will be placed landing on existing roadways or on existing landings that require only minimum location in reconstruction (e.g., clearing vegetation, sloping for drainage, or surfacing for riparian erosion control purposes) to be made suitable for use. reserves Helicopter and Helicopter and log landings will not be located within or adjacent to log landing designated riparian no-cut buffers. location Helicopter and Skyline/cable and helicopter landings will be placed in areas away from log landing streamcourses, wet areas, and unstable soils. Short landing extensions may location – wet be used to reduce and control potential runoff. areas

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-21. Project Criteria – Rehabilitation of unclassified roads, temporary roads, skid trails, & landings (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Rehabilitation All temporary roads (including existing unclassified roads used for the project) of temporary will be scarified as necessary to improve water infiltration and restore soil roads after use productivity. Available logging slash will be placed across the decompacted surface. Timing of All temporary road and helicopter landing rehabilitation will occur during the Rehabilitation summer season: from June 1 through October 31, unless otherwise agreed. Skid trail Skid trails will be rehabilitated as needed to restore long term soil rehabilitation productivity. The Sale Administrator will collaborate with the soil scientist to determine skid trail rehabilitation prescriptions. Culverts and All culverts and all road fills within wet areas will be removed and stream fills bank profiles reestablished to restore hydrologic function. Culvert Culverts removed from stream crossings and ditches will be transported off removal forest by the contractor. Cross-drains or Waterbars or cross ditches will be installed as needed to control drainage. waterbars Potentially Road surfaces in potentially unstable landforms will be scarified and unstable outsloped as needed. All sidecast material will be removed and placed in a landforms stable location. Unauthorized Post-harvest motorized access to all temporary roads and landings will be motorized prevented by construction of an approved closure device (e.g., earth berm, access large boulder placement and planting of native materials). Revegetation Road surfaces would be revegetated with appropriate native or specified non- native grass seed and/or native shrub and tree seedlings as needed. Acceptable seed types, types of weed free mulch, and application rates will be determined by the Forest Service.

Table 2-22. Project Criteria – Construction and storage of new system roads (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Timing of road All road construction and storage treatments on new system roads will occur during construction the summer season: from June 1 through October 31 unless otherwise agreed. and storage treatments

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-22. Project Criteria – Construction and storage of new system roads (measures apply to all alternatives)

Feature or Requirement activity Road location New system roads will be located and designed to minimize disruption to hydrologic flows by following the contour of the terrain; minimizing excavation of cutslopes and fillslopes; and routing road drainage away from potentially unstable hillslopes, and stream channels.

New system roads will not be located within or immediately adjacent to riparian no- cut buffers. Unstable Construction of new system roads within or directly adjacent to potentially unstable landforms landforms will be assessed on the ground by a Forest Service geotechnical engineer or soils scientist prior to implementation.

New system roads that are located in potentially unstable areas will have additional emphasis on road drainage and stabilization. Ditch relief Ditch relief culverts will be installed as needed to divert runoff away from stream culverts channels. Storage of new All new system roads constructed to access timber sales will closed to vehicle traffic system roads and placed in storage (ML1) when the timber sale is complete. after use Stream crossing To restore hydrology and protect water quality, all culverts on perennial or culverts intermittent streams and associated fills will be removed when the road is placed in storage (ML1). Waterbars To restore hydrology on stored roads, waterbars will be installed approximately every 150 feet, or more frequently where slopes exceed 5 percent.

Waterbars will be installed immediately adjacent to any ditch relief culverts that are left in place. Motor vehicle Stored roads will be blocked to discourage motor vehicle access. access

Table 2-23. Measures for protection of soils and soil productivity – ground-based skidding (measures apply to all alternatives)

Activity or Management requirement condition Ground-based Ground-based skidding operations will be designed and implemented to skidding minimize the extent and degree of detrimental soil disturbance. When soil conditions are such that operation of conventional ground-based equipment would result in extensive deep rutting in mineral soil, creating areas of standing water, loss of soil structure, and/or complete displacement of

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-23. Measures for protection of soils and soil productivity – ground-based skidding (measures apply to all alternatives)

Activity or Management requirement condition topsoil*, operations will be restricted to methods that minimize compaction, displacement and rutting, (such as placing slash in the skid trails), or operations will be postponed until conditions improve such that yarding may proceed without causing excessive soil compaction, displacement, and rutting and the long-term impacts to soil productivity and moisture absorption capacity that can result. *These impacts would generally be consistent with Soil Disturbance Class 3 in the USDA Forest Service Soil Disturbance Field Guide (Napper et al., 2009). Soil Ground-based skidding activities would create some low-level Soil Disturbance disturbance Class 3 impacts throughout most primary and secondary skid trails. Excessive soil impacts such as rutting greater than 12 inches deep in mineral soil, creating areas of standing water, deep puddling, or total removal of the topsoil layer* would potentially occur, but this degree of soil impact would be rare and limited to small, isolated areas. *These impacts would generally be consistent with Soil Disturbance Class 3 in the USDA Forest Service Soil Disturbance Field Guide (Napper et al., 2009). Detrimental Detrimental soil conditions resulting from previous and current logging soil conditions activity will not exceed 20 percent of the area of any individual harvest unit, including roads and landings. If detrimental soil conditions from previous logging activity exceed 20 percent of the unit area, the amount of area in detrimental soil condition will not be increased. Skid trail Operation of ground-based yarding and skidding equipment will generally be approval restricted to authorized skid trails. Equipment may be allowed to operate off of designated skid trails occasionally to resolve operational issues. These instances would be rare and will be limited to a single out and back pass by a single piece of equipment. Reuse of Existing skid trails and landings from prior harvest will be used to the extent existing skid feasible unless unacceptable resource damage would result due to location or trails site conditions. Operating on Operation of conventional ground-based skidding equipment will be restricted steep slopes to sustained slopes that are 30 percent or less. Equipment Operation of ground-based skidding equipment will be restricted within 30 exclusion zone feet of harvest unit boundaries. This will provide additional protection where riparian no-cut buffers serve as harvest unit boundaries.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2.6.7 Monitoring Post-harvest monitoring would be conducted to evaluate reforestation needs for created gaps, temporary roads, landings, and locations of windthrow (if windthrow occurs). Where there would be insufficient natural reseeding, or where resource concerns warrant, reforestation will be accomplished with an appropriate mix of native tree species.

All units and roads with ground-disturbing operations in invasive plant-infested areas would be monitored at least once within two years following completion of thinning activities. Any new infestations of concern would be treated in accordance with the 2008 invasive plant treatment EIS (USDA 2008).

Other project-related monitoring is discussed in the individual resource sections in chapter 3. 2.6.8 Operating Seasons and Seasonal Restrictions Seasonal operating restrictions are imposed for resource protection.

Road construction In order to provide maximum protection to water quality and soil productivity, road construction activities will occur during the dry summer months, from June 1 through October 31. This includes rehabilitation of temporary roads. This restriction applies to all three action alternatives.

Wildlife priority Operating seasons are driven primarily by the need to prevent or minimize the potential for harassment to northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets during the combined breeding season for both species from March 1 through September 23. Stands were rated as having “high” (H), “medium” (M), or “low” (L) priority for seasonal restrictions based on: 1) proximity to current owl activity centers or mapped marbled murrelet sites; 2) proximity to inventoried roadless areas or relatively large contiguous blocks of suitable habitat, and to Matheny Creek (for murrelets); and 3) adjacency to a relatively low and/or fragmented amount of suitable habitat and private land. The final product taking into account the different resource concerns, including soils and fisheries values, is shown in Table 2-24 below, which lists the operating period for each unit. Note that some units are mentioned twice due to different logging systems (resulting in different impacts) being used.

In all cases where thinning or road construction activities take place within harassment distance (110 yards) of suitable habitat during the breeding season, there will be two-hour daily restrictions (for marbled murrelets) between April 1 and September 23: work may not commence until two hours after sunrise, and must cease two hours before sunset.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Soils feasibility Units with soils considered to have the lowest feasibility for winter ground-based operations (highest risk of detrimental soil disturbance) were incorporated into the table below with operating period in summer months only (June 1 through October 31). Special attention to soil conditions would be necessary during wet weather operations in these units. If, during ground- based operations in wet weather, conditions become such that detrimental soil disturbance exceeds the thresholds described in Table 2-22, the Forest Service may require that operations be suspended until conditions improve or alternative methods or different equipment are proposed and approved.

Aquatic risk Units considered to have highest risk of sediment delivery are proposed for summer months only (June 1 to October 31) in the table below. Special attention to erosion control and drainage would be necessary during wet weather operations. If, during wet weather operations, the risk delivery of sediment to aquatic habitat from thinning operations or log haul becomes high, the Forest Service may require that operations be suspended until conditions improve or alternative methods or different equipment are proposed and approved.

The table below shows unit-level operating seasons for all alternatives. Table 2-24. Operating periods for project work (felling and yarding operations) within the Queets project stands. Total acres for each operating period are displayed in bold.

Operating Period Queets Stands (divided by logging system)*

August 6-February 28 A16 (C, DC, G); A17 (C, DC); A47 ( C); A48 ( C); B20 ( C); B34 ( C); B35 (C, HP); B36 ( C); B37 ( C); B60 ( C); B62 ( C); C30 ( C); C32 ( C); C49 ( C); D14 ( C); D15 (C, G); D16 ( C); D17 ( C); D18 ( C); D20 (C, DC, G); D24 ( C); D25 ( C) 1,519 acres

June 1-October 31 A1 (G); A17 (G); A2 (G, C); A22 (G); A3 (G); A59 (G); A9 (G); B1 (G); B13 (G); B30 (G); B36 (G); B4 (G); B5 (G); B6 (G); B85 (G); C14 (G); C15 (G); C16 (DC); C17 (G); C28 (G); C49 (HP); D14 (DC) 721 acres

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-24. Operating periods for project work (felling and yarding operations) within the Queets project stands. Total acres for each operating period are displayed in bold.

Operating Period Queets Stands (divided by logging system)*

September 24- A2 ( C); A3 ( C); A33 (C, G); A4 (C, G); A6 (G); A7 (C, G); February 28 B10 (H); B13 (H); B30 (H); B35 (G); B42 ( C); B43 ( C); B5 ( C); B8 (C, G); B85 ( C); B9 (H); B91 ( C); C11 ( C); C15 ( C); C16 ( C); C17 ( C); C18 ( C); C26 ( C); C27 ( C); C28 (H, C); C43 ( C); C50 ( C); C51 ( C); C53 ( C); C54 ( C); C6 ( C); C86 ( C) 2,030 acres

Year-round A5 (G); B1 ( C); C14 (C, H); C15 (H); C16 (H); C17 (H); C18 (H); C52 ( C); C55 ( C); C6 (H); D7 ( C); D8 ( C); D9 (H, C) 574 acres

*C = Cable, DC = Downhill Cable, G = Ground, H = Helicopter, HP = Heli-processor

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2.6.9 Summary of Alternatives and Effects to Resources

Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives. Resource Area Alternative A (no Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D action) (proposed action) (water quality) (Economic benefit) Silviculture Total Acres proposed for thinning/ 0 5,005 1,839 3,395 acceleration of old-growth characteristics Acres proposed for thinning in AMA 0 1,195 516 1,046 Acres proposed for thinning in LSR 0 3,809 1,322 2,349 Acres proposed for thinning in Riparian 0 1,894 0 1,245 Reserve Acres proposed for thinning in fire- 0 0 0 0 regenerated stands / on Mt. Walker Acres proposed for ground-based 0 988 408 926 logging Acres proposed for cable logging 0 3,370 1,074 2,305 Acres proposed for downhill cable 0 55 28 55 logging Acres proposed for helicopter logging 0 32 59 0 (pre-bunched) Acres proposed for helicopter logging 0 396 182 0 Designated Skip Areas 0 163 87 109 Wildlife Northern spotted owl, northern Stands would remain in Allow for acceleration of Similar effect to Similar effects as alternative spotted owl designated critical habitat, early- or mid-seral development of 5,005 acres alternative B but B but with fewer benefits marbled conditions. Stands would of late successional/old with fewer benefits due to fewer acres treated. murrelet, and marbled murrelet continue to provide some growth conditions. due to fewer acres designated critical habitat snags and woody debris, treated. (ESA Effects determinations and and roosting and foraging analysis consulted on with the US Fish habitat for northern and Wildlife Service is included in the spotted owl. Development Biological Assessment for the project) of additional acreage of

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives. Resource Area Alternative A (no Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D action) (proposed action) (water quality) (Economic benefit) late successional/old growth conditions would be delayed and reduce opportunities for future nesting roosting and foraging habitat for spotted owls, and nesting for marbled murrelets. Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species Conditions would continue No impact to American Same as alternative Same as alternative B. effects along current trajectory. peregrine falcon, common B. loon, Olympic marmot, Olympic mazama pocket gopher and six butterflies: Taylor’s Checkerspot, Olympic Arctic, Golden Hairstreak, Valley Silverspot, Makah Copper, and Lupine Blue. The proposed activity may impact individual Pacific fisher, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Keen’s myotis, Olympic torrent salamander, and Van Dyke’s salamander, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to any populations or species. This impact would probably take the form of disturbance and/or displacement rather than direct mortality. Harlequin duck in the project area should be minimally

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Effects on Forest Service Sensitive/ Conditions would continue No impact to Hoko Vertigo Effects similar to Effects similar to Alternative Survey and Manage mollusks along current trajectory. snail. Negligible impacts to Alternative B. B. Puget Oregonian snails. Minimal impacts to Malone’s jumping slug , Keeled jumping slug spp., and blue-gray taildropper slug—may impact individuals but will not lead toward a trend of federal listing. Effects on Management Indicator Conditions would continue No negative effects to bald Effects similar to Effects similar to Alternative Species along current trajectory. eagles, negligible indirect Alternative B. B. impacts to foraging. Increase in habitat for cavity nesting birds, American marten, and eagles (in the long-term). Increase foraging habitat for deer and elk.

Effects on neotropical migratory birds Conditions would continue Effects to various species Effects similar to Effects similar to Alternative along current trajectory. present in the project area Alternative B. B. will be variable. Impact across the watershed as a whole is expected to be minimal (5,005 acres of treatment vs. 43,936 total project area acres). US Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Conditions would continue No effect on the Makah Effects similar to Effects similar to Alternative Concern along current trajectory. copper butterfly. Benefits to Alternative B. B. bat species, goshawks, olive-

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives. Resource Area Alternative A (no Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D action) (proposed action) (water quality) (Economic benefit) sided flycatchers. Short-term negative effects on western toads, if individuals are present. Effects to terrestrial (adult) Cascades frogs and tailed frogs would be unlikely due to no-cut riparian buffers. No need for conservation action for all species of concern. Roads Total miles of unclassified or 0 18.4 10.5 17.0 abandoned roads to be reconstructed Total miles of decommissioned roads to 0 1.4 1.2 1.2 be reconstruction Total miles of new road construction 0 2.4 1.4 1.9 Total miles of road development 0 22.2 13.1 20.1 Total miles added to the National Forest 0 16.0 11.1 13.8 system roads as ML 1 roads Total miles to be decommissioned after 0 6.2 2.0 6.2 project completion Total miles of new temporary road 0 0.5 0 0.5 constructed and decommissioned Total miles in RRs 0 1.7 0.6 2.6 Soil Risk to slope stability No Effect, current Upgrading of roads will Similar, but less Similar, but less beneficial instability would likely result in an increase in slope beneficial than than Alternative B. continue stability in some areas. Alternative B. Proportion of treatment units in Approximately 12% Approximately 16% Similar to Alternative Similar to Alternative B. detrimental soils condition B. Aquatic habitat and fisheries Temperature Conditions would continue No effect. No effect. No effect. along current trajectory. Sediment Conditions would continue Chance of short-term Similar to Alternative Similar to Alternative B. along current trajectory. sediment disbursement into B, but effects lesser the watershed will be due to less area

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives. Resource Area Alternative A (no Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D action) (proposed action) (water quality) (Economic benefit) reduced throughapplication treated. of best management practices and project design criteria are implemented prior to rain events will mediate these effects. Substrate embeddedness Conditions would continue No effect. No effect. No effect. along current trajectory. Pool quality Conditions would continue No effect. No effect. No effect. along current trajectory. Stream bank condition Conditions would continue No effect. No effect. No effect. along current trajectory. Drainage network increase Conditions would continue No effect. No effect. No effect. along current trajectory. Road density and location Conditions would continue This alternative would Similar to Alternative Similar to Alternative B. along current trajectory. increase the road density in B. the area. Best management practices, project design criteria, and mitigation measures would limitsediment disbursement into streams and the watershed. Riparian reserves Conditions would continue No effect due to stream No effect due to No effect due to stream along current trajectory. buffers (no cut) included in stream buffers (no buffers (no cut) included in project design criteria. cut) included in project design criteria. project design criteria. Forest Service Sensitive fish species Conditions would continue No effect No effect. No effect. effects along current trajectory. Effects to water quality Conditions would continue With best management Similar to Alternative Similar to Alternative B. along current trajectory. practices only some minor B. sediment would be introduced to the watershed and only as a local event.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives. Resource Area Alternative A (no Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D action) (proposed action) (water quality) (Economic benefit) The reconstruction of roads using modern development practices may actually increase the water quality to the project area. Cumulative effects to the watershed would be minimal with the application of best management practices, project design criteria, and mitigation measures, designation of appropriate operating seasons to minimize resource impacts. Botany Effects on federally listed vascular Conditions would continue No effect PDCs will mitigate No effect PDCs will No effect PDCs will mitigate plants, bryophytes, fungi, or lichen along current trajectory. effects to federally listed mitigate effects to effects to federally listed species species. federally listed species. species Effects on Sensitive/ Survey and Conditions would continue No effect. (No risk to species Effects same as those Effects same as those for Manage vascular plant species along current trajectory. viability or a trend toward for Alternative B. Alternative B. listing.) Effects on Sensitive/ Survey and Conditions would continue No effect. (No risk to species Effects same as those Effects same as those for Manage bryophytes (mosses and along current trajectory. viability or a trend toward for Alternative B. Alternative B. liverworts) listing.) Effects on Sensitive/ Survey and Conditions would continue No effect. (No risk to species Effects same as those Effects same as those for Manage fungi along current trajectory. viability or a trend toward for Alternative B. Alternative B. listing.) Effects on Sensitive/ Survey and Conditions would continue No effect. (No risk to species Same as Alternative Same as Alternative B. Manage lichen along current trajectory. viability or a trend toward B. listing.) Effects on Invasive Plants Existing infestations would Required mitigation and Same as Alternative Same as Alternative B. likely persist and continue project design criteria will B. to spread via future road provide positive results in management activities and preventing spread and

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 2-25. Summary comparison of alternatives. Resource Area Alternative A (no Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D action) (proposed action) (water quality) (Economic benefit) other Forest use, and treating existing would eventually extend infestations. beyond the project boundaries into adjacent areas. Recreation Impacts to recreation (access) No effect. Temporary effects to access Similar to Alternative Similar to Alternative B. in the area. B. Visual Quality Compliance with Forest Plan Visual No effect. Compliant with VQO Same as Alternative Same as Alternative B. Quality Objectives standards. B. Fire Changes to fire risk; probability of No effect. Fire risk will increase, due to Similar, but less slash Similar, but less slash wildfire increase in activity generated than generated than Alternative B generated slash, however Alternative B. due to normal climatic conditions, the probability of fire remains low in the project area. Economics MBF 0 72,640 26,288 49,188 Estimated value of wood products 0 $1,681,492 $131,440 $2,810,120 Net present value (value – cost) 0 $111,054 $324,609 $1,353,308 Benefit/cost ratio 0 1.09 0.24 2.70 Heritage Resources Effects on Heritage Resources No effect. No known effects on No known effects on No known effects on heritage resources heritage resources heritage resources

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter is organized by resource areas: silviculture and stand development, wildlife, botanical resources and invasive plants, soils and landslide risk, aquatic resources and fisheries, cultural resources, recreation and visual quality, fire and fuels, economic viability, and climate change. The chapter concludes with a summary of other effects and compliance with other law, regulation, and policy. Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and “indirect effects” are effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and… related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems”(40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative Effects “Cumulative effects” are defined in the White House Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations as the “impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions…” 40 CFR 1508.7. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) interprets this regulation as referring only to the cumulative impact of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives when added to the aggregate effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on all land ownerships across an area that is deemed appropriate for the impacts being analyzed. The analysis conducted for this project follows the “Guidance on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” issued by CEQ Chairman on June 24, 2005. The guidance states the expectation that agencies determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects and further notes that CEQ regulations do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions.Because the geographic area of consideration varies by resource, the analysis of cumulative effects for each resource may differ in temporal and spatial scale, as well as the activities that are considered in cumulative effects discussions for each resource. Actions planned or that are currently being implemented within the project area include:

 Matheny Complex Thinnning (DN/FONSI, 2006). Implementation is ongoing in some areas of the Queets watershed. 3.1 Silviculture and Stand Development 3.1.1 Affected Environment Of the approximately 44,000 acres in the planning area, 43,719 acres are within the Forest boundary and have the following age distribution in 2013; stands 34 years old or younger total

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

6,589 acres (15%), stands between 35 and 199 years of age total 13,211 acres (30%), and stands 200 years of age or older total 23,919 acres (55%). A total of 11,510 acres of stands 35 to 62 years in age (in 2013) were considered for a commercial thinning treatment. Stands were excluded from the Queets Commercial Thinning Project were primarily those stands with limited road access or those on relatively low productivity sites with delayed stand development. While the acreage proposed for treatment varies between alternatives, a maximum of 5,005 acres of dense, single-storied conifer stands are proposed for a commercial thinning treatment. The land management allocations designated by the ONF Forest Plan for the stands analyzed for the Queets Commercial Thinning Project include LSR, AMA and RR. Table B-1 in Appendix B displays the physical and administrative characteristics of the stands proposed for treatment. Given the age and current condition of stands included in this project, commercial thinning is supported by the 1994 ROD for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994, p. B-6) and by the Quinault North and Quinault South Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1996) as a beneficial activity which can be used to promote the development of late-successional characteristics and allow more rapid attainment of desired future conditions. Historic Disturbance and Previous Management Historic information was compiled from Total Resource Inventory (TRI) records, the Quinault North and Quinault South Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1996), the Sam’s River Watershed Analysis (USDA 1997), the Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995)and the Salmon River Watershed Analysis (QIN 2000). Historically, fire and wind were important disturbances on the landscape, and influenced stand structure and development. Unlike other regions of the Olympic Peninsula where fires were stand-replacing disturbances across large blocks of the landscape, historic fires within the planning area were relatively infrequent and small. Patches of stand-replacing disturbance were generally no larger than several hundred acres in size. Similarly, windstorms were typically not stand-replacing events over large areas. More frequently, these storms would create small openings dispersed across the landscape and remove single trees or small groups of trees across the larger area, increasing the complexity of affected stands. Over time, wind disturbance promoted the continued development of late-successional characteristics within the affected stands including a patchy, multi-layered canopy, large CWD and snags and spatial complexity. Within the last 200 years, there have been at least ten recorded windstorms with hurricane-force winds, including the ’21 blow in 1921 and the Columbus Day storm in 1962 (Henderson et. al 1989). Historic records do not indicate extensive patches of windthrow within the planning area associated with large historic windstorms. Patches of windthrow have been associated with road building and clearcut harvesting, especially where these activities created high-contrast edges in vulnerable topographic locations. In the more recent history,

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project human activities have been the dominant disturbance on the landscape. Clearcut harvest units generally 60 to 100 acres in size and associated road building fragmented contiguous patches of old growth forest, and created landscape level vegetation patterns that differ from those created by fire and wind. Clearcut harvesting in the project area began in the 1940’s, peaked in the 1980’s, and ended in the early 1990’s. Following clearcut harvesting (and broadcast burning in some cases), stands were regenerated by a combination of planted Douglas-fir seedlings and natural regeneration resulting from seedfall from adjacent stands. According to total resource inventory (TRI) records, the total acreage clearcut in the Queets Commercial Thinning Project planning area was 20,051 acres (45% of the planning area), and nearly half of the clearcut acreage (8,732 acres) was broadcast burned. Since the late 1960’s, a total of 13,429 acres were pre-commercially thinned at age 15-20 to about a 10-foot spacing in anticipation of a commercial thin at age 35-50. About 610 acres within the project area have received a commercial thinning treatment within the last 20 years, and approximately 560 acres are currently under contract but not yet accomplished on the ground. Table B-2 in Appendix B displays past vegetation treatments for the stands proposed for treatment. Current Stand Conditions Current stand conditions were assessed in the stands proposed for treatment using a combination of walk-through exams and formal stand exams. In all stands, walk-through exams gathered preliminary data which were used to stratify the stands using a combination of age, stand density, relative productivity, overstory tree species composition and treatment history. Several stands were sufficiently dissimilar to be the sole occupant of a stratum. Formal stand exams were performed on a representative stand from each of the identified strata. Table B-3 in Appendix B displays the stands in each strata and the representative stand that received a formal stand exam. The data gathered included overstory tree and stand level characteristics, snag abundance, understory plant and tree species and abundance, CWD cover and probable plant associations. The stands proposed for treatment were between 35 and 62 years of age in 2013 (Table B-4 in Appendix B). A mix of Douglas-fir and western hemlock comprise the overstory of these stands, with variation in the relative abundance and dominance of these tree species from stand to stand. Occasional western redcedar, red alder, Sitka spruce and Pacific silver fir are also present in the overstory. Some stands contain scattered legacy trees and/or potential nest trees for marbled murrelet that remain following the previous clearcut harvest which are primarily located near edges with old growth stands. Overstory trees generally have a DBH ranging from 6 inches to 20 inches (with occasional larger trees in some stands), with variation in the diameter distribution between stands attributable to site quality, tree density, species composition, treatment history and other factors. Similarly, the size and abundance of understory trees are variable both within and between stands, and are predominately western hemlock, Pacific silver fir and western redcedar. Scattered vine maple clumps are present in some stands, in addition to sapling or pole-sized western redcedar,

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project red alder, Sitka spruce and Pacific silver fir associated with small canopy gaps. Table B-4 in Appendix B provides summary statistics for the stands receiving a formal stand exam. There are between about 200 and 400 TPA in the overstory of these stands, with most stands in the range of 250-350 TPA. Stand quadratic mean diameter (QMD) is generally 13 to 14 inches DBH (with a range of about 11.2 to 15.9 inches DBH). QMD is inversely related to TPA and positively related to stand age. In the 5 to 10 years previous to measurement for this project, most stands displayed pronounced reductions in radial tree growth attributable to high stand density. Stand basal areas are in the range of about 234 to 347 square feet per acre, with an average stand condition of approximately 280 square feet per acre. Current canopy closure ranged from 75% to 95%, and was approximately 90% in most stands. Plant associations that best characterize stands proposed for treatment are predominately in the western hemlock series, although a few stands are in the silver fir series (Henderson et al. 1989). Major plant associations identified (in order of decreasing occurrence) include TSHE/POMU-OXOR (western hemlock/swordfern/oxalis), TSHE/GASH/POMU (western hemlock /salal/swordfern), and TSHE/POMU-TITR (western hemlock/swordfern/foamflower). Minor plant associations identified (in order of decreasing occurrence) include TSHE/OXOR (western hemlock/oxalis), ABAM/VAAL/OXOR (Pacific silver fir/Alaska huckleberry/ oxalis) and ABAM/POMU-OXOR (Pacific silver fir /swordfern/oxalis), TSHE/GASH-BENE (western hemlock/salal/Oregon grape) and PISI/ POMU-OXOR (Sitka spruce/swordfern/oxalis). These plant associations generally indicate moderate-to-high growth potential for trees (Site Classes 2 and 3). The stands display a wide range of conditions in the species composition and percent cover (5% to 60%) of understory vegetation depending on the plant association and stand treatment history. Some stands contain numerous small snags less than 6” DBH, and the older stands have moderate numbers of snags greater than 10” DBH, but there are generally few snags 20” DBH or larger in the project stands (Table B-5 in Appendix B). Legacy snags are widely scattered and are generally located along the perimeter of adjacent old growth stands. The project stands have generally moderate-to-high levels of CWD (CWD) (Table B-5 in Appendix B), with an average stand condition in the range of 6%-10% cover. The stands proposed for treatment include about 256 acres that had a previous commercial thinning treatment. Previous thinning was accomplished in these stands between 1999 and 2002, and was primarily a conventional commercial thinning (without skips, gaps and heavy thin patches). Current overstory tree characteristics within these stands (Table B-4) are similar to the rest of the stands in the proposed project, although these stands generally have greater crown ratios and lower height-to-diameter ratios. These stands display an increase in the percent cover and vigor of understory vegetation and trees when compared to adjacent untreated areas. The overstory trees have reoccupied the growing space since treatment, with canopy closure approaching pre-treatment levels, inter-tree competition intensifying and reduced growing space available for understory development.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Stand Health and Vigor There is a relatively large black bear (Ursus americanus) population in the project area. Historic and ongoing damage to trees by black bear has affected stand structure and contributed to snag and CWD levels within the project area. In many of the project stands, a proportion of the trees have healed or partially healed basal scars resulting from past bear damage. Stripping of tree bark by black bears in the spring often results in severe tree damage or mortality. Damage is most pronounced in young stands with thin bark (less than 30 years old), and black bears usually target the largest, fastest growing trees. In some project stands, considerable recent bear damage was noted at ground level on Pacific silver fir (a relatively thin barked species). In other locations, the bark had been stripped starting 40 to 50 feet above the ground on Douglas- fir or western hemlock trees (in locations of thinner bark) killing the top of the affected tree, and in some cases, subsequent tree mortality. Symptoms of infection with Armillaria root disease (Armillaria ostoyae) was noted on scattered individual live trees in most stands, and on recently dead trees. In western Washington and Oregon, tree mortality caused by Armillaria has most often been associated with Douglas-fir plantations less than 30 years of age, and with trees exhibiting low vigor (Shaw et al. 2009). Observations of trees exhibiting symptoms of infection and recent mortality in these stands confirmed that most of the affected individuals were trees of low vigor (in the intermediate or suppressed crown classes) which were stressed by density-related competition for resources. Tree mortality due to laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) was noted in scattered locations in some stands; however the pockets of infection were typically confined to small groups of trees. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) is present on individual western hemlock trees in many of the stands included in this project. Dwarf mistletoe is typically associated with previously suppressed trees that were released following clearcut harvest or trees that are located near stand edges with adjacent old-growth stands. Individual trees display witches’ brooms (either alive or dead) on lower limbs, but in general the upper tree crowns appear to be unaffected. Dwarf mistletoe is likely causing some growth loss for infected individuals, but the witches’ brooms have the potential to contribute to structural diversity within the stand and provide valuable habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Symptoms of Swiss needle cast (Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii) were observed on Douglas-fir trees within the project stands. Douglas-fir plantations near the coast are the most susceptible to infection due to moist spring and summer conditions, particularly if they originated from an off-site seed source (Shaw et al. 2009). The specific seed source for most stands proposed for treatment is unknown. In general, the stands planted with Douglas-fir before 1955 utilized off- site stock from various sources in Washington and Oregon, and those planted from 1955 until the 1961 were from sources on the Olympic peninsula (USDA, 1996), but more specific information was not recorded. Since 1961, seed lot numbers were used to provide more detailed tracking of seed sources (USDA, 1996), but through the late 1970’s stands vary in the degree to which the chosen planting stock match the site. Field observations did not support

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project the supposition that stands more recently established should have seed better matched to the site, and therefore display symptoms at a lower frequency. However, Swiss needle cast impacts Douglas-fir in older natural stands (Black et al. 2010), so infection is not limited to trees established from off-site sources. Stands where some level of infection was noted included A6, B6, B37C, B62, B85, C15, D7 and D24. Observations indicated that these stands are lightly to moderately infected, with only some trees exhibiting symptoms. Swiss needle cast causes premature needle loss and a subsequent loss of growth and vigor (sometimes severe) in infected trees, but is rarely the sole cause of tree mortality (Goheen and Willhite 2006). Although direct tree mortality resulting from infection is rare, the reduced vigor of infected trees may result in increased susceptibility to other pathogens like Armillaria root disease. Recommended management activities to reduce the impact this disease include reducing the proportion of Douglas-fir in the stand by favoring other species during thinning operations, and ensuring the use of a seed source matched to the site (Shaw et al. 2009). Stand Density Index (SDI) is a relative density measure that was developed to quantify the level of site occupancy based on tree number and size (Reinecke, 1933), which can be used to assess the degree of inter-tree competition in a stand. Calculated SDI (English units) for Douglas-fir dominated stands ranged from 395 to 544 which is 66% to 92% of the maximum SDI for Douglas-fir (Reinecke 1933), and calculated SDI for the stands dominated by western hemlock ranged from 401 to 568, which is 51% to 72% of the maximum SDI for western hemlock (Long 1985). The threshold which triggers widespread density-dependent tree mortality occurs at about 55% of maximum SDI (Drew and Flewelling 1979). The majority of the project stands are currently at or above this threshold, and those stands with lower density are projected to reach this condition within about a decade. Relative densities of 40% to 55% maximize stand growth, and maximum tree sizes are attained by managing near 15% relative density (Drew and Flewelling 1979) or below the onset of inter-tree competition at about 25% (Long 1985). Flewelling, Wiley and Drew (1980) state that “most of a site’s (growth) potential is captured if relative density is maintained at 40 percent or higher, and over 90% of the site’s potential is captured if the relative density is maintained at 30 percent.” Intense inter-tree competition is occurring in the stands proposed for treatment, as evidenced by the calculated SDI, density-related tree mortality, Armillaria activity and reduced diameter growth. Current average live crown ratios of 35% to 45% and average height-to-diameter ratios of 60 to 75 indicate that trees have the potential to utilize increased resources and display a relatively low risk of windthrow and stem breakage. The stands also exhibit potential for the development of two-storied stands in the form of light, scattered understories of western hemlock, Pacific silver fir and western redcedar, which would likely be lost to mortality with increasing stand density. The proposed treatments would increase light to the forest floor, promoting the retention and development of understory trees and vegetation. Stand Development The current stand conditions indicate that these stands are in the competitive exclusion stage

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project as defined in the Quinault North and Quinault South Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1996) or stem exclusion stage (Oliver and Larson 1990). This stage of stand development tends to be one of relative structural uniformity and simplicity, with only one canopy layer, little understory vegetation, and low plant species diversity. Dense overstory canopy shading limits the growth of shrubs and herbs – though they exist in the stands, they are mostly small plants with little biomass – and prevents development of a multi-storied canopy for many decades. Structural and species diversity are therefore relatively low. There are few late-successional habitat components such as large crowns and limbs, cavities, and other tree “defects”, or large snags, and low levels of CWD. Competition-related tree mortality produces numerous small- diameter snags with relatively little wildlife habitat value. The overstory trees utilize the majority of the available growing space on the site, resulting in increasingly intense inter-tree competition as the trees increase in size. The stress of inter-tree competition (often combined with a reduction in live crown ratios as tree crowns recede) decreases tree vigor, reduces diameter growth and results in higher height-to-diameter ratios. Height-to-diameter ratios exceeding 80 decrease tree stability and result in windthrow and stem breakage under moderate wind or snow loads as the tree becomes structurally unsound (Wonn and O’Hara 2001). As crown recession continues for individual trees or entire stands, the live crown ratio can fall below 30%, reducing the potential for a growth response to increased resource availability, and reduced height growth occurs below approximately 20% live crown ratio (Oliver and Larson 1990). When compared to stand conditions that occur before or after this stage of stand development, the stem exclusion stage has the lower plant species and structural diversity, and provides habitat for the fewest number of wildlife species of any developmental stage. Currently 30% of the planning area is in this stage of stand development, and within 20 years these conditions will be present on 45% of the acreage in the planning area as the younger stands enter the stem exclusion stage of stand development. Carey and Curtis (1996) recommend “minimizing area and time in the competitive exclusion stage” to promote biodiversity and accelerate development of late-successional characteristics, concluding that, left untreated, managed stands may spend over 100 years in the competitive exclusion stage or fail to develop desired late-successional characteristics. Others have postulated that managed stands are on a different trajectory than the developmental pathway which produced current old-growth stands, and that managed stands are not likely to develop desired characteristics without treatment (Tappeiner et. al. 1997). Even in unmanaged stands following a stand replacing disturbance, the desired late-successional characteristics associated with single-storied stands (one tree layer) are generally not present until the stand reaches a minimum age of 175 years, and another 100 years or more is required to develop a multi-storied stand late-successional stand (USDA 1996). Extensive research has been conducted to quantify the increases in tree growth resulting from thinning, generally in stands younger than 50 years of age, with fewer studies done in older stands. Studies of the potential growth response to thinning in 110-year-old Douglas-fir stands

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project found no short-term increase in diameter growth of residual trees 6 years following treatment (Yerkes, 1960), however increased diameter growth was observed with longer observation periods of 11 years (Williamson, 1966) and 19 years (Williamson, 1982), and positive growth response was reported by Worthington (1966) 30 years after thinning in a 60-year-old Douglas- fir stand. Even in much older trees (158 to 650 years old) diameter growth responses were observed after a lag of 5 to 25 years following density reduction (Latham and Tappeiner, 2002). These results suggest that while older trees do exhibit a growth response to reductions in stand density, they may not respond as rapidly as younger trees or stands. In stands on the Olympic Peninsula similar in age to those included in this project, one recent study found pronounced increases in the diameter growth of individual trees within 5 years of a variable density thinning treatment (Roberts and Harrington 2008). Over about the last decade, a number of large scale silvicultural experiments incorporating a wide range of thinning intensities have been established in Western Washington and Oregon that include general objectives of adding structural diversity to young plantations and accelerating the development of late-successional habitat (summarized in Poage and Anderson 2007). The concept of variable density thinning developed from research that emphasized the inclusion of “skips” (unthinned patches), “gaps” (small openings), and heavily thinned areas in thinning treatments (Carey and Curtis 1996, Muir et al. 2002) as a method to increase structural heterogeneity (both vertical and horizontal) through the inclusion of patches receiving different treatment intensities in the overall stand treatment. A wide range of thinning intensities is being tested in young managed stands by current silvicultural experiments to explore the multiple developmental pathways and combinations of potential treatments that could accelerate the development of desired late-successional characteristics. Two of these experiments, the Olympic Habitat Development Study (OHDS) and the Siuslaw Thinning and Underplanting for Diversity Study (STUDS), are located in coastal forests of Oregon and Washington. The OHDS utilized a variable density thinning treatment at locations that vary in site quality and forest cover type, and preliminary results include increased radial growth in overstory and understory trees and a response from understory vegetation (Comfort, et al. 2010, Harrington, et al. 2005, Roberts and Harrington 2008), indicating that, at least in the short term, a variable density thinning treatment is placing stands on a trajectory that will accelerate some desired characteristics found in late-successional forests. The STUDS experiment was designed to test the effect of a range of thinning intensities (about 30, 60, and 100 TPA retained) followed by underplanting on the development of structural heterogeneity and species diversity. Preliminary results reported by Chan et al. (2006) included the following: increases were seen in overstory tree growth for all alternatives, but larger increases occurred at lower overstory tree densities; at 100 TPA the live crown ratio of overstory trees continued to decline following treatment, while lower overstory tree densities resulted in stable live crown ratios; survival of underplanted trees was similar for all treatments, but growth was substantially higher with lower overstory tree densities; and the response of understory trees and vegetation was

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project dependent upon the available light, which was rapidly reduced in all treatments due to crown expansion of the overstory trees. Based on these results Chan et al. (2006) conclude that thinning to 100 TPA offers “minimal opportunity to create diverse, multistoried stands” without repeated treatments at approximately 10 year intervals. In the long term, studies such as those mentioned above have the potential to more fully compare and evaluate the treatment or sequence of treatments which most quickly attain desired late-successional characteristics within stands. Currently long term observations of unreplicated treatments and the result of forest growth and yield modeling provide the best information about what stand conditions may be over the next century. Newton and Cole (1987) reported that desired late successional characteristics were present in 120 to 140-year old stands that had been heavily thinned 70 years before, and similar results were reported by a stand age of about 100 years for the Black Rock study, which was thinned to 50 TPA at stand age 48 and underplanted (summarized in Tappeiner et al. 2007, p.356-7). A simulation study performed with a forest growth and yield model tested a variety of thinning regimes and rotation lengths demonstrated that a relatively heavy thinning treatment (retaining 55 TPA at age 40 followed by an understory thinning 20 years later) could produce desired late- successional characteristics by a stand age of 117, but a stand age of 220 years was required to attain similar characteristics without treatment (Garman et al. 2003). Similarly, a simulation study using 50-year old Douglas-fir stands tested the degree to which various management scenarios could approximate the structural attributes found in stands with northern spotted owl nest sites, and concluded that relatively heavy thinning treatments at age 50 (30-45 TPA retained) combined with understory planting, followed by an understory thinning at age 80 and a proportional thin at age 120 (or no treatment at 120 years of age) most closely approximated the desired structural conditions at a stand age of about 160 years (Andrews et al. 2005). Thinning and Windthrow Risk Historically, stand level windthrow was uncommon within the planning area and was mostly confined to vulnerable topographic positions, however individuals and groups of trees would be blown down over extensive areas (USDA 1995). Windstorms have the potential to become a problem in recently thinned stands by acting as a stand replacing disturbance. Future wind events will result in the windthrow of individual trees or groups of trees and snapped tree tops within the project stands, especially in the first few years following treatment, which would provide some gaps, contribute to CWD and create new snags. Wind events will increase the spatial heterogeneity and structural complexity of the stands by creating some of these elements that are currently lacking in the stands proposed for treatment. The areas where wind throw has had a major (negative) impact have exhibited some or many of the following 10 risk factors (without attempting to order them or quantify the risk associated with each): • Predominantly hemlock and Sitka spruce stands – shallow rooting (Harris, 1999) • Stands adjacent to clearcuts that occur within a few years after thinning

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

• Stands with H/D ratios exceeding 80 (Wonn and O’Hara 2001) • Large flats • Exposure to storm winds (Harris, 1999) • Shallow soils (Harris, 1999) • Wet soils • Stands 50 years and greater in age that have not been thinned in the past • Narrow buffer strips between clearcuts and roads • Stands heavily infected with root rots

The stands proposed for treatment exhibit some of these risk factors. Some are predominantly hemlock stands, some are on shallow and/or wet soils some are fairly exposed to southwest storm winds, and exhibit varying degrees of root rot occurrence. Windthrow during winter storm events can be a major disturbance on the west side of the Olympic peninsula, however within the planning area historic wind disturbance has been minor, and primarily associated with past harvesting practices. Each stand would be assessed individually when the formal prescriptions are written, and prescriptions would minimize the risk of windthrow in locations classified as a high risk. In stands with a high risk of extensive windthrow, one or more of the following methods would be used to minimize the risk. First, thinning to a level that does not open the stands to windthrow must be considered. Some Alaska studies (Harris, 1999) indicate that no more than about 1/3 of stands basal area should be removed when there is a high risk of windthrow. Second, windward edges (or potential windward edges) of the stands can be left unthinned to serve as a wind screen. Third, any created gaps should be kept small and should be located in sheltered areas of the stands. After the thinning treatment, individual or small patches of dead standing or downed trees resulting from spotty windthrow or mortality from root disease would constitute snags and CWD, and would be left in the stand to contribute valuable components of wildlife habitat. 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, none of the approximately 5,005 acres of second-growth stands would be commercially thinned. The No Action Alternative would have no direct effects on stand development. The indirect effect of the No Action Alternative, however, is that stands would continue through the stand development process without intervention, and late-successional habitat for old-growth dependent species would not be accelerated.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Over time, opportunities for thinning would be reduced or eliminated, and as a result the opportunity to hasten the development of late-successional characteristics in these stands could be lost. These stands would remain in the stem exclusion stage of stand development for another 100 years or more, providing little value for species dependent upon late- successional habitat. Left untreated, these stands would eventually move toward developing some late-successional habitat characteristics (such as large diameter trees) as natural agents reduce tree density at the scale of the single tree or small groups of trees, however the stands could stagnate, with tree growth virtually ceasing due to extreme inter-tree competition. Some desired characteristics such as large diameter trees with deep crowns and large diameter branches, a multi-layered canopy and a diversity of understory vegetation may not develop in the current stands without a moderate level of disturbance, or may not develop until after the next stand replacing disturbance. The high stand density and declining tree vigor in these stands, compounded by environmental stressors such as climate change, could predispose them to stand replacing disturbances such as extensive windthrow or large scale insect or disease outbreaks before they develop the desired late-successional characteristics. Historically, the late-successional stands in the project area were perpetuated by wind disturbance that removed individuals or groups of trees at small scales and maintained a multi-layered stand structure across the landscape. Even-aged stand structures such as those found in the managed stands in the project area are much more susceptible to stand replacing windthrow events, especially if high stand density results in height-to-diameter ratios of 80 or larger. These conditions are likely to develop in the project stands by a stand age of 80 to 120 years. Left untreated, the project stands could be subject to successive windthrow events, perpetuating the unnatural spatial patterning and age distribution that was initiated by historic clearcut harvesting. Following a stand replacing disturbance, the stands would have many biological legacies in the form of standing trees, CWD and snags, but there would be a further delay the development of late-successional conditions by returning the stand to an early successional stage of stand development. In summary, if thinning or similar disturbance were not to occur, the resulting delay in the development of the desired late-successional characteristics in these young stands could produce or perpetuate changes in ecological functions and processes, both within the stands proposed for treatment and at a landscape scale. The No Action Alternative would not violate any LSR standards and guidelines, but would forego opportunities to use commercial thinning to meet habitat objectives. Since none of the proposed units would be treated, the No Action Alternative would not fulfill the purpose of and need for increasing the structural and species diversity of forest stands. Action Alternatives The effects on stand development would be similar for all three action alternatives, with differences due to fewer treated acres in Alternatives C and D. Alternative B would utilize commercial thinning to treat about 5,005 acres, Alternative C would treat about 1,800 acres and Alternative D would treat about 3,395 acres. Within the stands treated by each action

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project alternative the effects would be similar, with negligible differences due to variation between alternatives in the equipment used to perform the treatment. Direct Effects The proposed thinning treatments would enhance structural heterogeneity (both vertical and horizontal) through the inclusion of patches receiving different treatment intensities in the overall stand treatment. Observations from similar projects on the Olympic National Forest indicate that 30% to 50% of the existing snags in the range of about 10 inches to 16 inches DBH would need to be felled for worker safety during implementation of the project, but rarely would snags 20 inches DBH or larger be felled for safety. Additionally, the percent cover of CWD (5 inches diameter and larger) would increase by 2% to 4% within project stands following implementation due to unmerchantable material left within the stands. The proposed treatments would directly promote the development of late-successional characteristics identified as priorities by the Sam’s River Watershed Analysis (USDA 1997), the Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995), the Salmon River Watershed Analysis (QIN 2000) and the Quinault North and Quinault South Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1996) by: . reducing the density of stands, increasing the growing space available to individual trees, and transferring part of the stands’ growth potential from the upper canopy to the forest floor; . emphasizing retention of minor species overlooked by past management practices while thinning the dominant tree species, thereby, increasing the relative abundance of those minor species; and . increasing the ground cover of CWD.

Design features and mitigation measures detailed in Chapter II would adequately minimize risk of any adverse effects on late-successional habitat elements. Indirect Effects The action alternatives would likely improve habitat conditions for late-successional species by moving stands into the understory reinitiation stage of stand development. Thinning would increase structural and species diversity, and enhance the development of late-successional characteristics within the project stands. Structural and compositional diversity would be increased by thinning the overstory to allow the release or introduction and growth of understory vegetation and the development of relatively large tree diameters, crowns and limbs. Long-term studies have demonstrated that lower stand density results in increased diameter growth (Curtis et al. 1997), and increased tree growth has been observed for overstory trees (Harrington et al. 2005; Roberts and Harrington 2008) and midstory trees (Comfort et al. 2010) following variable density thinning treatments on the Olympic Peninsula. Variation in the thinning intensity within the project stands would produce differences in the growth of individual trees (Roberts and Harrington 2008, Comfort et al. 2010), promoting both vertical and horizontal structural heterogeneity. Thinning would increase cover of herbs,

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project shrubs and understory trees (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998; Carey and Wilson 2001; He and Barclay 2000; Tappeiner and Zasada 1993), and promote understory species diversity (Ares et al. 2010). Flower and fruit production of understory shrubs would also be enhanced by thinning (Wender et al. 2004). Compared to an unthinned condition, the stands would have greater density, survival, and growth of conifer seedlings (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998, Brandeis et al. 2001; DeBell et al. 1997), moving the project stands toward developing a multi-layered canopy. Following the proposed treatment, the lower stand density would increase tree and stand vigor, providing for more resilience to disturbance and environmental stressors such as climate change. The removal of trees during the thinning operation and increased vigor of the stands following the thinning would reduce the number of snags and amount of CWD produced by density- dependent mortality in these stands compared to the No Action alternative; however other sources of mortality would continue to produce snags and CWD. Mortality of trees damaged during the thinning operation or from wind events could be greater than the No Action alternative for about 5 years following the thinning treatment. Other sources of mortality such as root rots and bear damage would continue in these stands following treatment. The action alternatives would reduce the total number of snags within the stands for several decades following treatment, but average snag size would be greater than in the No Action alternative. The proposed treatment would leave sufficient trees in the project stands to attain the desired future condition for snags and CWD, but in particular the artificial creation of large snags (20 inches DBH or larger) would shorten the time needed to reach target levels for this habitat element within the project stands (Garman et al. 2003). Within the no-cut buffers adjacent to streams and within other skip areas in the project stands, density-dependent mortality would continue to created snags and CWD in quantities similar to the No Action alternative. In summary, the indirect effects include: . accelerating tree growth for the development of large trees, snags, and CWD; . promoting the increase and diversification of understory vegetation and the development of multiple canopy layers; . promoting the development of relatively large diameter branches and deep tree crowns; . increased vigor and resilience of project stands and decreased density-dependent mortality; . providing opportunities to create additional snags and ground coverage of CWD.

Cumulative Effects As detailed in the descriptions of historic stand management activities and current stand conditions, past vegetation management activities have had a considerable impact on forest stand structure and landscape-level connectivity in the planning area. As a result of historic stand management activities, the current landscape has a larger proportion of dense young conifer stands, and less area of late-successional forest, than was historically present, and old-

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project growth patches are fragmented and discontinuous. Roughly 45% of the project area is composed of managed stands subject to a historic clearcut harvest. Precommmercial thinning treatments in many of these stands, and previous or ongoing commercial thinning on about 1,170 acres within the planning area have begun to move some stands toward the desired future condition. The action alternatives would expand the acreage within the project area that has received silvicultural treatment to enhance habitat characteristics and promote development of late-successional structure, although the project would have only a slight effect at the landscape scale given the small scale of the project (a maximum of 11% of the project area under Alternative B). The project would expand the effective size of adjacent late- successional patches as the treated stands develop desired characteristics, but would not notably increase connectivity between late-successional patches across the landscape. When combined with past commercial thinning treatments, the current project would result in a maximum of about one-third of the acreage in managed stands within the project area receiving a commercial thinning treatment to accelerate the development of late-successional conditions. The remaining two-thirds of the acreage in managed stands would continue to develop as described for the No Action alternative. The cumulative effect of the project would be acceleration of the recovery of late-successional forest conditions in the treated portion of the project area. To augment snags and CWD created through natural processes, the active creation of snags and CWD within the project stands would increase the functionality of the project stands and accelerate the attainment of desired levels of these habitat elements. For stands currently less than 60 years old, a second commercial thinning treatment in approximately 20 years would further promote the development of a multi-layered canopy, the retention of understory vegetation cover and diversity, provide for the continued growth of overstory trees, and allow for the introduction of a third cohort of trees. Additionally a non-commercial thinning of understory trees (< 8 inches DBH) could be used to accelerate the recruitment of midcanopy trees, promote minor tree species and to increase the diversity of understory vegetation. Future treatments of previously managed stands within the watershed not included within this project, including non-commercial and commercial thinning, snag and CWD creation and the planting of underrepresented species would aid in the restoration of landscape connectivity and the functionality of existing and future late-successional forest patches. Monitoring Implementation Monitoring Monitoring by the Silviculturist would begin prior to sale layout by verifying that a stand level prescription would meet the objectives. The Silviculturist would work directly (as much as possible) with the layout crews during sale preparation. Monitoring prescription layout provides an adaptive management opportunity to modify a prescription based on site-specific evidence. During operations, ongoing inspections by sale administration personnel would verify proper implementation of the stand prescription.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Other Monitoring Other monitoring should include the review of stands 3 to 5 years following project implementation to assess the stands for wind damage; the necessity for the creation of CWD; and the necessity for artificial reforestation of created gaps, temporary roads, and landings within the project area. An inventory of snags should be taken at least 3 to 5 years (and preferably 10 years) following treatment to allow for the development of snags through natural processes and to allow for the development of an adequate quantity of trees (20 inches DBH or larger) suitable for conversion to large snags. Sampling could be used to re-evaluate stand density 10 to 15 years following treatment. This sampling would be a combination of qualitative and quantitative information such as species composition, tree diameters, crown closure, snag and CWD abundance, and a verbal description of stand characteristics such as layer development. The information gathered would allow for monitoring of the effectiveness of the treatment, the assessment of the need for an understory thinning treatment, and could be used to identify further treatments or activities which would hasten the development of late- successional characteristics within these stands. Field review by the Interdisciplinary Team should be completed in the project stands following implementation of the commercial thinning, tree planting, and snag and CWD creation. The review should include an assessment of whether short-term prescription objectives were met (leave tree density, CWD cover, snag density and understory tree density), the effectiveness of project design criteria for the protection of soils, leave trees and existing CWD and snags, and the effectiveness of mitigations measures such as the rehabilitation of skid trails and temporary roads. 3.2 Wildlife 3.2.1 Affected Environment Wildlife habitat in the Queets Vegetation Management Project area, which includes the Matheny, Sam’s River, and Salmon River subwatersheds, encompasses several forest and riparian habitats that provide cover and forage for many species of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mollusks. Habitat currently available reflects the various plant associations characteristic of low and high elevation temperate rainforest and the effects of past human activity, primarily logging and road construction and, to a limited degree, natural disturbances such as fire. Species that have been observed or heard during the field design and analysis within the project area include, but are not limited to, Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), black bear (Ursus americanus), northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), roughskin newt (Taricha granulosa), Douglas tree squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis), red-legged frog (Rana aurora), Western toad (Bufo boreas), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra), and varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius). Species for which sign was observed include, blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and beaver (Castor canadensis). The watershed has a number of resident, special-status species, including northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project caurina), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Cascades frog. The total acreage for the project area is 43,936 acres, all of which is on National Forest lands. Except for approximately 3,713 acres (12%) in the AMA designation, all Federal lands are within the Quinault North LSR (RW-102). The designation of LSRs was a result of implementing the NWFP (USDI/USDA 1994a) and had as their principal objective “to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, including the northern spotted owl” (USDA/USDI 1994a, ROD, pg. C-11). Management priorities outlined in the Quinault North and Quinault South Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1996, pg. VI-2,3) include: 1. Protect and preserve stands which already have late-successional structure. 2. Accelerate the development of forest function in fragmented areas of predominately early seral stands. 3. Enhance specific components of late-successional forests, such as amount of snags, coarse wood, gaps in the canopy, as well as understory and multiple canopy development and species diversification.

Likewise, landscape priorities for these management actions included the following specific areas (USDA 1996, pg. VI-2): 1. Northern spotted owl home ranges where suitable habitat constitutes less than 40% of the total range. {One owl home range in this planning area falls below 40%--Salmon River North Fork} 2. Areas adjacent to large blocks of interior habitat. Specifically mentioned are the upper Matheny Creek watershed, Sam’s River Ridge, and the Canoe Creek drainage. 3. Riparian corridors and corridors across saddles.

A second document, the Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995), cites the following general conditions for wildlife habitat (pg. C-69-78): 1. Reduced amounts of thermal cover and high road densities at lower elevations for Roosevelt elk. Winter range condition and availability is also a significant limiting factor. 2. Reduced amounts of snags and CWD. 3. Amount, quality, distribution, and fragmentation of remaining older forest. 4. Lack of bald eagle winter habitat and nesting habitat adjacent to substantial fish populations.

To address concerns of deficiencies in these habitat conditions, the watershed analysis recommends (pg. E9-10): 1. Mitigating edge effects on significant old-growth stands through planting of trees, thinning to promote growth, fertilization, and road rehabilitation.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2. Reduce road densities in big game winter range areas, spotted owl core areas, and marbled murrelet occupied sites. 3. Improve horizontal and vertical diversity in coniferous stands in the mainstem Matheny, South Fork, Hook Branch, and Middle Fork drainages. 4. Enhance and maintain hardwoods with emphasis on riparian zones and mesic plant association groups with hardwood potential. Use plantings and harvest prescriptions to establish hardwoods or reduce competition from conifers. 5. Utilize native trees and shrubs in all watershed restoration project areas. 6. Create snags and coarse wood in stands deficient in these habitats, emphasizing stands within spotted owl core areas and riparian zones.

Similarly, the Sam’s River Watershed Analysis (USDA 1997) describes management practices having altered the availability and distribution late-successional forest, riparian areas, snags, and CWD (pg. 2-6). Recommendations for restoration include (pg. 4-2-3): 1. Reducing the effects of fragmentation in Lower Sams, Phelan, and North Creek, emphasizing spotted owl core areas and marbled murrelet occupied sites. 2. Mitigating edge effects on significant old-growth stands through planting of trees, thinning to promote growth, fertilization, and road rehabilitation. 3. Improve horizontal and vertical diversity in coniferous stands in the Lower Sams River. 4. Utilize thinning and gap creation in the early- and mid-seral stages to promote late-seral characteristics and short-term forage.

The recommendations #4-6 cited in Matheny Creek were also cited in Sams River.

The Salmon River Watershed Analysis (QIN 2002) cites species associated with mature and old- growth forests being more rare and less widespread from historical times, and that species associated with younger forest and forest edges having become more common and widespread (pg. 20). Recommendations for restoring wildlife populations and habitats include (pg. 3.1-22- 25): 1. Pre-commercial thinning of young seral forests to promote the development of larger trees. 2. Maintain and develop a mix of tree species through plantings and thinnings. 3. Utilize native seed sources. 4. Retain trees with deformities 5. Increase connectivity of late seral forests between the Salmon River subwatersheds. 6. Prioritize habitat enhancement projects in areas being utilized by bald eagles, spotted owls, and marbled murrelets. 7. Reduce road densities, using gates, berms or barricades, and decommissioning, throughout the watershed but particularly in the Lower Salmon River and South Fork subwatersheds. Seed decommissioned roads with native seed.

Regarding other land designations, the entire project area is designated critical habitat (CHU #NCO1) for the northern spotted owl (USDI 2012a). Marbled murrelet critical habitat (CHU

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

#WA-02-c; USDI 1996) encompasses all of the project area that is designated LSR; the portion that is AMA is not murrelet CHU. In 2004, the Olympic National Forest developed the Strategic Plan (USDA 2004) to identify priority areas for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, restoration needs, and opportunities to integrate projects to achieve multiple benefits. Watersheds were ranked for priorities to wildlife based on: 1) maintaining and improving late-successional terrestrial wildlife species habitat; and 2) improving forage for Roosevelt elk. Those watersheds considered to be of “high” priority, in terms of spotted owls and murrelets, were ones that contained 1) extensive amounts of large, unmanaged forest areas (> 50% of the area), in other words, a high amount of habitat complexity; 2) a high amount of northern spotted owl activity centers considered active and a high or moderate amount of suitable habitat within the .7 mile nesting cores; 3) a high amount of suitable and dispersal habitat connecting current activity centers; 4) presence of murrelets in the watershed with a low predation risk (which is determined by such factors as stand structure, adjacency to edge habitats, and proximity to humans); 5) Roosevelt elk use of the area and vegetative condition relative to big game species; and 6) open road density. The Queets Project Area, including two of the three subwatersheds (Matheny and Salmon River) rated as being a high priority for restoration for wildlife species. High priority watersheds have the following characteristics: 1. Extensive reaches of large, unmanaged forest areas. 2. High amount of spotted owl activity centers that are considered currently active; high or moderate amount of suitable habitat within nest cores; high functioning watershed. 3. High amount of suitable and dispersal habitat connecting current spotted owl activity centers. 4. Presence of marbled murrelets in the watershed, however, the risk of predation is considered low (may represent murrelet refugia). 5. High proportion of vegetation valuable as forage for Roosevelt elk 6. Open road density of < 1 mile/square mile.

Sams River rated as being of moderate priority: 1. Watershed has a past history of management but is on a recovery trend. 2. Watershed has activity centers that are currently active or has had historic activity. Amount of suitable habitat within nest cores is less than optimal. 3. Marbled murrelets are present; risk by predation is moderate. 4. Contains moderate proportion of forage availability. 5. Open road density of 1-3 miles/square mile.

The Strategic Plan specified the following general habitat restoration strategies for owls, murrelets, and elk:

 Thinning activities are recommended and are of higher priority in Designated Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl (and are of higher priority in the mid- and lowlands) and in Designated Critical Habitat for the marbled murrelet (and are of higher

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

priority in lower elevations, < 3,000’, and in the Sitka spruce, Douglas-fir and western hemlock series).  Maintenance and/or creation of snag and CWD distribution patterns that more closely mimic natural conditions. Commercial and pre-commercial thinning designed to accelerate late-successional habitat characteristics should be a higher priority in:

 Dispersal and non-dispersal stands located within the home range radius (2.7 mile) of spotted owl territories that are considered vacant or historic, or between population cores,  Non-suitable habitat between fragmented patches of murrelet habitat, Commercial and pre-commercial thinning designed to enhance forage for Roosevelt elk should be a higher priority in:

 Winter range areas with emphasis on riparian zones, south slopes, and areas near high quality thermal cover,  Stands of mountain hemlock (for summer forage)  Western hemlock (wet) and Sitka spruce vegetation series (for early spring/summer forage)  Silvicultural activities would not occur within the 0.7 mile radius of the activity center of currently occupied spotted owl sites or within population core clusters.  Reduction of road densities through road rehabilitation or seasonal closures. The following wildlife analysis will focus on special status species and their habitats, including those listed under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) as amended, the Forest Service’s Region Six Sensitive Species List, Management Indicator Species (from the Olympic National Forest’s Land & Resource Management Plan), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife’s Species of Concern list, and forest landbirds. An analysis of dead wood (snags and down logs) using DecAID and locally obtained information is contained in a separate report that is located in the project record and summarized in this report. Federally Listed Species The Queets project area provides habitat for two wildlife species currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act: the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl. “Threatened” status means the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The Final Rule to de-list the threatened Pacific bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2007, and became effective August 8, 2007 (USDI 2007a). The bald eagle was subsequently categorized as a “sensitive” species and, on the Olympic National Forest, is also a “management indicator species” (MIS). Bald eagle will be discussed in the MIS section of this analysis.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) The northern spotted owl was listed “due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” (USDI 1990). Suitable habitat is habitat that supports life history requirements such as nesting, roosting, and foraging. Nesting and roosting habitat generally includes attributes such as a moderate to high canopy closure (60-80%); a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large (>30 inch dbh) overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); large (>30 inch dbh) snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient space below the canopy for owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990). A wider range of habitats is used for foraging and dispersal. Habitat that meets nesting and roosting requirements also provides for foraging and dispersal (USDI 1992a). Dispersal habitat is considered that habitat which functions to assist juvenile dispersal and breeding dispersal of adult spotted owls. It is also habitat which connects suitable habitat patches with one another. Dispersal habitat consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities. Dispersal habitat does not necessarily have old-growth or mature forest characteristics, though it may have some scattered components of suitable habitat. The general rule for classifying dispersal habitat is to have stands with average tree diameters of 11 inches dbh under canopy covers of 40% across 50% of a township (36 square miles) (Thomas et al. 1990).

For the Olympic Peninsula, the mean nest core and median home range areas for spotted owls are approximated by 1.4 and 2.7 miles radii circles, respectively, around an activity center. This is based on research in the Olympic Peninsula province which showed owls using a mean home range area of 14,271 acres (USDA/USDI 1994a). Because owl home ranges are generally not circular, this home range size can be approximated by a circle of 2.7 miles radius (whose area slightly exceeds that amount). In order to stay above “take” thresholds for suitable habitat, a minimum of 40% of the home range area (5,708 acres) should consist of suitable habitat. The mean nest core radius was recently increased to 1.4 (from .7) miles for the Olympic Peninsula Province for purposes of this type of analysis (Forsman et al. 2005) and is to contain a minimum amount of 1,971 acres (50% of total) of suitable habitat in order to stay above the threshold (USDI et al. 2008). One activity center, Canoe and Kestner Creeks, is below threshold within the nest core, and another, Salmon River North Fork, is below threshold within its home range. The nest patch is defined as the 300-meter radius area around a known or likely nest site (USDI/USDA 2008).

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Approximately 53% (23,222 acres) of the project area is mapped as spotted owl suitable habitat and 12% (5,196 acres) is mapped as dispersal habitat. The remainder, 35%, is deemed non- habitat, which includes such areas as very young forest stands, natural openings, ponds, roads, etc. A very qualitative assessment of how this suitable habitat currently exists on the landscape shows the most contiguous pieces to exist in the upper headwaters of Sam’s River and Matheny Creek, as well as a smaller area around the North Fork of the Salmon River. The watershed has incurred extensive fragmentation, especially at lower elevations, in suitable habitat due to past harvest activities.

No surveys for northern spotted owls were conducted relative to this project. Previous surveys in the watershed have resulted in the mapping of eight activity centers, four of which were last classified as “occupied” and four as “historical.” This earlier work was conducted as part of the Olympic Demographic Study done by the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station, however due to budget shortfalls, there have been no surveys done on this part of the Forest since 2005. Before surveys were stopped, there was substantial barred owl activity detected at several of the spotted owl sites. The Dilly Creek site had the most spotted owl activity during the years 1999-2005.

There are also three additional activity centers (historical) outside of the watershed whose 1.4 mile radius nest cores overlap into the project area, and another two (historical), whose 2.7 mile radius home range overlaps. Table 3-1 below provides survey information for the eight owl activity centers within the project area, as well as the three whose nest core (1.4 mile circles) overlaps into the watershed. Table 3-2 provides current habitat information for the eight sites within the project area, and the three sites whose 1.4 mile nest cores overlap.

Summary: o Eight total activity centers that fall within the project area. o Thirteen total activity centers that have the 1.4 mile nest core overlapping some part of the project area. o Seventeen total activity centers that have the 2.7 mile home range overlapping some part of the project area.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-1. Survey Information within the project area for Northern Spotted Owl. Activity ITS Status* 2005** 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Center Canoe & Historical No Male Vacant; New sub-adult Single Male Male Kestner detections STVA STVA male, 2001 male confirmed; confirmed; Creeks detected auditory juvenile from nesting nesting status (#306)*** detections Finley Creek; status unknown historic male at unknown Matheny East Dilly Creek Occupied Pair Pair Non- Nested, two Single Male Pair (#49) confirmed confirme nesting pair fledglings; sub- female auditory only confirmed; ; non- d; adult male from nesting status nesting nesting, Matheny West; unknown 2 female from juveniles Sam’s Ridge; (both new nest tree banded) Double A Occupied Male Pair Male No surveys No No surveys No surveys (#69) confirmed confirme (unbanded, surveys ; female d evaded auditory nesting; capture); response 1 female juvenile from Dilly Creek Finley Historical Pair Pair Non- Nested, two No STOC female No detections Creek— confirmed confirme nesting pair fledglings; detections Olympic ; non- d; additional STOC National Park nesting nesting, band recovered site 2 from DNR

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-1. Survey Information within the project area for Northern Spotted Owl. Activity ITS Status* 2005** 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Center (#446)*** juveniles located Matheny Occupied STVA Male Non- Nested, two Pair Pair with Male visual but East (#44) confirme nesting pair fledglings; male fledged nesting not confirmed; d, one moved from one; nest status female female Canoe Creek tree not unknown; no confirmed; auditory; located young found; nesting status also new adult unknown STVA female pair (banded) Matheny Historical No No No surveys No surveys No No surveys No detections Tributary surveys surveys surveys (#80) Matheny Historical STVA Male Multiple No detections Pair No No detections West (#46) STVA STVA pair response; detections detections new on 2 visits subadult female banded Salmon River Historical No No No surveys No surveys No No surveys No surveys North Fork surveys surveys surveys (#154) Sam’s Ridge Occupied Pair, male Pair, Male Pair response; Pair STVA No detections (#449) confirmed female auditory new STOC fledged 1 auditory ; non- auditory banded young nesting only;

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-1. Survey Information within the project area for Northern Spotted Owl. Activity ITS Status* 2005** 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Center nest failure likely; STVA Sam’s River Historical No No No surveys No surveys No No surveys No surveys Upper— surveys surveys surveys Olympic Natl Park site (#77)*** Sam’s River Historical STVA Pair STVA;unk No surveys No detections STVA No No surveys West (#76) nown detections Strix species *From “Incidental Take Statement,” or ITS, a methodology for estimating the number of spotted owls affected by proposed federal actions (USDI et al. 2008). **STVA = Strix varia, or barred owl; STOC = Strix occidentalis, or spotted owl. Owls referred to are STOC unless otherwise noted. ***Activity centers are located outside of the project area, but 1.4 mile nest core overlaps within project area.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Suitable-10,040 Dispersal-561 Suitable-1,836 Non-3,670 1,028 (26%); Dispersal-201 (ONP-4,860 Canoe & Kestner Other on ONP Suitable-565 Non-1,296 Quinault Indian Reservation- Creeks and ONF (outside Dispersal-10 (Olympic National Park 328**** (#306)/Historical of project area) Non-453 (ONP)-608 acres***) Private-16) Suitable-10,303 Suitable-2,708 Dispersal-331 Dilly Creek Dispersal-91 Same Non-3,637 (#49)/Occupied 3,941 (100%) Non-1,142 (ONP-2,057) Suitable-2,401 Suitable-3,295 Suitable-12,660 Dispersal-0 Dispersal-0 Dispersal-7 Double A 3,047 (77%); Non-646 Non-646 Non-1,604 (#69)/Occupied Other on ONP (ONP-894) (ONP-7,358) Finley Creek- 364 (9%); Other Suitable-3,471 Suitable-12,436 Olympic National on ONP and ONF Suitable-227 Dispersal-9 Dispersal-239 Park Site (outside of Dispersal-2 Non-461 Non-1,596 (#446)/Historical project area) Non-135 (ONP-2253) (ONP-7,677)

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Suitable-9,101 Suitable-2,605 Dispersal-673 Matheny East Dispersal-316 Same Non-4,497 (#44)/Occupied 3,941 (100%) Non-1,020 Suitable-2,254 Suitable-9,641 Matheny Suitable-1,846 Dispersal-178 Dispersal-623 Tributary Dispersal-102 Non-1,509 Non-4,007 (#80)/Historical 2,834 (72%) Non-886 (ONP-2,292) Suitable-7,479 Suitable-1,875 Suitable-1,875 Dispersal-1,278 Matheny West Dispersal-418 Same Non-5,896 (#46)/Historical 3,941 (100%) Non-1,648 Suitable-5,004 Dispersal-2,869 Non-4,412 (Quinault Indian Reservation- Salmon River Suitable-1,714 Suitable-1,714 1,472 North Fork Dispersal-778 Same Private-19 (#154)/Historical 3,941 (100%) Non-1,449 State-751)

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-2. Current habitat information within the project watershed for the Northern Spotted Owl. Activity Acres of 1.4 mile Acres of Suitable, Acres of Suitable, Acres of Suitable and Dispersal Center/ITS nest core within Dispersal, and Dispersal, and Non Habitat within 2.7 mile home Status the project area Non Habitat Habitat within 1.4 mile range (14,271 ac); includes (out of a possible within 1.4 mile nest core (3,941 acres); watersheds outside of project total of 3,941 ac) nest core within includes watersheds (on area*,** project area only and off forest) outside of project area* Suitable-3,194 Suitable-12,644 Suitable-2,045 Dispersal-0 Dispersal-0 Sam’s Ridge 2,792 (71%); Dispersal-0 Non-747 Non-1,899 (#449)/Occupied Other on ONP Non-747 (ONP-1,149) (ONP-7,254) Sam’s River Suitable-3,869 Suitable-14,080 Upper—Olympic Suitable-400 Dispersal-0 Dispersal-0 Natl Park site 472 (12%); Other Dispersal-0 Non-72 Non-577 (#77)/Historical on ONP Non-72 (ONP-3,469) (ONP-11,761) Suitable-1,848 Suitable-8,113 Suitable-1,805 Dispersal-622 Dispersal-2,061 Sam’s River West 3,898 (99%); Dispersal-622 Non-1,471 Non-4,483 (#76)/Historical Other on ONP Non-1,471 (ONP-43) (ONP-3,821) *Sites below take thresholds shown in red {1.4: Must be above 1,971 acres; 2.7: Must be above 5,708 acres} **These numbers may not total 14,271. At some sites, they are approximately 200-400 acres more, which is likely just a mapping error. The important information to gain is the relative amounts of suitable, dispersal, and non-habitat (often on other ownerships) in each home range. ***All acres in Olympic National Park are assumed to be suitable habitat (they are folded into the “suitable habitat” acres listed). ****All acres on tribal, state, or private lands are assumed to be non-habitat (they are folded into the “non-habitat” acres). These assumptions will not hold true for every acres (e.g. meadows and blowdown areas in ONP will not provide suitable habitat for owls, while some areas on other ownerships may, at least temporarily, be providing that nesting, roosting, and foraging component. It is, however, overall true that these land allocations generally tend in these directions, toward suitable or non-habitat.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

While habitat quality within the project area varies, the proposed Queets commercial thinning units are generally in single-layer canopy stands which likely only function as spotted owl dispersal habitat at present. The proposed units are mapped in GIS as dispersal habitat and field review has confirmed structural conditions that correspond with dispersal habitat function. All units are adjacent to suitable nesting, roosting or foraging habitat and potentially contain snags and remnant trees, though the overall stands would still be characterized as dispersal habitat. Some of these trees and snags have the structural potential to be nesting trees for owls or murrelets, either at present or in the future. On a functional basis, current use of these trees for nesting may be less likely than would occur within stands of pure old-growth, however habitat selection on the Olympic Peninsula is probably influenced by factors other than stand age, such as prey availability, availability of suitable nests and roosts, and presence of escape cover (Forsman and Giese 1997). Individual suitable habitat trees would be protected from damage or removal under all alternatives (see more information below on these individual trees in the discussion on marbled murrelet critical habitat). Any nearby or adjacent suitable habitat blocks are considered occupied for the purpose of applying disturbance buffers (in the absence of surveys to protocol). In terms of prey, in Washington northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) form the overwhelming bulk of the spotted owl diet in terms of the percent of prey taken and overall biomass (Forsman et al. 2001). A variety of other small to medium mammals can also form a major portion of the diet. On the eastern Olympic Peninsula specifically, northern flying squirrels make up 45.2% of prey consumed, southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) comprise the second highest percentage at 10.3%, the bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea) at 9.6%, snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) at 8.5%, and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) at 7.0 (Forsman et al. 2001). A requirement of listing under the Endangered Species Act is that each species’ status will be reviewed at least once every five years. The first status review (Courtney et al. 2004) looked at what is currently known about spotted owls across their range and what the last decade of federal management (i.e., the NWFP) has or has not accomplished in terms of conserving the species. According to Anthony et al. (2004), northern spotted owl populations are performing most poorly in Washington despite the protection of a substantial amount of habitat on federal lands. Though some decline was expected, even with the implementation of the NWFP, the downward trends, even in areas with little timber harvest, suggest that other factors are responsible for the declines (Courtney et al. 2004). While a number of explanations are possible, nothing definitive can be directly attributed to the decline. Anthony et al. (2004) noted declining populations in areas without timber harvest and populations remaining stable in areas with harvest of mature forest. Additionally, the 2004 Status Review recognized the threat posed by the closely related barred owl (Strix varia), which had not been listed as a threat when the species was first listed, stating that barred owls are having a negative impact on spotted owls in some areas.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The second status review was completed in late 2011 (Davis et al. 2011) and, again, documents strong evidence of population declines in most study areas, with the highest (40-60% between 1992-2006) occurring in the northern part of the owl’s range (Washington and northern Oregon). The two factors most associated with owl vital rates are the invasion of the competitive barred owl and the amount of suitable nesting/roosting habitat. Managing, or not, the barred owl may be beyond the scope of the NWFP, however maintaining large blocks of suitable habitat, which is within the scope, will undoubtedly play a key role in ameliorating the negative effects of barred owls upon spotted owls. Though the amount of habitat loss on federal lands was less (3.4%) than the 5% anticipated in the NWFP, in certain physiographic provinces losses have amounted to 10% of the total habitat available. The leading cause of this loss has been wildfire rather than timber harvest. The strategy of recruiting nesting/roosting habitat, one of the cornerstones of the NWFP, is a way to make up for this habitat loss, however forests grow slowly and not enough time has yet elapsed to detect any significant additions. In terms of the Olympic Peninsula study area specifically, fecundity appears to be stable even as the population has been declining. In some areas, the proportion of barred owls detected had a negative effect on fecundity but this wasn’t true in the Olympics. Although variable across study sites, the presence of barred owls was the strongest and most consistent negative factor relating to spotted owl survival. From the surveys that have been done in the project area, there is evidence of barred owl presence. In general, this species of owl tends to prefer lower elevations and river bottoms, but they have been found in higher country as well. Courtney et al. (2004) devote an entire chapter of the first Northern Spotted Owl Status Review to the interactions and potential threats to northern spotted owl populations posed by barred owls. Drawing from a number of studies and other observations, they describe the general agreement that barred owls have undergone range expansion and population increases throughout the range of the northern spotted owl. Barred owls use similar habitats in addition to some habitats not used by spotted owls, including second-growth dominated or more fragmented landscapes. There is overlap in the diet of the two species, but barred owls generally consume a wider variety of prey items. In addition to the potentially competitive elements of habitat and diet overlap, observations indicate that barred owls are more aggressive in interactions between the two species. Throughout the range of spotted owls, barred owls now occupy many territories once occupied by northern spotted owls. Given the above, there is the presumption that barred owls have had a role in displacing spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004). Additionally, Olson et al. (2005) found that barred owls had a substantial negative effect on the probability of site occupancy by spotted owls, and can lead to declines in spotted owl occupancy. Overall, an examination of patterns of coexistence between owl species shows the great potential for these two species to be strong competitors, with the larger barred owl likely being competitively superior to the slightly smaller spotted owl (Gutierrez et al. 2007).

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

With the lack of more recent survey information, it is difficult to make any firm conclusions about the status of northern spotted owl populations within the Matheny, Sams River, or Salmon River subwatersheds of the project area. The survey data from 1999-2005 recorded spotted owls repeatedly at several sites and also documented reproduction. Specifically, the Dilly, Finley Creek, and Matheny East sites had pairs that fledged young during more than one breeding season. Designated Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl As required by the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. The first iteration of this effort occurred on January 15, 1992 (USDI 1992a) on National Forest lands outside congressionally designated wilderness. In 2008, critical habitat was re-delineated (USDI 2008) and a third designation was finalized on December 4, 2012 (USDI 2012a). The conservation principles in developing critical habitat were to: • Develop and maintain large contiguous blocks of habitat to support multiple reproducing pairs of owls; • Minimize fragmentation and edge effect to improve habitat quality; • Minimize distance to facilitate dispersal among blocks of breeding habitat; and • Maintain range-wide distribution of habitat to facilitate recovery (Thomas et al. 1990). By its very designation, critical habitat indicates lands that may be needed for a species’ eventually recovery and delisting. Critical habitat will not in itself, lead to the recovery of the species, but is one of several measures available to contribute to a species’ conservation (USDI 1992a). Primary constituent elements for northern spotted owls were characterized as nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal habitats (Thomas et al.1990). Suitable habitat typically contains large trees within a diverse forest structure, while dispersal habitat consists of smaller diameter trees (on average 11 inches dbh) within stands having a minimum canopy cover of 40 percent (Thomas et al. 1990). On the Olympic Peninsula, the average owl home range was estimated to be the area 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) from an established site center. As stated above, reproduction success may be diminished if there is less than 50% of the area in nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat (less than 1,971 acres within the 1.4 mile nest core; less than 5,708 acres within the 2.7 mile home range). The 2012 designation includes 94% (592,477 acres) of the Olympic National Forest into the Peninsula’s critical habitat unit (CHU). Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) The marbled murrelet was listed as a threatened species due to extensive harvest of late- successional and old-growth forest, which provides nesting habitat for the species (USDI 1992b). Tree attributes that provide nesting platforms for murrelets include large (> 4 inches)

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project diameter or forked branches, deformities, mistletoe infections, and “witches brooms,” or other similar structures. These attributes are generally found in old-growth and mature forests, but can be found on remnant trees in younger stands (USDI 1996). On the Olympic Peninsula, murrelet populations fall into either Conservation Zone 1 (the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca), or Conservation Zone 2 (along the Pacific Coast). The Queets project area ranges from between 15 and 27 miles from the coast and so falls into Zone 2. Suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet can generally be approximated by northern spotted owl suitable (nesting, roosting, foraging) habitat (approximately 53% of the federal ownership in the watershed). By contrast, dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl is not suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet. All of the proposed project stands in the Queets project area are classified as dispersal habitat, however field reconnaissance has verified that there are some scattered trees within their boundaries that could potentially function as murrelet nest trees. These trees are classified as such because of their limb structure and the presence of nesting platforms. However, the structural condition of the surrounding second- generation forest, including a low density of remnant trees with platforms and the longer distances to sizable waterways, make it unlikely that these stands currently function as suitable murrelet nesting habitat. These remnant trees that are located in stands within murrelet critical habitat would each have no-thin buffer of all trees with interlocking branches on the remnant tree as mitigation for protecting “primary constituent elements” (PCEs) of critical habitat (USDI 1996). The topic of PCEs is further discussed in the section on marbled murrelet critical habitat. No surveys for marbled murrelet were conducted relative to this project. Previous surveys in the watershed have documented the birds occupying stands along Matheny Creek, tributaries to Matheny Creek, and tributaries to Sams River. As mentioned earlier, the most contiguous pieces of suitable habitat exist in the upper watersheds of Matheny Creek and Sams River, as well as along the North Fork of the Salmon River. Because specific surveys (relative to this planning effort) for spotted owls and marbled murrelets have not been conducted in the project area to established protocols, any nearby or adjacent suitable habitat blocks are considered occupied for the purpose of applying disturbance buffers.

Table 3-3. Survey information for marbled murrelet sites within the project Site Area Occupied/Presence Notes Acres of suitable habitat within .5 miles (out of a possible 500); Some detections, if less than .2 miles apart, were lumped. One observation was of a #810120—150 acres; Matheny Creek-3 bird landing in a tree, #960290—174 acres; detections Occupied then flying away a #900538—110 acres

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-3. Survey information for marbled murrelet sites within the project Site Area Occupied/Presence Notes Acres of suitable habitat within .5 miles (out of a possible 500); Some detections, if less than .2 miles apart, were lumped. minute later. #940515, 950949, 950933 (4 detections)— 247 acres; #940895 (2 detections)—224 acres; #950926—172 acres; #900539—213 acres; Matheny Creek Birds circling above #960272—230 acres; Tributaries-10 canopy, then flying into #900538—249 acres detections Occupied stands. #922390—310 acres; Sams River #930387 and #939690 Tributaries-7 Birds flying through the (6 detections)—359 detections Occupied canopy. acres

Like the northern spotted owl, status reviews for the marbled murrelet are required under the Endangered Species Act. The 2004 Status Review (McShane et al. 2004) described 1) declines in murrelet populations in all conservation zones, from British Columbia to middle California; 2) an expectation that there would be no significant improvements in breeding habitats; 3) suitable breeding habitat and number of occupied sites declining throughout Washington, Oregon, and California; and 4) some threats as increasing (threat of nest predation and threat of adult predation by raptors in some areas), some threats as remaining about the same (effects from ongoing and past habitat loss, oil spill mortality, and risks from unpredictable events, e.g. wildfire, disease outbreaks, etc.), and some as being reduced (rate of annual habitat loss and mortality from gill-net fishing). Based on new estimates of terrestrial habitat loss and ongoing threats in the marine environment, the 2009 5-year Status Review (USDI 2009) concluded that the listed marbled murrelet population (Washington, Oregon, and California) has declined significantly since 2002, the year of the estimate documented in the 2004 Status Review. The estimate in 2002 for the three states was 24,400 birds; in 2008, the population estimate was approximately 18,000 birds, a decline of about 26% (USDI 2009). More recently, the total population was estimated at 16,691 (a decline of 29%) (G.Falxa, pers. comm., 2011). The population estimates for only Conservation Zone 1 and 2 are even more dramatic. In 2002, Zone 1 had 9,717 birds; in 2010, it

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project was down to 4,393 birds, a decline of 55%; in Zone 2, the population decreased 51%, from 2,619 murrelets in 2002 to 1,286 in 2010 (G.Falxa, pers. comm., 2011). The 2009 review states that, “the species’ decline has been largely caused by extensive removal of late-successional and old growth coastal forest which serves as nesting habitat for murrelets. Additional factors in its decline include high nest-site predation rates and human-induced mortality in the marine environment from disturbance, gillnets, and oil spills.” A more specific look at causes of the continued decline in murrelet populations has been assimilated in the “Report on Marbled Murrelet Recovery Implementation Team Meeting and Stakeholder Workshop” (USDI 2012b). Sustained low recruitment (.08 ratio of juveniles to adults had been observed in Washington; a stable population has a ratio of 0.2) was deemed in this report to be the overarching cause, with five major contributing mechanisms: 1) ongoing and historic loss of forest nesting habitat; 2) predation on murrelet eggs and chicks in their nests; 3) changes in marine forage conditions, affecting the abundance, distribution, and quality of prey; 4) post-fledging mortality; and 5) cumulative and interactive effects of factors on individuals, populations, and the species. The 2009 Status Review also stated that should observed population trends continue to decline, “a change in listing status to endangered may be warranted in the future” (USDI 2009). Designated Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet In 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet (USDI 1996). Designated marbled murrelet critical habitat units (CHUs) in Washington State are primarily on federal lands within LSRs. Critical Habitat Units WA-01, WA-02, WA-03 and portions of WA-06 are located within Olympic National Forest. The total acreage of designated critical habitat on Olympic National Forest is 411,900 acres, of which 50% is suitable habitat (for the purposes of this analysis, suitable habitat for murrelets is approximated by that which has been designated as suitable for spotted owl). These CHUs serve as part of a network of marbled murrelet habitat across the Olympic Peninsula, along with habitat available in Olympic National Park and wilderness areas. All of the federal lands in the Queets project area that are in LSR are included in the WA-02-c marbled murrelet CHU. This CHU has a total of 46,300 acres, so the Queets project area comprises approximately 95% of the total. Like with spotted owls, approximately 53% of the project area is mapped as suitable habitat for marbled murrelets. The WA-02-c CHU falls within to Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zone 2 (USDI 1997) for this project. Criteria used in selecting specific areas for inclusion into critical habitat areas include:

 presence of suitable nesting habitat,  survey data indicating murrelet use areas,  proximity to marine foraging habitat,  large, contiguous blocks of nesting habitat,  range-wide distribution,  adequacy of existing protection and management (USDI 1996, USDI 2003).

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

It is likely that proximity to the marine environment, the adequacy of existing protection and management (a large amount of land comprising the CHU is managed by the U.S. Forest Service under the NWFP), the presence of some amount of suitable nesting habitat, and survey data indicating murrelet use figured into this area’s inclusion as critical habitat. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service identified two habitat features within critical habitat, referred to as primary constituent elements (PCEs), associated with the terrestrial environment that support the requirements for nesting, roosting, and other normal behaviors (USDI 1997). Both constituent elements are present within the Queets project area:

 individual trees with potential nesting platforms (PCE 1)  forested areas within 0.5 mile of individual trees with potential nesting platforms and a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height (PCE 2) (USDI 1996). Because the trees in the proposed Queets stands are at least one-half the site-potential tree height, and because all stands are in marbled murrelet critical habitat block WA-02-c (USDI 1996), surveys would be appropriate to locate primary constituent element #1, however, due to budget limitations, surveys were not conducted in every stand. Surveyed stands included those for which there appeared to be a larger number of trees greater than 25” DBH. This list included 21 of the proposed stands: A7, B1, B5, B6, B8, B9, B10, B13, B20, B30, C6, C11, C14, C15, C16, D7, D8, D9, D14, D15, and D16. Two additional units will be surveyed when access improves in the drier weather: D17 and D18. PCE1s within all stands would be retained since the proposed prescription excludes harvest of trees > 20 inches dbh. As already mentioned, suitable habitat for marbled murrelet can be approximated by the habitat for the northern spotted owl. Some stands that have not quite developed into suitable habitat for the spotted owl may contain mistletoe brooms or large diameter limbs that are large enough to provide nesting platforms for the marbled murrelet, however documented marbled murrelet nest trees have typically measured greater than 80 cm (32 inches) dbh (Hamer and Nelson 1995). On the Olympic National Forest, the manageable limiting factors for the marbled murrelet are quantity and quality of nesting habitat for the species and the potential for disturbance. Measures used to assess effects from project activity to spotted owls and marbled murrelets:

 Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics.  Acres of habitat disturbed during project activities. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Table 3-4 includes species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA 2011) . The American peregrine falcon and Pacific bald eagle were both placed on the Sensitive Species List concurrent with their federal de-listings, in 1999 and 2007, respectively. Similarly, one

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project salamander species, Dicamptodon copei, and one butterfly, Dog Star Skipper, Polites sonora siris, were removed from the list in December 2011. At the same time, five new butterflies and one mollusk were added. Designation as “sensitive” means these species are given special management considerations to ensure their continued viability on National Forest lands. Except for the Townsend’s big-eared bat, Olympic torrent salamander, and the mollusks, there have not been any surveys done for sensitive species relative to this project.

Table 3-4. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.

Common Name Species Name Suitable Habitat Documented Present in Sightings in Project Area Project Area Birds

Pacific Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes Yes

American Peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum No No Falcon

Common Loon Gavia immer No No

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Yes Yes

Mammals

Pacific Fisher Martes pennanti Yes Yes Townsend’s Corynorhinus townsendii Yes No Big-Eared Bat Keen’s Myotis Myotis keenii Yes No

Olympic Marmot Marmota olympus No No

Thomomys mazama Olympic Pocket Gopher No No melanops

Amphibians

Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Yes No

Olympic Torrent Rhyacotriton olympicus Yes Yes Salamander

Butterflies

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-4. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.

Common Name Species Name Suitable Habitat Documented Present in Sightings in Project Area Project Area Johnson’s Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Yes No

Taylor’s Checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori No No

Olympic Arctic Oeneis chryxus valerata No No

Golden Hairstreak Habrodais grunus No No

Valley Silverspot Speyeria zerene No No bremnerii

Makah Copper Lycaena mariposa No No charlottensis

Puget Blue or Blackmore’s Plebejus icariodes Yes No Blue blackmorei

Lupine Blue Plebejus lupini No No spangelatus

Mollusks**

Puget Oregonian (snail) Cryptomastix devia

Keeled (formerly Burrington’s) Jumping Hemphillia burringtoni Slug

Malone’s Jumping Slug Hemphillia malonei

Blue-gray Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum (slug)

Broadwhorl Tightcoil Pristiloma johnsoni (snail)

*The bald eagle is also listed as a management indicator species (MIS) and will be discussed further in that section. **Mollusks will be discussed in the Survey & Manage section.

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) The American peregrine falcon, a formerly listed endangered species, was removed from federal listing status in August 1999 after the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that it was no longer endangered or threatened. This finding was based on available data indicating that the species had recovered following restrictions on organochlorine pesticides and the implementation of successful management activities (USDI 1999). Peregrine falcon need cliffs or rock outcrops for suitable nesting habitat. There are no such sites, nor have there been any documented sightings of the species, in the project area. Peregrines feed on a variety of smaller birds (Hays and Milner 2004), many of which could be present in the project area.

Common Loon (Gavia immer) Common loons inhabit both salt and fresh water bodies, nesting in inland lakes and ponds and foraging in both types of water systems (Ehrlich et al. 1988). There are no large inland bodies of water within the Queets project area that would provide nesting habitat for loons. The species is regularly observed in the winter on Lake Quinault, approximately 1.6 miles from the watershed.

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) The Harlequin duck is a sea duck which winters along rocky Pacific coasts and moves inland to breed in the Olympic Mountains. During the nesting season from April to June, the adults require fast flowing streams with loafing sites nearby (Lewis and Kraege 1999). Harlequin ducks appear to be sensitive to human disturbance, which can discourage use at traditional nesting sites and thereby lower productivity. In addition, aquatic insect larvae make up the bulk of the diet during the breeding season and low levels of benthic invertebrates can also impact their productivity (Lewis and Kraege 1999). A pair of birds was observed in 1994 on a tributary to Matheny Creek. Pacific Fisher (Martes pennant) The Pacific fisher, a member of the weasel family, is strongly associated with forested landscapes and will actively avoid open areas (Maser 1998). Fisher commonly occur in landscapes dominated by mature forest cover and have been categorized by some researchers as “closely-associated” with late-successional forests (Thomas et al. 1993). Fishers have been found selecting for stands with higher overhead canopy cover due to the increased security and snow-interception that it provides, as well as in those areas with high structural complexity on the forest floor (Weir and Harestad 2003). Seasonally, fishers are known to use both young and mature forest types depending on the shift in prey availability. Additionally, female fishers utilize two distinct sites as dens. Natal dens are comprised of living and dead standing trees with cavities. Maternal dens have been documented as occurring in downed wood, or logs

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

(USDA 1994). Trees used as resting structures are often the largest trees, snags, or down logs available (Weir and Harestad 2003, Zielinski et al. 2004). No known populations of fishers have been documented in recent decades in Washington and it has been thought that the species was extirpated from the state (Lewis and Hayes 2004). Extensive surveys conducted between 1990 and 2003 within and outside of Olympic National Park did not detect any fishers.

In September 2007, the Fisher Reintroduction Plan/Environmental Assessment was completed, which outlined a program to contribute to the species’ reintroduction to the state by establishing a self-sustaining fisher population in Olympic National Park (USDI 2007b). The preferred alternative involved bringing animals from a source population in Canada and releasing them into three areas of Olympic National Park, the Elwha-Sol Duc Area, the Hoh- Bogachiel, and the Queets-Quinault. Beginning in January 2008, a total of 90 fishers were released over the next three winters. Very quickly, the animals spread out across the Peninsula, occupying National Forest, state, and private lands. Most of the animals were released in the north part of the park and, while many concentrated in that area, several have moved south. Most of the fisher activity around the project area between 2008-2011 has occurred to the west, across other ownerships, including the National Park, state, private, and tribal lands. There have been radio telemetry points for at least one male within the project area, however this does not seem to be an indication of sustained use by fishers so far. The second phase of the fisher reintroduction, focusing on documenting presence via remote cameras and hair snare boxes, began in June 2013. There are two survey polygons (“hexes” 234 and 235) that fall within the Queets project area, but these will not be done until the 2014 and 2015 survey seasons. There has been no other fisher survey work done in the project area.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a cave-dwelling species that will also utilize human structures, such as buildings, if they provide a “cavern” component. They will night roost in more open settings, including under bridges. There seems to be a preference for I-beam or cast-in-place bridges, as opposed to wooden or cement flat bottom bridges, because of the heat-capturing properties of the former (Perlmeter 1995). Suitable roosts are critical components for the survival of the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). Many species of bat also utilize the areas beneath sloughing bark, most often found on old-growth trees and snags. There are no documented caves in the Queets project area that would serve as likely roosts. In 2005, day and night surveys for Townsend’s big-eared bat were done under bridges across the forest. Eight bridges were surveyed in the project area in June 2005, including ones over Hook Branch and Matheny Creeks, two tributaries to Matheny Creek, Salmon River, and Middle Fork Salmon River. There was no documentation of Townsend’s big-eared bat during these surveys. The remnant late-successional forest in the project area contains large trees and snags that could be suitable for bat roosting. Because there are few if any of these remnant trees or legacy snags (and those that do exist will be maintained) in proposed units, the likelihood of this bat

100

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project species roosting within proposed units is much lower than the surrounding areas of remnant forest.

Keen’s Myotis (Myotis keenii) Keen’s Myotis has a very limited distribution ranging from Southeast Alaska down the coast of British Columbia and to the Puget Sound area in Washington. Keen’s Myotis and western long- eared bats (Myotis evotis) are virtually indistinguishable in hand and where the two overlap, most studies lump data regarding the two species together (Grindal 1998). As with other bats, they primarily consume invertebrates and more specifically have been documented consuming those in the Diptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Arachnida, and Trichoptera groups (Kellner and Harestad 2005). Keen’s Myotis are more likely to use a tree for roosting with increase in diameter, presence of defect, decreasing bark, and increasing proportion of old-growth on the landscape or increasing proportion of trees in the early to late stages of decay in the surrounding area (Boland et al. 2009). Grindall (1998) found very low roosting potential for this species in second growth stands. While this species is likely foraging over the project area, the likelihood of proposed thinning stands containing suitable roost trees is low compared to that of surrounding late- successional forest. Olympic Marmot (Marmota olympus) Olympic marmots are endemic to the Olympic Peninsula, meaning that the species is not found anywhere else. They are found in sub-alpine and alpine meadows and talus slopes (Linzey and Hammerson 2008), and as such the majority are found in Olympic National Park. There are no meadows or talus slopes within the project area that would be suitable for marmot. Olympic Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops) There are 15 recognized subspecies of pocket gophers, eight of which occur in Washington. In western Washington, the Olympic Mazama pocket gopher is associated with glacial outwash prairies, although their distribution seems patchy as some high quality prairies within the species’ range lack gophers (Steinberg and Heller 1997). The species is seriously imperiled in Washington, primarily due to habitat destruction and degradation from agricultural expansion, livestock grazing, fire suppression, exotic plant invasion, and urban sprawl, and many of the historic populations have disappeared or diminished to such a degree that their presence was not obvious (Steinberg 1995). It is also threatened by pesticide and herbicide spraying. The Olympic pocket gopher subspecies is found in the Olympic National Park in Clallam County where it is restricted to subalpine habitat of the higher Olympic Mountains. The Queets project area does not contain any glacial outwash prairie systems so it is unlikely that pocket gophers inhabit the area.

101

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Van Dyke’s Salamander (Plethodon vandykei) This rare salamander, generally considered the most “aquatic” of the woodland salamanders, is usually associated with seepages and streams but can also be observed far from water (Leonard et al. 1993). Overall, it requires moist, shady environments with cool temperatures and high humidity, which often involves a sufficient overstory in order to maintain microclimate stability (Nordstrom and Milner 1997). It can be found in the splash zones of creeks or waterfalls under debris, or under logs, bark and bark on logs near water. It is also found in wet talus and forest litter from sea level to 3,600 feet (Nordstrom and Milner 1997). Van Dyke’s salamander is found only in Washington and only from three areas, the Olympic Mountains, the southern Cascades, and the Willapa Hills. Documented populations have tended to be small and separated from one another (Leonard et al. 1993). There are no documented sightings of Van Dyke’s salamander in the project area. However, habitat exists along many of the numerous streams within the project area, and therefore, the species is assumed to be present.

Olympic Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton olympicus) This is the only species of torrent salamanders that is found on the Olympic Peninsula. The southernmost boundary of the range is uncertain, but probably does not extend further south than the Chehalis River Valley (Leonard et al. 1993). Olympic torrents are nearly always found around the splash zone of cold, clear streams, seepages, or waterfalls. Seepages running through talus slopes also provide habitat. The streams and riparian forest in the project area provide habitat for this species.

Within the project area, Olympic torrent salamander, as well as Cope’s giant salamander (Dicamptodon copei), a species recently removed from the Regional Forester’s list, were documented along tributaries to the Queets River (just upstream of the 2180 road) in July 2005. The species was also documented along the Queets off forest in 1997. Finally, there is a historical record from 1938 of an observation along the Higley Peak trail. Butterflies The Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) is considered the only old-growth obligate butterfly in this region (Pyle 2002). Conifer forests containing the mistletoe of the genus Arceuthobium are necessary for this species (WDFW 1995) as that is what emerging larvae feed upon (Pyle 2002). There have not been any surveys done for this species. Given the presence, however, of late-successional old-growth in portions of the project area, this species is likely to be present, but is not expected in proposed thinning units. The Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori), Olympic Arctic (Oeneis chryxus valerata), and Lupine Blue butterflies are found in alpine or mountain meadows and slopes, prairies, and rocky outcrops (Larsen et al. 1995). While the Taylor’s Checkerspot and Lupine Blue have been

102

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project documented on the Olympic Peninsula (USFS files and BAMONA database), neither of these species are expected to occur within the Queets project area (Taylor’s checkerspot has been documented on the forest, but only in the northeast where conditions are drier). The Golden Hairstreak has an extremely limited distribution due to their dependence on stands of golden chinquapin (Castanopsis chrysophylla), which their larvae feed upon exclusively (Larsen et al. 1995). Habitat for this species does not exist within the project area. The Makah copper butterfly relies on a small, white bog gentian (Gentiana douglasiana) as its main source of nectar. This type of bog habitat, with this bog species, has not been found in the watershed (Larsen et al. 1995). Makah Copper is also listed as a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Species of Concern (see section below). The Puget Blue (or Blackmore’s Blue) butterfly is a colonial species whose habitat includes forest clearings with the presence of Lupine (Lupinus spp.), Puget lowland prairies, power line and railroad rights-of-way (Larsen et al. 1995). They have not been documented in the project area but habitat could potentially be present in forested clearings if lupine is also present. The Valley Silverspot is highly localized and uses open prairies, arctic-alpine tundra, subalpine glades, which are not present in the Queets project area. They are, however, also found on mid-elevation roads and clearings, which do occur within the overall project activity area. The only known larvae host plant for this species is blue violet (Viola adunca) (Larsen et al. 1995). This plant species requires adequate sunlight and can be found on disturbed sites so could potentially be present in the watershed. Measures used to assess effects to sensitive species: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics. 2. Impacts to individual animals.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Survey and Manage—Mollusks In January 2006, the U.S. Western District Court determined that the March 22, 2004, Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was to be set aside, and the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines was to be reinstated including any amendments or modifications to the 2001 Record of Decision that were in effect as of March 21, 2004. In cases where Survey and Manage species are also on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (USDA 2011), the more stringent survey and manage requirements apply. On October 11, 2006, in the matter of Northwest Ecosystems Alliance, et al. v Mark E. Rey, et al. (Case No. C04-844-P), the Court approved a stipulation that exempted the need for pre- disturbance “survey and manage” surveys for thinning projects in stands younger than 80- years-old. This project falls under that exemption given that there are no proposed thinning

103

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project units greater than 80-years-old in this project area that would potentially be subject to the survey requirements. In addition, mollusk surveys are not required for projects “which affect suitable habitat elements but are dispersed through a project area so that less than 5% of those habitat components in the project area are negatively affected” (Duncan et al. 2003; p.10).

Species that fall under the 2001 Record of Decision and were identified as having potential habitat in the proposed project area are disclosed below. The following mollusk species are listed on the Regional Forester’s Survey and Manage List (USDA 2011). A number are also designated as Sensitive Species, and the alternatives will be evaluated for both sensitive and survey and manage mollusks, as appropriate. Table 3-5. Survey and Manage mollusk species.

Common Species Status* Suitable Habitat Documented Name Name Present in Project Sightings in Project Area Area Puget Survey & Manage Yes No Cryptomastix Oregonian Category A; devia (snail) R6 Sensitive Hoko Survey & Manage No No Vertigo Vertigo n. sp. Category A; (snail) R6 Sensitive Blue-gray Survey & Manage Yes No Prophysaon Taildropper Category A: coeruleum Slug R6 Sensitive Survey and Yes No Malone’s Hemphillia Manage Category Jumping malonei C; Slug R6 Sensitive Survey and Yes No Keeled Hemphillia Manage Category Jumping burringtoni E; Slug R6 Sensitive Oregon Megomphix R6 Sensitive Yes No Megomphix hemphilli Broadwhorl R6 Sensitive Yes No Pristoloma Tightcoil johnsoni (snail)

104

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

* Survey & Manage Category A – Rare. Manage all known sites. Survey prior to ground- disturbing activities. Survey & Manage Category B – Rare. Manage all known sites. Pre-disturbance surveys not practical. Survey & Manage Category C – Uncommon. Predisturbance surveys practical. Survey & Manage Category E – Rare. Manage all known sites. Status undetermined.

Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia) The Puget Oregonian snail is associated with hardwood shrubs and trees. It is only known from the Olympic National Forest from one shell found on the Hood Canal Ranger District. Despite extensive surveys across the Forest, no other shells or live animals have been discovered (J. Ziegltrum, personal communication, 2006). Regardless, habitat for the Puget Oregonian does occur within the project area in the form of hardwood trees, particularly big leaf maple and vine maple. It is assumed the Puget Oregonian could occur in the project area. As stated above, since less than 5% of habitat components in the project area would be affected (due to prescriptive measures protecting hardwoods), pre-disturbance survey and manage surveys were not required for this species (Duncan et al. 2003). Hoko Vertigo (Vertigo n. spp.) The project area is outside of the documented range of occurrence of the Hoko Vertigo snail. The Hoko Vertigo snail is arboreal and occurs in moist forest conditions within 200 meters of water where deciduous shrubs and small hardwood trees are present (Duncan et al. 2003), but has only been documented in the Hoko River drainage on the northwestern Olympic Peninsula, in Clallam County. Field surveys were not required for this species due to a lack of occurrence, lack of habitat, or lack of potential impacts (Duncan et al. 2003). Blue-Gray Taildropper (Prophysaon coeruleum) The blue-gray taildropper slug occurs in moist conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forests, usually located in sites with relatively higher shade and moisture levels than those of general forest habitat. It is usually associated with partially decayed logs, leaf and needle litter (especially hardwood leaf litter), mosses and moist plant communities, including big leaf maple, and sword fern plant associations (Duncan et al. 2003). The project area is within the reported range of these species. However, this species has not been found on the Olympic National Forest despite extensive surveys in similar habitats (J. Ziegltrum, personal communication, 2006), making its presence in the project area highly unlikely. Additionally, prescriptive measures under all alternatives will protect the hardwood elements, and less than 5% of habitat elements would be disturbed. Pre-disturbance surveys were not required. Malone’s Jumping Slug (Hemphillia malonei) The Malone’s jumping slug occurs in moist forested habitats, generally over 50-years-old with greater than 50% canopy cover especially where dense sword fern, conifer logs, CWD,

105

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project exfoliated bark piles, and large decaying stumps are present. It can also be found in marshy open sites with dense skunk cabbage, fallen logs and other low vegetative cover (Duncan et al. 2003). This species has not been found on the Olympic National Forest despite extensive surveys in similar habitats (J. Ziegltrum, personal communication, 2006). Additionally, while the project area is technically within the range of this species, the only area with documented suitable habitat on the Olympic National Forest is a small portion of the Wynoochee River watershed. The larger diameter and moderately decayed logs associated with the species are present in only very limited numbers in proposed units and less than 5% of them would be impacted by project activities. Pre-disturbance surveys were not required. Keeled Jumping Slug (Hemphillia burringtoni) The Keeled jumping slug is locally common and abundant on the Olympic National Forest (Ziegltrum 2001 and Ziegltrum 2004), and occurs in moist conifer forest. This species formerly included the species complex (Wilke 2004) of both warty jumping slug (Hemphillia glandulosa) and Burrington’s jumping slug (H. burringtoni). As the species is designated a Category E from the survey & manage program, there are no pre-disturbance survey requirements. There is likely presence of the species due to available habitat and documentation elsewhere on the Forest. Oregon Megomphix (Megomphix hemphilli) The Oregon Megomphix has been found in mature or late-seral, moist, conifer-hardwood forests. It is usually found in the hardwood leaf little and decaying non-coniferous plant matter under bigleaf maple trees. In the absence of big leaf maple, it would be more likely to be found at moist sites where deciduous shrubs, CWD, rotten logs or stumps, and large sword ferns provide abundant cover (Duncan et al. 2003). This species was added recently as a Region 6 Sensitive Species. There are no pre-disturbance requirements for this species. There are no known sites for this species in the project area.

Broadwhorl Tightcoil (Pristoloma johnsoni) The Broadwhorl Tightcoil (snail) tends to occur at exceptionally moist and very diverse forest sites (Frest and Johannes 1999). Typical site descriptions include abundant ground cover (Gaultheria, Oxalis, sword fern, grasses), conifer or hardwood overstory, and moderate to deep litter. This species could potentially be present in the project area. Measures used to assess effects to mollusk species: 1. Acres of hardwood habitat affected by project activities. 2. Impacts to individual animals.

Olympic National Forest Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species (MIS) are either selected species whose welfare is believed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat, or species whose

106

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area (Thomas 1979). The species that were identified as MIS for the Olympic National Forest (USDA 1990A) are listed in Table 3-6 below:

Table 3-6. MIS species within the Olympic National Forest.1

Common Species Indicator of Suitable Habitat Documented Name Name Habitat Presence Present Sightings in in Project Area Project Area Haliaeetus Mature forest Bald Eagle Yes Yes leucocephalus stands Northern Strix Old- Spotted occidentalis growth/Mature Yes Yes Owl1 caurina forest stands Pileated Dryocopus Mature Yes Yes (foraging sign) Woodpecker pileatus coniferous forest Primary Dead and dying Cavity Various Yes Yes (foraging sign) trees Excavators American Martes Mature Yes No Marten americana coniferous forest Balance of cover Cervus and forage Roosevelt canadensis habitats; amount Yes Yes Elk roosevelti of vehicle disturbance Balance of cover Columbia and forage Odocoileus Black-tailed habitats; amount Yes Yes hemionus Deer of vehicle disturbance 1 – The northern spotted owl was discussed in a previous section and therefore will not be discussed here. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Listing Status History: The Pacific bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was listed as a threatened species in 1978 (USDI 1978) in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (in the rest of conterminous United States the species was listed as endangered). The factors in listing the

107

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project bald eagle included: 1) destruction or modification of habitat from such activities as logging, housing developments, and recreation; 2) direct mortality of adult and immature eagles as a result of shooting; 3) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (i.e. the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act); and 4) human pollutants causing reproductive failure (USDI 1978). The final recovery plan (USDI 1986) cited historical sources documenting evidence of the decline of eagles in the Pacific Northwest and also determined that the largest nesting population in the 7-state Pacific recovery area was in Washington, with most nesting habitat located in the San Juan Islands and on the Olympic Peninsula coastline (Grubb 1976 as cited in USDI 1986). Regarding nesting territories, the recovery plan stated, “The high percentage of nest territories on private lands represents a potential threat to eagles in Washington, since private land owners are not legally mandated to manage and protect bald eagle habitat” (page 6). The stepdown outline to achieve recovery included: 1) providing secure habitat; 2) inventorying and monitoring habitat and populations; 3) developing and maintaining public awareness and law enforcement programs; and 4) augmenting bald eagle population levels through management and protection.

As a result of nearly three decades worth of work by numerous individuals and agencies, the bald eagle in the Pacific states has made a dramatic recovery. In 2007, the final rule to delist the species was published in the Federal Register on July 9th and became effective on August 8th (USDI 2007a). Despite the removal of status under the Endangered Species Act, the bald eagle will continue to be federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and in Washington remains a state listed sensitive species. Section 4(g)(1) of the Endangered Species Act requires that species that have been recovered and delisted should be monitored for not less than 5 years after their removal from the ESA (USDI 2007a). The final post-delisting monitoring plan for the bald eagle came out in May 2010 (USDI 2010) and describes a 20-year monitoring program beginning in 2009. The idea behind this post- delisting monitoring is to make sure that any failures of the species to sustain itself are detected and that, if warranted, listing procedures are initiated, including emergency listing if needed (USDI 2010). This monitoring, of course, includes nest check monitoring. Washington Eagles: The information in this section on Washington eagles is from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Status Report for the Bald Eagle from October 2007 (Stinson et al. 2007). Eagles occur in all forested parts of the state, but the largest concentrations by far are in the maritime regions west of the Cascade Range. Eagle nests are more common near marine shorelines, but also can be found at inland lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. The winter distribution of birds is similar to the breeding distribution, with heavier concentrations at salmon spawning streams and waterfowl wintering areas. Washington’s breeding adults typically leave their territories in late summer to migrate northward to British Columbia and southeast Alaska in search of seasonally available foods (spawning salmon runs). Juveniles and fledglings will also head north, but juvenile movements can be more nomadic and random, and fledglings may

108

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project stay several months away from Washington. The two most critical habitat features necessary for breeding bald eagles are the presence of large, dominant trees, capable of supporting their weight and their massive nests, and adequate food supplies. The trees must be located near water with a low level of human activity and replacement nest trees are critical, given the eagles’ average relatively long life expectancy of 5-20 years. Perch trees scattered throughout a territory are also necessary.

In Washington, approximately 104 nesting bald eagle pairs were documented in 1980; by the time of delisting, 848 had been documented. The Status Report for the Bald Eagle (Stinson et al. 2007) estimates that the historical early summer population of eagles before white settlement was approximately 8,800 birds. Between 1981 and 2005, the nesting population in Washington increased 707% and though the true carrying capacity is unknown, a recent decline in nest occupancy rates may indicate that some places in western Washington are approaching saturation. Evidence for this may be seen in declines of active nests in highly productive areas (egg. San Juan county), while increases of nests in developed areas may be related to increased competition. By contrast, the number of territories along rivers on the western Olympic Peninsula has continued to increase. Despite high eagle productivity overall throughout the state, two regional populations, the lower Columbia River and the Hood Canal, have experienced less success though they do appear to be improving. The Hood Canal eagle nests are more widely spaced than nearby territories and the eagles here have experienced lower foraging success. Olympic Peninsula: The interior of the Olympic Peninsula is almost entirely federally owned (National Forest and National Park), however, the prime eagle habitat, along the three shorelines, including the Pacific Coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal, is primarily in private or state ownership (and these areas are where most bald eagle nests on the Peninsula are located). In terms of management of eagles on the National Forest, the Olympic Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990A) describes 16 bald eagle existing and potential nesting areas. These were originally identified in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI 1986) as the Forest’s share of sites determined necessary for recovery (USDA 1990b, pg. III-69). Consequently, the Forest Plan outlined that a bald eagle management plan (BEMA) would be prepared for each of these 16 sites and would address such factors as eagle history of the site, forest stand characteristics, human activities, and information needs. One BEMA was completed in October 2007 for the Camp Creek site along the Sol Duc River (USDA 2007). The FEIS (USDA 1990b, pg IV-55) also states that the primary limiting factor for bald eagle populations on the Forest is the amount of feeding habitat, and that, “Nesting habitat is not currently nor is it expected to be a limiting factor for bald eagle populations on the Olympic National Forest if the standards and guidelines are followed.”

109

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

On the GIS eagle layer for ONF, there are 17 historic sites listed for the Forest, including the 16 nests and one communal roost. All the nest sites have had some level of monitoring by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, including occupancy and productivity surveys being collected as early as the late 1970s. Most WDFW survey work was done each year during the early eagle breeding (occupancy) period (April 7-25), and included documenting activity at historic nests, as well as searching for new nests. Likewise, mid-winter surveys were done throughout the Olympic Peninsula from 1982-1989.

Beginning in 2008, ONF began doing its own contracting for eagle surveys, which has included monitoring of specific nest sites, as well as inventories of planning areas for new nests and other eagle activity. These surveys also took place primarily during the early eagle breeding time (occupancy surveys), though we did follow-ups of some sites in 2009, 2010, and 2012 during the later reproductive season (June 10-25). In 2013, we did only the later season surveys. Sixteen specific nest trees and 10 river systems have been monitored between 2008 and 2013. We’ve determined that four historic nests, two at Wynoochee Lake, one along the West Fork Humptulips River, and one along the Sol Duc River (“Snider” site), had blown down, or otherwise vanished. Additionally, the surveyors discovered eight new nests at the following sites: Lower Sitkum River, Queets River, Wynoochee River 1, 2, 3, and 4, Wynoochee Lake NE, and Camp Creek 2 (along the Sol Duc River). The following active nests were observed each year: 1. 2008—Wynoochee Lake NE and Wynoochee River; no follow-up surveys. 2. 2009— Wynoochee Lake NE and Wynoochee River; follow-up—one eaglet found perched on the edge of the river nest in July, and the lake nest could not be found from the ground. 3. 2010—Wynoochee River and Camp Creek; follow-up—the Wynoochee River nest apparently failed and one eaglet was observed at Camp Creek in June (an August follow-up at Camp Creek revealed numerous pin feathers at the base of the Camp Creek nest, making us conclude that the eaglet ultimately perished at this site). 4. 2011—Wynoochee River, Wynoochee Lake NE, and Camp Creek; no follow-up surveys. 5. 2012—Wynoochee River, Wynoochee Lake NE, Camp Creek, and South Fork Calawah; follow-up—Wynoochee Lake had two feathered young, while Camp Creek had one; the nests on the Wynoochee River and South Fork Calawah River were both empty in June. 6. 2013—Wynoochee Lake NE

In 2011, an active nest with an unattended egg was observed at Wynoochee Lake (an adult was perched nearby). This observation of an unattended egg is something the surveyor had never seen before (M. Stalmaster, pers. comm. 2011).

Queets Project Area: There have not been any bald eagle surveys conducted in the project area, nor are there any known historic nests on this part of the Forest. The nearest historic site that has been

110

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project monitored is on the Lower Salmon River on a small piece of National Forest land, approximately 7 miles west of the project area. In April 2011, this nest was located and found to be in good condition, with the territory active (an eagle present) but the nest inactive. By contrast, in April 2012, when this nest was located, it was found to be in fair condition and the territory was unoccupied.

Conclusion: Most of the prime bald eagle habitat, and therefore productive nests, on the Olympic Peninsula is adjacent to marine waters and therefore is not on the Olympic National Forest. Nonetheless, the Forest generally does have some nesting activity each year and in looking at the more recent survey information, it would seem that the Sol Duc River and Wynoochee River and Lake are the best places on the Forest for eagles. While several areas surveyed since 2008, including the East and West Forks of the Humptulips River, the South Fork Calawah River (which did have an active nest in 2012), the South Fork Skokomish River, and the Little Quilcene River, have adequate nesting habitat, they may not provide enough forage for breeding eagles (M. Stalmaster, pers. comm. 2010). Large trees suitable for nesting eagles are protected during all Forest project activities and would not be cut unless they posed a human safety hazard. The bigger impact to eagles from Forest activities would include any work (timber harvesting, road decommissioning or building, etc.) that might cause disturbance and/or adverse effects to water quality and the fisheries resources. Measures used to assess effects to bald eagles: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics in the project area. 2. Acres of habitat disturbed during the eagle breeding season with project activities. 3. Stream and river effects to fisheries resources.

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Listing Status: U.S. Forest Service—Management Indicator Species (MIS) NatureServe—

 Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure  Oregon – S4 – Apparently secure  Washington – S4 – Apparently secure

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife—Priority species, rank Candidate USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern—The pileated woodpecker is not listed as a species of concern in any of the Bird Conservation Regions occurring in Oregon and Washington.

111

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Habitat use on the Olympic Peninsula:

The pileated woodpecker is a wide-spread resident in forested areas of Oregon and Washington. The birds use mature and older, closed canopy stands for nesting and roosting, but may use younger (40-70 years), closed-canopy stands for foraging if large snags are available; large snags and decadent trees are critical habitat components for pileated woodpeckers; down logs do not appear to be an important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers on the west side of Oregon and Washington (Hartwig et al. 2004, Mellen et al. 1992, Raley and Aubry 2006). Nest trees on the Olympic Peninsula were in both decadent live trees and snags; Pacific silver fir was the preferred species, but many nests were in decadent (dead top) western hemlock trees; nests snags were primarily broken topped (Aubry and Raley 2002). Roost trees were larger than nest trees; typically roosts were in western hemlock snags or live western redcedar; roost trees contained extensive hollows created by heartwood decay; pileated woodpeckers used an average of 7 different roost trees per year (Aubry and Raley 2002). Sites used for foraging had higher densities of large snags (>51cm (21”) dbh and > 7.5 m (25’) tall), which were sound or moderately decayed (Raley and Aubry 2006); the average density of large snags in plots with recent pileated woodpecker foraging activity was 100% greater than in plots with no recent foraging activity (Raley and Aubry 2006). Patches of these large, relatively hard snags in closed- canopy habitat conditions provide optimal foraging habitat. The mean home range size for female pileated woodpeckers on the Peninsula is 960 ha (2371 acres). For males the size is 894 ha (2208 acres), and for pairs, it is 863 ha (2132 acres) (Aubry and Raley 1996).

Threats:

The availability of large snags on the Olympic National Forest is the likely limiting factor for pileated woodpeckers given that several large snags per acre are required to meet the nesting, roosting, and foraging requirements of the species. Forested areas on the landscape that have not been harvested are more likely to meet these requirements, while managed stands may or may not, depending on how many legacy snags were left during the initial harvest operations. A little more than half (53%) of the Queets project area is currently designated as northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet “suitable habitat,” which largely corresponds with late- successional forest conditions that would likely meet pileated woodpecker needs. The remaining areas probably do not.

The “tolerance level” for pileated woodpeckers was determined for this project area. Tolerance levels are estimates of the percent of all individuals in the population that are within some specified range of values, and these values refer to habitat characteristics—see the DecAid

112

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project analysis below for a full explanation. Basically, the higher the tolerance level, the higher the proportion of individuals in the population that are being provided for, and the more assurance you have that you are providing habitat that will meet the needs of more individuals in the population. The basic assumption is that more is better and bigger is better. Currently, approximately 19% of the project area is meeting the habitat needs for 80% of the pileated woodpecker population (Hart 2012).

Population trends from breeding bird data for pileated woodpecker are negative, however some concerns (small sample sizes, imprecise results, and inconsistent trends) exist with the numbers (Sauer et al. 2008). From the Partners in Flight database (Panjabi et al. 2005), the population trend is described as “highly variable, or unknown,” and threats listed as “expected future conditions for breeding populations are expected to remain stable; no known threats.”

Future:

The selected alternative for the NWFP (USDA/USDI 1994a) was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities The pileated woodpecker was one of 36 birds determined to be closely associated with late- successional and old-growth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat (USDA/USDI 1994b; 3&4-177). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT 1993). The viability outcome for the pileated woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA/USDI 1994b; 3&4-179). This outcome determination was based on provisions of: 1) a large system of LSRs, 2) standards and guidelines for riparian reserves, and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and CWD within the matrix. The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old- growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.” As a result projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of late- successional associated species such as the pileated woodpecker.

Measures used to assess effects to pileated woodpeckers: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics within the Queets project area.

113

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

2. Acres of habitat disturbed due to harvest activity being done during the spring/summer.

Primary Cavity Excavators

Primary cavity excavators is a group that represents species dependent on standing dead trees or snags of varying sizes for feeding, resting and nesting. Six species of primary cavity excavators occur on the Olympic Peninsula, including the downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), red- breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), and red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus). A sixth species, the northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) has been documented nesting in Olympic National Park, however it is not a common resident west of the Cascade Range. Listing Status:

The USFS status of these primary excavators species is MIS (none are Sensitive). Table 3-7 shows the NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ conservation status.

Table 3-7. Listing status of primary excavator species.

NatureServe Ranks1 Species Global OR WA Downy woodpecker G5 S4 S4S5 Hairy woodpecker G5 S4 S5 Northern flicker G5 S5 S5 Red-breasted nuthatch G5 S5 S5 Red-breasted sapsucker G5 S4 S4S5 1 NatureServe Ranks: (NatureServe 2010)

 G5 or S5 – Widespread, abundant, secure  G4 or S4 – Apparently secure  G3 or S3 – Vulnerable  G2 or S2 – Imperiled

Habitat use on the Olympic Peninsula: All of these species require snags of an appropriate size, species, and condition and density, but the snags must be provided in the right habitat type. Table 3-8 summarizes the general habitat of each bird species.

114

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table3-8. General habitat descriptions of snag associated MIS. Habitat descriptions are taken from general reference books (Marshall et al. 2003, Wahl et al. 2005) and research (Huff and Raley 1991, Wisdom et al. 2000). Species Habitat description Downy Deciduous riparian woodlands and lowland deciduous forest (alder, woodpecker cottonwood, willow, aspen, oaks). Also found in urban parks and orchards. Low and mid-elevations. Nest primarily in dead trees. Hairy Dry and wet coniferous forests at low to mid-elevations. Also use deciduous woodpecker forest and riparian areas, especially if adjacent to coniferous forest. Use all ages of forest stands, though some authors report preference for older stands for nesting. Nest primarily in moderately decayed snags. Occur in higher densities in mature and old-growth stands on the west side of the Cascades. Northern flicker Habitat generalists, though most abundant in open forests or forest edges. Use coniferous and deciduous forest, riparian woodlands, and urban areas. Nests are in large snags. Northern three- Source habitat is old forests in subalpine and montane forest (lodgepole toed pine, grand fir-white fir, Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, white-bark pine woodpecker and mountain hemlock). Red-breasted Breeding habitat is conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forest. West of the nuthatch Cascades the species may be more abundant in older forests. East of the Cascades they are absent from very young stands. During non-breeding season they may occur in deciduous woods and urban areas. Nest in snags or dead limbs. Red-breasted Wet and moist coniferous forests and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests. sapsucker Abundance increases with stand age. Nests are typically in large snags or trees with decay. Occur in higher densities in mature and old-growth stands on the west side of the Cascades.

In general, larger snags are better and provide for more individuals in a population (see DecAid Analysis below). For example, the following table (3-9) shows acres in the project area that are providing habitat at the different tolerance levels (which are explained above in the pileated woodpecker section). Providing habitat at the 80% tolerance level provides for the most individuals of a species.

115

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-9. Tolerance levels for cavity nesting birds.

Species Acres (% Acres (% Acres (% Acres (% Percent of watershed) watershed) watershed) watershed) watershed providing providing providing providing providing habitat at habitat at habitat at habitat at habitat at <30% 30-50% 50-80% ≥80% 30-80% tolerance tolerance tolerance tolerance tolerance level level level level level Cavity-nesting Birds 3,756 5,606 1,736 583 68% (32%) (48%) (15%) (5%)

For cavity-nesting birds, just 5% of the watershed meets the 80% level.

From 1993 to 2001, landbird monitoring was conducted in eight watersheds on Olympic National Forest (Whittaker and Engelman 2001, Huff and Brown 1998). Results from this survey effort indicated that primary cavity excavators, including the hairy woodpecker, red-breasted nuthatch, northern flicker and pileated woodpecker, were fairly widespread on the Forest. Two other species, the downy woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker were also detected but not extensively, likely because the study sites only included old coniferous forest habitats. Systematic landbird surveys have not been conducted since 2001, but incidental sightings also indicate that these cavity nesting species occur and are widespread (though abundance is not known) on the Forest.

Threats:

As with the pileated woodpecker, the availability of large snags and different species of snags on the Olympic National Forest is the likely limiting factor for primary cavity excavators. Forested areas on the landscape that have not been harvested are more likely to meet these requirements, while managed stands, in most cases, probably do not.

Future: The selected alternative for the NWFP was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA/USDI 1994a). Ten cavity-nesting MIS were determined to be closely associated with late-successional and old- growth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat (USDA/USDI 1994b; 3&4-177). A viability assessment was completed by the Scientific Analysis Team (SAT) (Thomas et al. 1993; results presented in Table 3-10). The viability outcome for all but the black-backed woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA and USDI 1994b). This outcome determination was

116

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project based on provisions of: 1) a large system of LSRs, 2) standards and guidelines for RRs, and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and CWD within the matrix.

Table 3-10. Outcome likelihoods for ONF species under the preferred alternative under the NWFP. Outcome likelihood Species A B C D Hairy woodpecker 100 0 0 0 Red-breasted sapsucker 100 0 0 0 Northern flicker 100 0 0 0 Red-breasted nuthatch 100 0 0 0

The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old- growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.” As a result projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of the 10 late-successional associated MIS.

Measures used to assess effects to pileated woodpecker and primary cavity excavators: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics. 2. Acres of habitat disturbed due to harvest activity being done during the spring/summer.

Coastal Pacific Marten (Martes caurina) Listing Status:

U.S. Forest Service—Management Indicator Species (MIS) NatureServe:

 Global – G4/G5 – Critically Imperiled  Oregon – S1 – Critically Imperiled  Washington – S4 – Possibly Extirpated Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife:

 Priority species, Criterion 3. Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance: Native and non-native fish and wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance, and recognized species used for tribal ceremonial and

117

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

subsistence purposes, whose biological or ecological characteristics make them vulnerable to decline in Washington or that are dependent on habitats that are highly vulnerable or are in limited availability. (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008- sept_terrestrial_carnivores.pdf).  Harvested as a furbearer state-wide (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00769/wdfw00769.pdf).

Population Status:

The current geographic distribution of martens in the Pacific Northwest has been dramatically reduced, and is likely attributable to the loss of late-successional forests (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Likewise, there is evidence that populations may have declined on the Olympic Peninsula (Zielinski et al. 2001). Yet, despite data supporting these statements, as well as the fact that the species is listed as “vulnerable” in Oregon and a “priority” species in Washington, it has also been designated in both states as a furbearer. However, in 2013, the Pacific marten population west of the Cascade Range (“coastal martens”) was listed separately from the interior population on NatureServe, a non-profit organization that provides conservation rankings for rare and endangered species (NatureServe 2013). In Washington’s coastal habitats, martens are listed as “possibly extirpated,” while interior populations will be “apparently secure”, and the species’ global rank will become “critically imperiled.”

The Pacific marten is a medium-sized, semi-arboreal carnivore in the family Mustelidae (weasels) that once occurred throughout the forests of the Pacific coastal states (Zielinski et al. 2001). In Oregon and Washington, martens were found in areas down to sea level (Bailey 1936; Hagmeier 1956), however harvest of the species, a furbearer, in Washington has never been consistent (Zielinski et al. 2001). In the 1940s, a notable harvest of 83 animals was recorded from Clallam, Jefferson, and Mason counties, three of the four counties that comprise the Peninsula. Trapping records available online from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/) have more recently documented only seven animals being taken between 1997 and 2001. From 2002 through 2009, martens are not even listed in the reports for the Peninsula. Trapping data are not currently available online (June 2013) for the years 2010-2012, though it is unlikely there were any martens harvested here during these years either (Calkins, pers. comm., 2013).

There has also been little evidence of coastal marten from remote camera surveys. During inventory efforts in the Cascade Range and on the Peninsula in 1991, a total of 39 photos of marten were obtained (out of 260 taken), only one of which was purportedly from the Peninsula (Jones and Raphael 1991). It is now believed that this photograph was actually of a long-tailed weasel (Aubry, pers. comm., 2010). Another effort using remote cameras, from March–October 1992, documented one photo of a marten (from approximately 50 cameras

118

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project placed in the Hoh, Dosewallips, Duckabush, Hamma Hamma, and Gold Creek drainages) in Olympic National Park (ONP) along the Dosewallips River (Sheets 1993). This particular photograph has not been tracked down and therefore not verified. Third, extensive surveys conducted in Olympic National Park during the winters of 2001/2 and 2002/3 also produced no photos of marten, nor any of fisher (Martes pennanti), another target species, out of 1,270 pictures taken (Happe et al. 2005). Finally, camera surveys done on ONF and ONP since 2009 to document fisher presence and reproduction (after the species was introduced on the Peninsula beginning in 2008) have likewise not recorded any martens. Where martens exist, they readily come to camera stations, so the lack of them during these many survey efforts would seem to be cause for concern. In 2001, Zielinski et al. stated that martens had declined on the Olympic Peninsula, a conclusion which still seems valid twelve years later.

In summary, there are only three verified records of marten on ONF, including 1) an animal that was photographed in July 1988; 2) two different animals that were caught in live traps established for a spotted owl prey study in August 1990 (no photographs taken); and, 3) most recently, the discovery of a dead juvenile (photographed and preserved at the Burke Museum in Seattle) that was found in August 2008. The animal photographed in 1988 was observed in The Brothers Wilderness dragging a snowshoe hare off the trail. The observer was able to snap a photograph as the marten tugged on its prey.

An additional factor potentially affecting any marten populations that remain on the Peninsula is the recent reintroduction of fisher into Olympic National Park. Over three winters, a total of 90 animals have been released and are now occupying many areas of the Peninsula. With remote infrared cameras, several females with kits have been documented as well as young animals recently independent of their mothers (Lewis et al. 2010). Martens and fishers have evolved sympatrically in the late-successional forests of the Pacific Northwest, though in the West martens generally occur at higher elevations than fishers (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens are also more arboreal, exhibit more subnivean activity, and eat smaller prey than fisher (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). In areas where fishers and martens coexist, they may do so via niche partitioning with martens eating smaller prey (e.g. voles) under the snow (Martin 1994). Competitive interactions between martens and other mustelids have not been reported (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994) and given the fact that fishers are estimated to have been extirpated from the Peninsula for possibly several decades, the potential disappearance of marten continues to be perplexing.

Habitat use in Washington:

There have not been any formal research studies conducted on American marten on the Olympic Peninsula; all information on habitat use for Washington is derived from work done in the Cascade Range. Jones and Raphael (1991) found that martens used old-growth forests more frequently than expected based on availability within the home range. They also documented

119

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project that martens used areas near streams heavily; most telemetry locations were within 150 m (492 ft) of a perennial stream (Raphael and Jones 1997, Jones and Raphael 1991). Additionally, marten selected sites with higher canopy closure during snow periods than during snow-free periods (Raphael and Jones 1997). In Washington, canopy cover at rest sites averaged 75% in snow periods and 67% in snow-free periods. By contrast, in Oregon, canopy closure at rest sites in lodgepole pine dominated stands averaged 36% in snow periods and 27% in snow-free periods. Marten use a variety of structures for rest and den sites. Resting and denning sites offer protection from predation and thermal stress; thus, availability of quality denning sites likely increases the rates of survival and fecundity in marten (Raphael and Jones 1997. In the Washington Cascades, Jones and Raphael (1991; results presented in Table 3-11) found martens resting in live trees (42%), snags (23%), and slash piles (11%). Large diameter trees were used more often than smaller trees with an average dbh of live trees of 100 cm (39 inches) and 81 cm (32 inches) for snags. They also located 5 natal dens in large diameter live trees or snags near water. The predominant species of den trees was western hemlock.

Table 3-11. From Table 1 in Raphael and Jones (1997), comments added: Structures (%) used as resting and denning sites by American marten in the Washington Cascade Mountains. Structure Resting Den Comments Sites Sites Live Tree 46 54 Snag 21 31 Logs 8 4 Slash pile 9 8 More important when snow was present Rock 4 4 Subnivean 3 0 Other 8 0 Sample size 391 26

In addition to providing rest and den sites, down wood is an important component of marten habitat because the primary prey of martens is small mammals associated with down wood. Subnivean (under snow) spaces created by logs provide marten with access to prey during the winter (Bull and Blumton 1999, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Sherburne and Bissonette 1994). There are no data available on snag density or down wood size for Westside, lowland, coniferous-hardwood forests of Washington and Oregon. On the Olympic National Forest, there are two vegetative types, “Westside Lowland Conifer- Hardwood (WLCH) Forest, Washington Coast” and “Montane (higher elevation) Mixed Conifer (MMC) Forest” (see a full explanation of these below in the “DecAid Analysis” section).

120

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Densities of snags are relatively high (DecAid Figures MMC_L.inv-14 & 15) in Montane Mixed Conifer Forests, late-seral stands. MMC Forests naturally provide more dead wood habitat across the landscape than the other habitat types. This habitat type likely provides the best habitat for marten. Table 3-12 shows acres in the project area that are providing habitat at the different tolerance levels for marten in the Montane Mixed Conifer Forests. Providing habitat at the 80% tolerance level provides for the most individuals of a species.

Table 3-12. Acres of Montane Mixed Conifer Forest within the project area providing marten habitat (by tolerance level).

Species Acres (% Acres (% Acres (% Acres (% Percent of watershed) watershed) watershed) watershed) watershed providing providing providing providing providing habitat at habitat at habitat at habitat at habitat at <30% 30-50% 50-80% ≥80% 30-80% tolerance tolerance tolerance tolerance tolerance level level level level level Pacific Marten 13,548 642 717 18,704 60% (40%) (2%) (2%) (56%)

Approximately 60% of the project area is providing habitat at the 80% tolerance level for Pacific martens.

Threats:

Past extensive logging of mature forests and trapping have led to extirpation of marten in some areas (NatureServe 2010). This reduction in the amount of late-seral habitat, as well as fragmentation of the remaining habitat, and associated declines in snags and coarse wood all continue to be of concern with marten populations (Wisdom et al. 2000; Hargis et al. 1999). Further, roads that fragment habitat can also lead to continued trapping pressure (Wisdom et al. 2000). Other threats include limited availability of prey (Wisdom et al. 2000), predation (Bull and Heater 2001), and mortality resulting from territorial interactions between martens (Bull and Heater 1995).

121

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Future:

The selected alternative for the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994a) was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities The American marten was one of 15 mammals determined to be closely associated with late- successional and old-growth forests (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-182). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993). The viability outcome for the American marten was:

 67 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands”  27 percent likelihood of Outcome B – “Viable populations with gaps in distribution”  3 percent likelihood of Outcome C – “Populations relegated to refugia”  3 percent likelihood of Outcome D – “Extirpation(s) likely” Additional mitigation measures were implemented to increase the likelihood of Outcome A for the preferred alternative to be similar to 83% likelihood of Option 1 (most restrictive alternative). The mitigation measures were to increase the amount of “CWD” in the matrix and to implement wider RRs. Implementation of these mitigation measures “would be sufficient to support a stable, well-distributed population throughout most of its range. However, marten populations are low in the Olympic Peninsula and the Oregon Coast Range, and there is some chance that populations may not recover in those provinces” (USDA and USDI 1994b; J2-473). The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old- growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.” As a result projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of late- successional associated species such as the marten. This assumption will need to be supported with additional analysis on the Siuslaw and Olympic National Forests. Projects designed to enhance late-successional forest should result in a call of improving habitat conditions. Measures used to assess effects to American marten: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics.

122

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Roosevelt Elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti) and Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) Listing Status: U.S. Forest Service—Management Indicator Species (MIS) Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife—Game species

Habitat use on the Olympic Peninsula:

Roosevelt elk and Columbia black-tailed deer are known throughout the Olympic National Forest and Olympic Peninsula. Elk on the Olympic Peninsula are associated with the Olympic elk herd, although they are distributed throughout a variety of watersheds in smaller groups (WDFW 2005). Deer occur throughout the subwatersheds associated with the project area. Both species use a combination of habitats comprised of cover, forage, water, and space.

The ONF Forest Plan requires that twenty percent of the area necessary for winter survival should be managed as optimal cover (USDA 1990a). Due to snow accumulations at higher elevations, winter range for deer and elk on the Olympic Peninsula is typically defined as land below 1,500 feet in elevation (Taber and Raedeke 1980a, 1980b). In the Queets project area, approximately 18,580 acres out of a total of 43,936 acres are below 1,500 feet. Optimal cover has understory and overstory components which provide forage as well as snow- intercepting canopy to allow more forage to be available. These criteria are generally achieved when dominant trees average 21 inches in diameter or greater, there is 70% or greater canopy closure, and the stand is predominantly in the large sawtimber condition (USDA 1990A). Remnant forest being maintained for suitable northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat may also function as optimal cover, though may vary in the amount of forage available. Likewise, activities intended to develop late-successional conditions should also help to develop optimal cover for deer and elk. New models to evaluate elk habitat have recently been developed and validated by researchers, and include elk nutrition and elk habitat use components (Boyd et al. 2011, in draft). These new models have placed more emphasis on summer range because of the importance of this period to elk productivity (Hutchins 2006). The Westside Elk Summer Nutrition model predicts the amount of dietary digestible energy (DDE) that elk can acquire from a given plant community during this period. It can be used on its own or with the more comprehensive elk habitat use model. The inputs that drive the nutrition model are potential natural vegetation zone, modeling region, percent canopy cover of all live trees, and the proportion of total live trees that are hardwoods. Only the latter two inputs are generally subject to management manipulation. In general, higher DDE values are attained with decreasing canopy cover and increasing proportion of hardwoods. Forage quality is inherently limiting to most Westside environments. Therefore any increase in the amount of area within the higher DDE values can potentially result in benefits to elk nutrition and associated

123

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project productivity. The Westside Elk Habitat Use model incorporates the nutrition model along with additional inputs to predict levels of elk use across the landscape. Those inputs are distance to cover- forage edge, mean slope, and distance to public use roads. In general terms, higher use occurs closer to cover-forage edges, on more gentle slopes, and further from public use roads. Reported home range size for elk varies widely on the Olympic Peninsula, depending on the study area and habitat quality, as well as the estimation technique used. Mean home range sizes of up to 7,240 acres (Hutchins 2006) or 12,108 acres (Storlie 2006) have been recently reported for elk within managed forests within their home range. Home range size is generally smaller where habitat quality is higher. Concentrated use or “core” areas, where the elk spend the majority of their time, are generally much smaller than the home range size.

Home range sizes for deer on the Olympic Peninsula are much smaller, with a recent study showing an average of 373 acres (range 168-1583 acres; McCoy and Gallie 2005). That particular study area likely has more early seral habitat than typical National Forest project planning areas. Therefore, home ranges on National Forest Lands may be larger. As with elk, there is generally a much smaller concentrated use area for deer when the habitat quality is greater.

Threats: The availability, abundance, and quality of forage are important factors influencing the productivity of populations of both deer and elk. Elk reproductive rates and survival are influenced by home range quality and nutrition (Cook et al. 2004, Hutchins 2006). Preferred forage areas are in natural openings or managed stands generally less than 20-years-old. Lower elevation, south-facing slopes in the late winter or early spring that have an earlier emergence of grasses and forbs are a particularly important source of forage for cow elk in the late term of pregnancy (M. Zahn, pers. comm., 2009). The enhancement of forage through management activities such as thinning and the creation of openings can have a positive benefit on elk home range quality. Complex, uneven-aged timber stands are generally preferred by deer over more simplified, even-aged stands. Small openings and structural heterogeneity within and between stands are also beneficial to deer (Nelson et al. 2008).

In the short term, thinned areas, especially the more open “gaps”, would likely develop more understory that could be available as forage for a longer period, due to minor reductions in canopy cover. This will benefit both species. Silvicultural prescriptions which retain and favor hardwoods would also benefit the elk nutrition component. Currently those stands probably function primarily as hiding cover.

In the Queets project area, there has been substantial work accomplished that benefits elk

124

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project foraging habitat. Previous commercial thinning projects, totaling approximately 1,174 acres, have been completed, as well as 515 acres of pre-commercial thinning. Additionally, in parts of five of these pre-commercial stands, the slash was piled to create habitat structures and improve the areas for animal movement.

Both deer and elk are susceptible to disturbance or direct mortality associated with vehicle access. Harvest of both species is generally allowed, though restrictions vary by Game Management Unit. Winter mortality, legal harvest, and poaching were reported as the primary causes of elk and deer morality in Washington (Taber and Raedeke 1980a, 1980b, Bender et al. 2004). Poaching of elk is believed to be prevalent on the Olympic Peninsula (WDFW 2005). A high density of roads can have a negative impact on elk, due to increased disturbance from legal hunting and poaching (CEMG 1999, McCorquodale et al. 2003). Therefore, closing roads no longer needed results in a notable reduction in disturbance to elk (Witmer and deCalesta 1985), and would also benefit deer. Habitat guidelines for black-tailed deer suggest decommissioning of unneeded roads after management activities are complete in order to reduce road effects, as well as the monitoring and treatment of invasive plant species along road systems (Nelson et al. 2008).

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that road densities stay below 1.5 mi/mi2 mile in elk summer/fall range and below 1.0 mi/mi2 mile in winter/spring range. Roads closed to highway vehicle traffic that are accessible to off-highway vehicles and other forms of travel can still have impacts on elk (Naylor et al. 2009). Across the entire Queets project area, the road density for open, driveable roads is 0.65 miles/square mile of land. This number assumes that all ML 1 roads are, in fact, closed to vehicles, which may not be true in all cases. Including Level 1 roads in this estimate increases the density to 0.91 miles/square mile. For the remaining calculations, it is assumed that the Level 1 roads ARE operationally open (this assures that the densities are not underrepresented). In the area of summer range (above 1,500 feet), the road density is 0.73 miles/square mile, and in winter range (below 1,500 feet) it is 1.17 miles/square mile. Table 3-13 shows road densities (on National Forest lands only) for the smaller, 6th field subwatersheds:

Table 3-13. Area and density of roads within the planning project area.

Road Density (miles of open Square Road road/square Subwatershed Name Miles Miles mile of land) Sams River 25.3 14.3 0.6 Salmon River 9.0 11.3 1.3 Matheny Creek 32.0 33.2 1.0

125

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

On the Olympic Peninsula, deer populations have increased in some Game Management Units (GMUs) and have decreased in others. The 2009 game status and trend report (WDFW 2009) predicted there may be long term declines on USFS lands where there is little timber harvest or strategies that target older stand ages classes, but stated that populations may have stabilized in these areas over the past decade. The particular population management unit (PMU 65) that includes the project area has shown a general stable to slightly declining population trend for deer from 2001 through 2011, based on harvest data (WDFW 2012). For elk on the Olympic Peninsula, overall populations appear to be stable to increasing (WDFW 2010). A 3-point minimum antler restriction on harvested bulls was established in 1997 to increase bull escapement (WDFW 2005). State data suggests that bull harvest in the greater “population management unit” since that time has increased from the very low levels of the early to mid-1990’s but is still below the levels of the 1980’s (WDFW 2009), though this does not address localized patterns of harvest. For elk in PMU 65, the population estimate based on harvest data modeling shows an overall stable to slightly increasing trend from 2003 through 2011 (WDFW 2012), though there can be year-to year fluctuations. Timber harvest on state and private lands is believed to be resulting in increased forage supply on those lands, although open roads can offset some of those benefits (WDFW 2009, 2010). Variable density thinning and other forage enhancement efforts on National Forest lands are also expected to increase forage, although the gains may be more modest (WDFW 2012). Future: The selected alternative for the NWFP (USDA/USDI 1994a) was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities. Project activities should improve the quality and quantity of understory forage resources for both deer and elk, however moderately. Reduction in open road densities should reduce effects from disturbance and direct mortality and enhance foraging in those areas. As such, activities should maintain or improve summer range habitat in the short term and enhance optimal cover over the long term. As a result, the project should be expected to maintain the viability of early-successional associated species such as the Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer.

 Measures used to assess effects to blacktail deer and Roosevelt elk:  Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics.  Acres of younger stands non-commercially thinned.  Miles of road decommissioned.

Neotropical Migrant Birds Executive Order (EO) 13186 signed by the President on January 10, 2001 defined the responsibility of federal agencies to protect migratory birds and their habitats. The intent of the

126

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

EO was to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and minimize the take of migratory birds through consideration in land use decisions and collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Pursuant to EO 13186 the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the FWS in January 2001 with the express purpose of incorporating migratory bird habitat and population management objectives and recommendations into the agency planning processes. To that end, bird conservation is an issue and shall be discussed in terms of effects as well as incorporation of mitigation.

The Olympic National Forest falls within the Northern Pacific Rainforest delineation of Bird Conservation Regions (BCR 5) identified by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (Partners in Flight 1998). High priority breeding forest birds include the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), and hermit warbler (Dendroica occidentalis). Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for BCR 5 include the northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), and purple finch (Haemorhous purpureus). The project area provides habitat to all the species mentioned above. The northern goshawk will be discussed in more detail in the following section on “Species of Concern”. The factors to address for neotropical migratory birds include the effects to seasonal habitats. In coniferous forests of Western Oregon and Washington, 27 species of neotropical migratory birds have experienced significant recent declines (1980-1996) or long-term (1966-1996) declining trends based on breeding bird surveys, while 12 species have seen significantly increased population trends (Link and Sauer 1997). The reasons for the decline vary with species. Past intensive forest management practices may have led to declines due to the loss of older forest habitats. However, more recent forest management may have led to the increase of some species due to the increase in a variety of forest seral stages across the landscape. For many species the reason behind the decline is unknown. Of the other neotropical migratory bird species, many occur in coniferous forest. Some are associated with taller trees while others are found in closer association with understory shrubs or early successional habitats. Hagar et al (1996) found bird species richness was correlated with habitat patchiness and the density of hardwoods, snags and conifers. Hardwood stands, particularly those associated with riparian areas, are of particular importance as a key habitat for some breeding neotropical and winter resident songbirds and can be an important predictor of bird species richness (Hagar et al. 1996). There are small pockets of hardwood stands and mixed hardwood/conifer stands scattered throughout the proposed project stands of the Queets project area, as well as in habitat connecting the stands. For most species, critical breeding periods last from early spring through late-summer Although there have been no surveys conducted specifically for forest landbirds relative to this project, a variety of species is likely to occupy the area.

127

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Measures used to assess effects to neotropical migrant birds: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics. 2. Acres of habitat disturbed due to harvest activity being done during the spring/summer. 3. Acres of temporary road construction in RRs.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Species of Concern The following species are listed as Federal Species of Concern (Table 3-14), a category defined as those species that might be in need of conservation action. These actions may include periodic monitoring of populations and threats, as well as possible listing as threatened or endangered. There is no legal protection for Species of Concern and the term does not necessarily mean they will be listed. Table 3-14 and discussion below includes only those Species of Concern not previously discussed elsewhere in this document. Aside from informal stream surveys in 2005, which documented tailed frogs, a wetlands survey at one site in 2011, which documented western toads, and an incidental observation of a Cascades frog along the 2180 road in 2013, no surveys relative to the Queets project were conducted for these species.

Table 3-14. Federal species of concern.

Indicator of Habitat Habitat Presence Present Documented Common Scientific Other on Olympic In Sightings in Name Name Designations National Forest Project Project Area? Area? Lycaena Makah State Open wetlands, mariposa No No Copper Candidate prairies. Butterfly charlottensis Coniferous Possibly forests, tree at higher Long-eared Myotis evotis State Monitor No Myotis cavities, rock elevatio crevices. ns Coniferous Possibly forests, tree at higher Long-legged Myotis volans State Monitor No Myotis cavities, rock elevatio crevices. ns Coniferous Accipiter State forests with Northern Yes Yes Goshawk gentilis Candidate open understories.

128

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-14. Federal species of concern.

Indicator of Habitat Habitat Presence Present Documented Common Scientific Other on Olympic In Sightings in Name Name Designations National Forest Project Project Area? Area? Coniferous forests with Bird of uneven canopies Contopus Conservation and interspersed Olive-sided Yes No Flycatcher cooperi Concern openings and (USFWS) wet areas, dead/partially dead trees. Small lakes, ponds, marshy areas adjacent to Rana Cascades State Monitor streams. Usually Yes Yes Frog cascadae found above 2000 feet elevation. Fast, cold streams, sea level to 5,250’ Ascaphus (Mt. Rainier), Yes Yes Tailed Frog truei with cobble or boulder substrates. Ponds/shallow State lakes, but may Western Bufo boreas be found near Yes Yes Toad Candidate streams during dry periods.

Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) and Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans) Both the long-eared myotis and the long-legged myotis inhabit coniferous forests where they roost under bark, in tree cavities and rock crevices. Bats in the Pacific Northwest tend to use old-growth Douglas-fir stands disproportionately more than young or mature stands. This is

129

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project presumably due to increased roost availability in old-growth stands and the paucity and lesser suitability of roost trees in second-growth stands (Wunder and Carey 1996, Grindal 1998). As mentioned previously, the remnant late-successional forest in the project area contains large trees and snags that could be suitable for bat roosting. Because there are fewer remnant trees or legacy snags in proposed units, especially those units that have a history of intensive management, the likelihood of bat species roosting in areas of possible activity is much lower than surrounding remnant forest. These two species are generally found at higher elevations but could potentially be found using the project area. Lepidopteran insects form a major component of the diets of long-eared myotis and long-legged myotis in coastal rainforests to the extent that the long-legged myotis has been described as a lepidopteran “specialist” (Kellner and Harestad 2005). Braun et al. (2002) found that vine maple may have a significant influence on the forest lepidopteran communities and leaf-based food webs, which has implications for these two species as well as other species of bats. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) The northern goshawk uses mid- to large-diameter trees for nesting and perching, and requires an open flight corridor beneath the canopy to be successful in searching for food and capturing prey. Suitable nesting habitat for the northern goshawk includes mature or old coniferous forest, with relatively closed canopies and multiple canopy layers, and a high density of larger trees (>23 inches). At the nest stand level, Finn et al. (2002) found a higher occupancy rate on the Olympic Peninsula when shrub cover was relatively low in the stand and when there was a greater depth of the overstory canopy. At the landscape level, Finn et al. (2002) found lands surrounding occupied historical goshawk nest sites to be dominated by late-seral forest and to a lesser degree by mid-seral forest. Bloxton (2002) found the dominant avian prey on the Olympic Peninsula included grouse, pigeons and Steller’s jay, and the important mammalian prey included snowshoe hare, Douglas squirrel, and northern flying squirrel. Douglas squirrels, grouse, and Steller’s jays have been noted on numerous occasions in the project area.

Suitable goshawk habitat occurs in the Queets project area. There have been observations of goshawks, single individuals both times, in 1989 and 1992. The 1989 event involved an adult exhibiting territorial behavior in response to spotted owl recordings. The 1992 observation was of a male, with no specific behaviors noted in the record. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus borealis) The olive-sided flycatcher is a long-distance, neotropical migrant that breeds throughout coniferous forests in western Washington and Oregon. Preferred habitat consists of mid- to high-elevation montane and coniferous forests. This bird species is one that is positively associated with edge habitats (natural or man-made), landscape heterogeneity, and the juxtaposition of early and late-seral habitats (Shirley and Smith 2005; Altman and Hagar 2007). Various diameters of hemlock and either Pacific silver or noble firs are preferred nest trees. This species gleans insects from foliage and presence in early successional forests appears to

130

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project depend on availability of snags or live trees that provide suitable foraging and singing perches. Suitable habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher exists throughout the project area, in those areas that provide a mixture of deciduous forest riparian zone and late-seral habitat as well as in those forested areas adjacent to openings. Although the species was not observed during field reconnaissance, it is undoubtedly found throughout the project area. Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) The Cascades frog is typically found in or near water or pools off of streams adjacent to mountain meadows, moist forests, and other seasonally flooded or marshy areas, and has been documented in the Olympic Mountains. They have been considered a species of higher elevation, only rarely occurring below 2000 feet in elevation and 2500-6000 being more usual (Corkran and Thoms 2006), however recent observations in 2005 on the eastern Peninsula documented egg masses at approximately 300’ elevation, or 109 m (O’Donnell et al. 2006). Additionally, there are museum specimens from the low elevations on the western side that have not yet been reported in the literature (O’Donnell et al. 2006). Cascades frogs breed in bogs or ponds with cold springs or snowmelt (Corkran and Thoms 2006). The species was documented incidentally along the 2180 road in June 2013. Given the more recent information on elevation and Cascades frogs, there are several wetlands in the project area which may provide suitable breeding habitat for the species. No suitable areas have been found within the project stands. Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) Suitable habitat for the tailed frog consists of fast, clear, cold streams with cobble or boulder substrates and little silt, from sea-level to high elevation (Corkran and Thoms 2006). Adults can also be found occasionally along stream banks and in riparian forests where they forage for insects. The streams and riparian forests of the project area and surroundings provide suitable habitat for this species and larvae were documented in July 2005 in a tributary to the Queets River along the 2180 road. Few nests of the tailed frog have been found in the wild, but Bury et al. (2001) documented tailed frog nests in a tributary of the Dosewallips River in Olympic National Park. Because they spend the majority of their life in aquatic environs, the tailed frog is vulnerable to management practices that alter the riparian or aquatic zones of streams, especially those that change the moisture regime, increase stream temperature, increase sediment load, reduce woody debris input, and change stream bank integrity (Leonard et al. 2003, Hallock and McAllister 2005a). Protection of the upper reaches of streams is particularly important for this species (Hallock and McAllister 2005a). Western Toad (Bufo boreas) The western toad occurs in a variety of terrestrial habitats. Transformed toads are terrestrial but often can be found near streams or other water bodies during dry periods. Adults are

131

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project believed to take cover in burrows and under woody debris. Breeding waters are usually permanent. This can include wetlands, ponds and shallow lakes, reservoir coves, and still-water, off-channel habitats of rivers (Corkran and Thoms 2006, Hallock and McAllister 2005b). Western toads have been observed at one wetland in the project area in 2011, as well as along decommissioned roads off FS Road 21 in 2007.

Direct threats to western toad include vulnerability to road traffic during adult movements to and from breeding sites in the spring, and dispersal of newly metamorphosed toads away from the breeding sites in the summer and fall (Hallock and McAllister 2005b). Western toads are also susceptible to infection from the chytrid fungus and mass mortality events have been attributed to chytrid (Muths et al. 2003; Scherer et al. 2005). Breeding sites appear to be vulnerable to successional changes in vegetation (Hallock and McAllister 2005b) and the species is also affected by loss of wetlands (Leonard et al 1993).

Measures used to assess effects to species of concern: 1. Acres of habitat developed for late-successional characteristics. 2. Impacts to individual animals. 3. Miles of road constructed within one mile of western toad breeding sites.

DecAid Analysis DecAID is an advisory tool developed to assist land managers in evaluating the effects of forest conditions and proposed management activities on organisms that use snags and down wood (Mellen et al. 2006). DecAID is not a model, but, rather, a statistical summary of the current knowledge and best available data on dead wood in Pacific Northwest ecosystems. The primary emphasis is on terrestrial vertebrate relationships to dead wood and not on decayed wood elements in aquatic or riparian environments. However, the summary also examines a broader look at key ecological functions and functional groups of wildlife that use snags and down wood. DecAID is organized around basic “vegetation conditions,” a broad descriptor which encompasses wildlife habitat type, vegetation alliance, structural condition (average tree size and canopy closure), and geographic location. It is recommended by the DecAID science team that the information (structural condition) be applied at a fairly large scale, such as on the order of sub-watersheds, watersheds, sub-basins, etc., or at least of a project size encompassing 20 square miles (Mellen et al. 2006). For this analysis, structural conditions were not analyzed for the Queets project, however wildlife tolerances were. Between 1987 and 1992, approximately 250 trees were topped in clearcut harvest units within the Queets project area to create snag habitat. Additionally, 38 kestrel boxes and 43 bluebird boxes were installed along decommissioned roads and around wetlands in 2006. In 2009, 11 log pyramids, or coarse wood structures, were created in commercially thinned stands.

132

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The basic premise of the DecAid analysis is to examine reference, or historical, conditions for coarse wood levels on the landscape, then compare those with current, or existing, conditions. To do this, one first must know what the vegetative types occurring in the watershed are and these were determined to be “Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Washington Coast” and “Montane (higher elevation) Mixed Conifer Forest.” In terms of structural conditions, the categories are “Large Tree,” “Small/Medium Trees,” and “Open Canopy,” and these exist in a patchwork across the watershed, the unharvested areas of forest being the large tree condition and managed stands comprising the small/medium tree condition. Though it’s easy to assume the Olympic Peninsula was once entirely old-growth (i.e. large trees) forest, this, in fact, was not the case. The historic reference structural conditions for the Olympic National Forest, calculated using data in the “1930s Survey of Forest Resources in Washington and Oregon” (Harrington 2003), was determined to be 72% of the area existing in the Large Tree structural condition, 16% in Small/Medium Tree, and 12% in Open Canopy Structural Conditions. In terms of habitat types, 60% of the Forest (365,713 acres) falls within the Westside Lowland vegetative type, and 40% (246,965 acres) falls within Montane Mixed vegetative type.

Since existing structural conditions have not been analyzed specifically for the Queets project area, we must use the overall Forest conditions as a proxy. Therefore, existing conditions for the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest on the Olympic National Forest are 32% Large Tree, 45% Small/Medium Tree, and 23% Open Canopy. Existing conditions for the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest are 48% Large Tree, 29% Small/Medium Tree, and 24% Open Canopy. Reference conditions for coarse down wood cover in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Open Canopy forest structural condition were based on the Washington Western Cascades region because there was not enough vegetation plot data available (<10 plots) for that structural condition in the Washington Coast Region.

These data suggest that, compared to historical levels, the Forest has a considerably lower percentage of the large tree structural condition and a considerably high percentage of small/medium tree and open canopy structural conditions. This is not surprising given the scope of timber harvest activities that has occurred since the 1930s (our historic reference point), which resulted in the loss of a large portion of stands with large trees and the addition of many younger stands. There are certain assumptions in using this process, including 1) the historic, reference structural conditions derived from the “1930s Survey of Forest Resources in Washington and Oregon” (Harrington 2003) represent the historic range of variability on the Olympic National Forest and that this is also true for the Queets project area; 2) reference structural conditions are assumed to represent the structural condition breakdown of both the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest and the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest habitat types (there may be differences in the structural condition breakdown by watershed and/or habitat type, but estimates were not developed at this level of detail for this analysis); and 3) the GNN 2006 data provides a reasonable estimate of the existing dead wood levels.

133

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

With these assumptions in mind, what can still be said about current levels of snag and down wood habitat in the watershed? The following are some general conclusions for the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest vegetative type on the Washington Coast:

There are fewer medium-large snags (≥10” dbh) in the project area. This could be related to past harvest activities that left limited to no snags after harvest. Some stands that were clearcut may have been burned after harvest and therefore fire removed any remaining snags. This lack of snags also could have resulted from salvage activities after natural mortality events, or loss to natural fire events. In older stands, this may reflect past harvest activities that targeted the largest trees, and therefore harvested from the stands with the highest productivity, so the historic reference condition we are using from the 1930s may represent an unrealistic potential for some of the remaining Large Tree structural condition stands if they have lower productivity potential.

There are fewer large snags (≥20” dbh) in the project area. High densities of this size class of snags exist only in unmanaged forest. In the Queets project area, more than half (53%) of the landscape has not been harvested, and these areas will be where there are higher numbers of large snags. The reasons for this decline are the same as those listed for the paucity of medium- sized snags listed above.

There is less small-large down wood cover. Compared to historic reference conditions, a smaller percentage of the existing landscape appears to have > 6% down wood cover and larger percentages have 0% and 4 to 6% small-large down wood cover. A deficit of small-large down wood cover could reflect heavily managed stand conditions that provide limited opportunities for natural mortality events to produce inputs of dead wood. This also could have resulted from salvage activities after natural mortality events or the loss of dead wood to fires.

There is less large down wood cover. This deficit of large down wood could reflect a lack of snags and/or down wood left in stands after harvest. It could also be the result of fire suppression in some stands, resulting in fewer dead wood inputs from fires, or reductions in natural mortality due to adjacent stand management (e.g. buffering root rot).

For the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest vegetative type, similar conditions exist. It’s possible the differences in the levels of coarse down wood between historic reference and existing levels are a result of the large geographic scope of the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest inventory data in DecAID, which includes only limited plots from the Olympic Peninsula. The data primarily consists of plots from the Washington and Oregon Cascades and includes some plots from eastern Washington and Oregon, both regions that may not accurately represent the conditions of Montane Mixed Conifer Forest on the Olympic Peninsula. The inclusion of lower elevation Pacific silver fir forest, unique to the Olympic Peninsula, in the Montane Mixed Conifer Forest

134

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project habitat type could also provide a misleading representation of existing large snag conditions, as some of the lower elevation Pacific silver fir habitat may have been more heavily harvested. Alternatively, differences may result from accuracy problems in the estimation of current coarse wood conditions from the GNN 2006 data (Ohmann et al. 2010).

The existence of certain structural, vegetative conditions on the landscape is one thing; how those conditions relate to wildlife presence and meeting species’ needs for shelter, forage, and requirements for breeding and raising young is another. DecAid approaches what different species need, in terms of snags and down wood, by determining “tolerance levels” (discussed briefly above in the pileated woodpecker, cavity-nesting birds, and Pacific marten sections) Tolerance levels are estimates of the percent of all individuals in the population that are within some specified range of values. In the case of DecAID, for example, they tell us what percent of pileated woodpeckers in a population use snags, say, up to or above certain diameters. Thus, an 80% tolerance level indicates 80% of the individuals in the population have a value for the parameter of interest (say snag density) between 0 and the value for the 80% tolerance level. Or conversely, 20% of the individuals in the population have a value for the parameter of interest greater than the 80% level. The tolerance interval is the range between 2 tolerance levels. For example, the value for 80% is the level and the range of 0 to 80% is the interval.” (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009). The higher the tolerance level, the higher the proportion of individuals in the population that are being provided for, and the more assurance you have that you are providing habitat that will meet the needs of more individuals in the population. The basic assumption is that more is better and bigger is better. Tolerance levels for the project area focused was on certain species and how well the landscape conditions were meeting their needs. Certain assumptions are inherent in this process as well, and include: 1) the summarized literature and data provided in DecAID reasonably estimate wildlife species habitat use in the project area; and 2) the GNN 2006 data provides a reasonable estimate of the existing dead wood levels in the watershed.

In general, very little of the project area in the Westside Lowland vegetative type is providing adequate snag habitat at the 80% tolerance level. Specifically, only 20% of the area is providing for this level for Northern flying squirrel and Douglas squirrel, 12% for bushy-tailed woodrat, and 5% for cavity-nesting birds (Hart 2012). The percentages are similarly low for down wood cover, with less than 10% of the area providing for Northern flying squirrel and approximately 5% for short-tailed weasel (again, at the 80% tolerance level). The numbers are higher in this category for spotted owl (a bit more than 50% of the project area) in terms of providing adequate down wood cover, while the number is approximately 46% for pileated woodpecker.

135

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet and Designated Critical Habitats Alternative A – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, current conditions would be maintained in the watershed. An estimated 5,005 acres of relatively simplified forest that meet treatment criteria would not be commercially thinned. These stands would remain longer in early- or mid-seral conditions, generally overstocked with a single canopy layer, fewer than optimal larger diameter snags and CWD, and a high canopy closure with a corresponding lack of vegetation on the forest floor. Natural tree mortality due to competition would conceivably continue to provide some snags and woody debris in the smaller size classes. These stands would continue to provide dispersal and some roosting and foraging habitat for northern spotted owl, but not nesting habitat for marbled murrelet or spotted owl. There would not be any direct effects due to habitat manipulation, which would not occur, nor disturbance to any individuals of these species that may be using the project area. Likewise, there would be no effect to the mapped critical habitat areas. Indirect effects would include the delayed development of additional acreage of late- successional/old-growth forests that could provide potential nesting opportunities for murrelets, as well as future nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for spotted owls. Cumulative Effects Activities in the project area that have had the greatest impact from habitat removal or habitat alteration that favors competing species and human disturbance on these two threatened species include previous timber harvest, road building, and, to a lesser degree, catastrophic fire events. Large-scale, timber extraction that has occurred in the past on federal lands will not be taking place again in the foreseeable future, however, even-aged, regeneration harvesting still is occurring in many areas on private, state, and tribal lands to the south and west of the project area. It can be assumed that these areas will not be available as either dispersal or suitable habitat for the next several decades. This fact will make the continued existence of habitat on federal lands even more critical, particularly if such areas can be utilized as breeding sites.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Habitat Variable density thinning prescriptions would create conditions that would foster growth of old- growth structural characteristics necessary for marbled murrelet and spotted owl nesting, such

136

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project as multi-story canopies; large, lateral branch growth; large trees; and maintenance of existing dead and down wood habitat on approximately 5,005 acres. Treated stands will continue to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat through the implemented prescription, which will maintain more than 40 percent canopy cover with trees averaging larger than 11 inches dbh (Thomas et al. 1990). These areas would not immediately become nesting habitat and the activities, in the short-term, may disturb individual owls that are using the proposed stands for dispersal, or murrelets moving through or overhead as they return from foraging trips. Approximately 1,988 acres (40%) fall within five different spotted owl 1.4 mile nest core areas (six nest cores have no thinning stands). Similarly, approximately 4,628 acres (92%) of the proposed stands fall within seven of the 2.7 mile owl home ranges (four do not have any thinning stands. Approximately 743 acres (15% of total) will be treated within 0.5 miles of sites of documented marbled murrelet activity. See Tables 3-15 and 3-16, for project information related to mapped murrelet and owl sites.

This project would not remove or degrade any habitat suitable for nesting, roosting, or foraging by spotted owls, however some larger trees (>21” dbh) may need to be removed for safety issues associated with aircraft on helicopter units, including around landings, as well as adjacent temporary road construction sites. There are no proposals to remove any suitable habitat, though up to 15 individual trees greater than 20” dbh may be removed around two helicopter landing sites and along new temporary road construction. Approximately 22.2 miles of temporary road construction will occur with this alternative, which includes 18.4 miles of existing temporary road, 2.4 miles of new temporary road, and 1.4 miles of existing decommissioned road. Of the existing temporary roads, approximately 14.7 miles would be reconstructed as specified (engineered) roads. Most of new temporary road will be constructed within the proposed stands, which means that dispersal habitat will be removed along those stretches (approximately 4.7 acres for the 2.4 miles of new construction). Likewise, helicopter landings that fall within stands will result in the removal of dispersal habitat (approximately 8 acres for 16 potential landings). Immediate decommissioning and revegetation of these temporary roads and landings will help to mitigate the effects of this loss. Dispersal habitat would be maintained in the watershed, and current habitat connections, which facilitate dispersal of individuals, should remain.

137

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-15. Mapped murrelet sites, associated habitat, and disturbance.

Site Area Acres suitable Acres of Queets Proposed Propose Proposed Proposed Acres Acres habitat within habitat Proposed helicopte d rock NEW units to harassment harassment 0.5 miles (out improved Commercia r sources temporar be * from * from of a possible through l Thinning landings within y roads harveste ground helicopter total of commercia Stands within 0.5 miles within 0.5 d during operations operations approximatel l thinning 0.5 miles? murrelet (chainsaw during y 500 acres within 0.5 miles? breeding and heavy murrelet for a single miles season equipment) breeding site)** (April 1- during season Sept 23) murrelet (April 1- breeding September season 23) (April 1-

September 23)

#810120— Matheny 150 acres; Creek-1 detection 41 B43 0 0 0 0 0 0

#940515, 950949, Matheny A2, A47, 950933 (4 Creek B10, B34, detections)— Tributaries B35, B36, 553 (A47, 235 (All Aug 247 acres; -12 B42, B8, B34, B35, 6-Feb 28 #940895 (2 detections 553 B85, B9 3 0 .6 miles B36, B85) except B85) 0 detections)—

138

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-15. Mapped murrelet sites, associated habitat, and disturbance.

September 23)

224 acres; #950926— 172 acres; #900539— 213 acres; #960272— 230 acres; #900538— 249 acres; #960290—

139

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-15. Mapped murrelet sites, associated habitat, and disturbance.

September 23)

174 acres; #900538— 110 acres [Total area has 798 acres suitable/2,016 ]

140

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-15. Mapped murrelet sites, associated habitat, and disturbance.

September 23)

#922390— 310 acres; #930387 and #939690 (6 detections)— 359 acres Sams River 163 (All Aug Tributaries [Total area A16, A48, 139 (A16, 6-Feb 28 -7 has 519 acres A5, A59, A48, A5, except A5 detections suitable/855 149 A6, B37 0 0 0 A59, B37) and A59) 0

141

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

Mapped Status Acres Acres Acres of Proposed Propose Proposed Propose Acres Acres Spotted suitable dispersa habitat helicopte d rock NEW d acres harassment harassment Owl Site habitat l habitat created r pits temporar to be * from * from (WDFW within through landings y roads harveste ground helicopter Site 1.4 miles commerci d during operations operations

No.) (on and al thinning early owl (chainsaw in early owl off ONF) within 1.4 breeding and heavy breeding (Highligh miles season equipment) season t (units) (March in early owl (March 1- indicates 1-July breeding July 15)

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

Canoe & Kestner Creeks Historica (#306) l 1,836 201 100 (D20) 0 0 .11 miles 0 0 0

142

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

Dilly Creek Occupie (#49) d 2,708 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Double Occupie A (#69) d 3,295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

143

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

Finley Creek Historica (#446) l 3,471 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

144

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

77 (potential excavation Mathen and blasting y East Occupie at proposed (#44) d 2,605 316 0 0 1 0 0 rock pit) 0

145

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

Mathen y Tributar Historica y (#80) l 2,254 178 118 (D20) 0 0 .11 miles 0 0 0

Mathen 158 (B13, y West Historica B30, B43, 34 (B13, (#46) l 1,875 418 B60, C43) 4 2 0 B30) 8 0

146

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

715 (B42, 43, 85, Salmon C11, 16, River 17, 18, 26, 81 (B85, North 27, 28, 32, C16, 17, Fork Historica 43, 49, 50, .1 miles 18, 28, (#154) l 1,714 778 51, 52, 86) 3 0 (C50) 52) 28 220

147

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

Sams Ridge Occupie (#449) d 3,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sams River Upper Historica (#77) l 3,869 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

148

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-16. Mapped spotted owl Sites within project area and associated habitat improvement and disturbance within 1.4 mile nest cores.

below 15) season

threshol (March 1- d of July 15) 1,971

acres)

992 (A16, 2, 22, 3, 4, Sams 47, 48, 5, 396 (A2, River 59, 6, 9, .17 miles 22, 3, 5, West Historica B34, 35, (A16, 59, 9, (#76) l 1,848 622 36, 37, 8) 3 0 A47) B36) 85 0

149

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-17. Mapped Spotted Owl Sites and Associated Habitat Improvement and Disturbance within 2.7 mile home ranges.

Mapped Status Acres Acres Acres of Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Acres Acres Spotted suitable dispersal habitat helicopter rock pits NEW acres to be harassment* harassment* Owl Site habitat habitat created landings temporary harvested from ground from (WDFW within through roads during operations helicopter Site No.) 2.7 miles commercial early owl (chainsaw operations in (on and thinning breeding and heavy early owl off ONF) within 2.7 season equipment) breeding (Highlight miles (March 1- in early owl season indicates (units) July 15) breeding

below season

threshold

of 5,708 ac)

Canoe & Kestner 425 (D16, Creeks 17, 18, 20, .26 miles (#306) Historical 10,040 561 24, 25) 0 1 (D16, 20) 0 0 0

Dilly Creek 368 (A17, .14 miles (#49) Occupied 10,303 331 48, 67, B37) 0 1 (B37) 11 (A17) 21 0

Double A (#69) Occupied 12,660 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finley Creek (#446) Historical 12,436 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

150

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-17. Mapped Spotted Owl Sites and Associated Habitat Improvement and Disturbance within 2.7 mile home ranges.

below season

threshold

of 5,708 ac)

496 (A17, Matheny B13, 20, 60, East D20, 24, .11 miles (#44) Occupied 9,101 673 25) 0 4 (D20) 0 0 0

Matheny Tributary 163 (D18, .11 miles (#80) Historical 9,641 623 20, 25) 0 0 (D20) 0 0 0

151

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-17. Mapped Spotted Owl Sites and Associated Habitat Improvement and Disturbance within 2.7 mile home ranges.

below season

threshold

of 5,708 ac)

1,599 (A16, 17, 48, B10, 13, 20, 30, 34-37, 42, 43, 60, 62, 9, C27, 28, 97 (A17, Matheny 30, 32, 43, .6 miles B13, 30, 36, West 49, 50, (A16, B37, C28, 49, (#46) Historical 7,479 1,278 D15, 25, 9) 9 7 C49, 50) D9) 96 188

152

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-17. Mapped Spotted Owl Sites and Associated Habitat Improvement and Disturbance within 2.7 mile home ranges.

below season

threshold

of 5,708 ac)

2,128 (A16, 47, B1, 10, 13, 20, 30, 34, 35, 36, 4, 42, 43, 5, 6, 62, 8, 85, 9, 91, C11, 549 (B1, Salmon 14-18, 26, 13, 30, 36, River 27, 28, 30, 4, 6, 85, North 32, 43, 49, .97 miles C14-18, 28, Fork 50, 51-55, (B91, C14, 49, 52, 55, (#154) Historical 5,004 2,869 6, 86, D9) 14 4 49, 50, 6) 6, D9) 167 528

Sams Ridge (#449) Occupied 12,644 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

153

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-17. Mapped Spotted Owl Sites and Associated Habitat Improvement and Disturbance within 2.7 mile home ranges.

below season

threshold

of 5,708 ac)

Sams River Upper (#77) Historical 14,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,337 (A1, 16, 17, 2, 22, 3, 33, 4, 47, 48, 5, 598 (A1, Sams 59, 6, 7, 9, 17, 2, 22, 3, River B10, 30, 34- 5, 59, 9, West 37, 42, 43, B30, 36, 6, (#76) Historical 8,113 2,061 6, 8, 85, 9) 8 2 1.1 miles 85) 121 129

154

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

This project does not propose to remove any snags or downed wood unless there are safety concerns and would place no-cut buffers around larger (30 inch dbh) legacy snags that are identified in units (see Project Design Criteria section). Therefore, there would be minimal effects on current snag and downed wood levels, under this alternative. However, because the thinning operations will improve the vigor and survival of remaining trees, there will be some loss of natural self-thinning (competition-related) mortality in stands that are thinned. Suzuki and Hayes (2003) found that thinning activities can reduce the frequency and cumulative length of small (defined as 4-12 inch diameter in their study) and medium (13 to 19 inch diameter) downed wood. This likely would have the most impact on numbers of small snags and logs that would be naturally produced in the Queets project area in the future, and that size class was currently well-represented. In addition, trees that remain will grow in size to become larger potential snags in the future, which includes snags that would be beneficial to the spotted owl in terms of potential nesting sites for itself and for its prey. The unthinned areas (“Skips”) would allow for some natural self-thinning mortality to continue producing smaller snags, as well as serve to protect and retain other wildlife values such as the larger legacy snags.

Disturbance Spotted owls, as well as marbled murrelets, are more vulnerable to disturbance during the breeding seasons when they are producing and incubating eggs. For owls this time period extends from March 1 through July 15 (early season) and for murrelets it is April 1 through September 23 (early and late seasons). Noise or visual disturbance has the potential to cause nest abandonment and aborted feeding attempts by adults, which could result in under nourishment of the chick or premature fledging (USDI 2003). We prioritized stands for seasonal restrictions to minimize effects of disturbance to spotted owls and murrelets while accommodating operational concerns (feasibility of being able to complete project activities within any given year) and soils concerns (vulnerability of certain stands to negative effects from winter work). Stands were rated as having a “high,” “medium,” or “low” priority for wildlife restrictions depending on: 1) proximity to current owl activity centers or mapped occupied murrelet sites; 2) proximity to Matheny Creek and relatively large, contiguous blocks of suitable habitat (subjective determination); and 3) adjacency to a relatively low and/or fragmented amount of suitable habitat. The final product taking into account the different resource concerns is shown in Table 2-24 (Chapter 2), which lists the operating period for each unit. Note that some units are mentioned twice due to different logging systems (resulting in different impacts) being used. Tables 3-18 and 3-19 then illustrate the disturbance associated with each unit that will have operations occur during the breeding seasons. Suitable habitat acres disturbed (in relation to murrelets across the project area and NOT just in relation to specific murrelet areas) for those units with operating periods occurring sometime between April 1 and September 23 were calculated and are shown in Table 3-18 below for the proposed action (total of 3,899 acres).

155

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-18. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative B.

156

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-18. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative B.

Unit* Acres of Acres of Acres of Acres of Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance around unit around unit along flight path resulting from from ground from helicopter and helicopter temp road operations-110 operations-265 landings construction and yard buffer yard buffer** associated with reconstruction- unit-265 yard 110 yard buffer*** buffer**** C30* 26 0 0 9 C32* 41 0 0 0 C49* 17 25 54 3 C52 21 0 0 0 C55 15 0 0 0 C6 0 28 22 3 D14* 24 0 0 7 D15* 27 0 0 0 D16* 35 0 0 16 D17* 30 0 0 0 D18* 15 0 0 3 D20* 73 0 0 39 D24* 40 0 0 14 D25* 49 0 0 15 D7 22 0 0 3 D8 12 0 0 0 D9 25 34 75 22 TOTALS**** 1,187 301 356 210 *Portions of these units are scheduled for August 6-February 28, so the disturbance will occur during the latter part of the murrelet breeding season. However, the total disturbance was determined for the whole unit and not broken up by area of logging system. ** Stands harvested with “light-noise” helicopters, i.e. those that generate noise below 92 dB, during the early breeding season would result in less disturbance than if “heavy-noise” ships, which create more noise, are used. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact from the larger aircraft was calculated. *** The 265-yard disturbance buffer for helicopter work was placed over a line (the estimated flightline) connecting a point in the center of the unit with the nearest landing. ****In addition to disturbance from work associated with the thinning activities (felling and yarding), there is also the disturbance from work associated with 1) temp roads in units not being harvested during the breeding season (road work still must occur in the drier months), 26

157

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project acres disturbed; 2) rock pit development, 380 acres (1/4 mile disturbance distance for blasting activities), and 3) haul road preparation along Level 1 roads, 1,439 acres.

Similarly, suitable habitat acres disturbed in relation to spotted owls across the project area and not just in relation to specific activity centers for those units with operating periods occurring sometime between March 1 and July 15 were calculated and are shown in the Table 3-18 below for the proposed action (total of 2,043 acres).

Table 3-19. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative B.

158

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-19. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative B.

159

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project overestimate for owl disturbance but it would simply be too complicated to try and determine disturbance for slivers of units. ** Stands harvested with “light-noise” helicopters, i.e. those that generate noise below 92 dB, during the early breeding season would result in less disturbance than if “heavy-noise” ships, which create more noise, are used. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact from the larger aircraft was calculated. *** The 265-yard disturbance buffer for helicopter work was placed over a line (the estimated flightline) connecting a point in the center of the unit with the nearest landing. ****In addition to work associated with the thinning activities (felling and yarding), there is also the work associated with 1) temp roads in units not being harvested during the breeding season (road work still must occur in the drier months), 9 acres disturbed; 2) rock pit development, 380 acres (1/4 mile disturbance distance for blasting activities), and 3) haul road preparation along Level 1 roads, 801 acres.

Critical Habitat Two primary constituent elements (PCE) within the marbled murrelet critical habitat units were identified as essential for marbled murrelet nesting: trees with potential nesting platforms (PCE1), and forest areas within 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of trees with potential nesting platforms that have canopy heights of at least one-half the site-potential tree height (PCE2). These elements were considered essential for successful nesting (USDI 1997). Marbled Murrelet nest trees are typically greater than 80 cm (32 inches) dbh (Hamer and Nelson 1995).

Because the trees in the proposed Queets stands are at least one-half the site-potential tree height, and because several proposed stands are in the designated block of marbled murrelet critical habitat (#WA- 02-c) (USDI 1996), surveys are appropriate to locate PCE1. However, due to budget and personnel limitations, not all of the stands in CHU were surveyed. Because of this and in order to protect this habitat, the silvicultural prescription requires that for all stands any tree > 25” DBH will have a buffer that includes all trees with interlocking branches on that tree. This will provide a degree of protection for nesting sites in unsurveyed stands, allowing some sunlight onto these trees for further branch development. All PCE1s within all stands would be retained since the proposed prescription excludes harvest of trees > 20 “ DBH, with the possible exception of some trees near landings and along temporary roads. Few trees are anticipated to be present between 20” and 25” with nest tree characteristics.

Surveyed stands included those for which there appeared to be a larger number of trees greater than 25” DBH. This list included 19 of the proposed stands: A7, B1, B5, B6, B8, B9, B10, B13, B30, C6, C11, C15, C16, D7, D8, D9, D14, D15, and D16. The marbled murrelet critical habitat block, WA-02-c currently contains approximately 46,300

160

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project acres, of which approximately 25,928 acres (56%) are deemed suitable murrelet nesting habitat. The accelerated development of approximately 5,005 acres of dispersal habitat (of which 3,811 acres fall within the CHU) represents a potential increase of approximately 8% suitable habitat in the CHU. Though minimal compared to what presently exists, these acres would provide future suitable nesting habitat within 15 to 27 miles of marine foraging areas in the Pacific Ocean, which is an important feature to CHU function (USDI 1996, USDI 2003).

For the 2012 revised spotted owl critical habitat block of 592,601 acres, treatment acres reflect an increase of less than 1% in suitable habitat. The PCE of suitable habitat would not be removed in critical habitat with this project, so implementation of Alternative B, the proposed action, would maintain the long-term viability of critical habitat.

The proposed action should not result in the direct harm to any nesting northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets. Indirect Effects Indirect effects would include both positive and negative elements. Any gain in acres of late- successional habitat will be beneficial. Additional activities to further enhance habitat in the planning area, primarily in the form of snag creation, CWD structures, and augmentation of nesting structures, e.g. flying squirrel nest boxes, could occur via other funding sources. Future road decommissioning in addition to closing the temporary roads opened for this project would lead to eventual reduction in habitat effects as these areas are allowed to re-vegetate.

The potential negative indirect impacts to marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls, however, arise from increased nest predation risk from road corridors and developing habitat adjacent to clearings and other conditions that favor predators, as well as changes in abundance of prey for spotted owls following thinning and disturbance that results in nest abandonment. The effects of developing habitat from opening up travel corridors (roads), even though ultimately closed, may include enhancing these areas for corvids, which are predators on nests and chicks. McShane et al. (2004) summarize information suggesting that murrelets are highly sensitive to fragmentation and that increased edge effects can affect nesting success through changes in predation rates and microclimate conditions. Predation rates on forest birds are generally higher at abrupt edges than at edges feathered by different forest types or partial harvest. Additionally, abrupt edges may serve as corridors for predators. While some information suggests that increasing complexity may decrease the search efficiency of nest predators, other information suggests that increasing habitat productivity along edge habitat may simply increase the number and diversity of predators and competitors (Various studies as summarized in McShane et al. 2004). Several Queets stands are adjacent to state, private and tribal lands where regeneration harvest is ongoing. Other stands are several miles from such hard edges.

161

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Thinning may cause a short term impact on the food source (truffles) of flying squirrels, which could in turn, lead to a short term (<5 yrs) decline in flying squirrel numbers (Courtney et al. 2004, Carey, pers. comm., 2006). However, response to management activities may differ between truffle species, and legacy retention (in stands that have remnant trees) would also benefit truffle abundance and diversity in those stands (Carey et al. 2002). Thinning may also reduce potential or actual flying squirrel den trees (Carey et al. 1997), although conservation measures and silvicultural prescriptions for this project would protect trees with defects, cavities and other features that could provide suitable dens, wherever possible. While thinning appears to increase the abundance of some small mammals in the longer term (7-24 years), especially those associated with understory cover, although short term effects are less clear or less consistent (Suzuki and Hayes 2003), it also can have negative effects on flying squirrels, the spotted owl’s main prey in the Olympics (Carey 2000, 2002). Declines in squirrel abundance following thinning activities may have to do with the animals’ increased susceptibility to predation following removal of above-ground cover (Wilson and Forsman, 2013). Over the long term, variable density thinning does most likely provide benefits, though these may not be realized for several decades or more (Wilson and Forsman 2013). Prescriptive measures that retain existing seed-source trees and shrubs for rodents would also be beneficial to spotted owls under all action alternatives.

It is unclear whether forest management activities would affect the outcome of interactions between barred owls and spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004) or whether commercial thinning would favor the barred owl, even though thinning practices are designed to create late- successional characteristics. Barred owls have a wider breadth in habitat use and prey species taken. Barred owls have been documented in the project area.

In summary, while there may be some direct and indirect negative effects in the short term, the longer term and net effects would be expected to be beneficial to both the spotted owl and marbled murrelet under this alternative. Longer term negative effects to flying squirrels should be diluted by the relatively small area that is being treated compared to the remainder of the watershed.

Cumulative Effects Endangered species restrictions and NWFP requirements have curtailed clearcut logging and road building on Federal lands of late-successional forest stands in all of the subwatersheds of the Queets planning area since 1993. Timber harvest and road building were the biggest landscape-level impacts to spotted owl and murrelet habitat before 1993, and the effects of these activities have shaped the current quantity, quality and distribution of wildlife habitat in general. The 2004 Status Review for marbled murrelet indicated that some population threats had decreased, including rate of habitat loss, however the effects from past habitat loss

162

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project continue at about the same level (McShane et al. 2004).

The Silviculture and Forest Stand Development section details the natural and human-caused activities that have shaped the landscape in the project area in the past and those that continue to operate. Even-aged harvesting on NFS and non-NFS lands in the planning area has resulted in large areas of young, simplified forest and fragmented, older remnants. Other activities that have influenced habitat development include previous commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, and snag creation, all occurring within the project area boundary between the 1920’s and the late 1980’s. Since the designation of Late Successional Reserves on National Forest System Lands in 1994, activities in those land designations have sought to protect and enhance late-successional habitat characteristics. It is assumed that logging and road building on state, private, and tribal lands will continue on lands to the south and west of the Queets planning area. Therefore, few non-National Forest lands are expected to provide additional late-successional habitat, making the habitat remaining on federal acres key to population health. Actions on those lands may also affect conditions for wildlife on adjacent federal lands (see discussions on edge effects above).

Alternative C – Minimize Impacts to Aquatic Species Direct and Indirect Effects Habitat This alternative includes approximately 1,838 acres of commercial thinning treatments. The decrease from Alternative B comes from dropping all units within RRs, as well as some upland stands that were deemed too uneconomical because of the amount of road needed to access the reduced number of acres. Again, the project would not remove or degrade any suitable habitat. The estimated 15 trees larger than 20” dbh around landings and temporary roads that may need to be removed would still apply with this alternative.

Approximately 13 miles of temporary road construction would occur with this alternative, which includes 10.5 miles of existing temporary road, 1.1 miles of new temporary road, and 1.4 miles of existing decommissioned road. Approximately 8.7 miles of existing unclassified roads would be reconstructed as specified (engineered) roads. Approximately 2.1 acres of dispersal habitat would be lost to new temporary road construction within the proposed stands and helicopter landings that fall within stands will result in the removal of dispersal habitat (approximately 8 acres for 16 potential landings). Immediate decommissioning and revegetation of these temporary roads and landings will help to mitigate the effects of this loss. Dispersal habitat would be maintained in the watershed, and current habitat connections, which facilitate dispersal of individuals, should remain.

163

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Disturbance Fewer units are being harvested with this alternative, reducing the total amount of disturbance. Tables 3-20 and 3-21 below show the amount of disturbance to murrelets (total of 3,235 acres) and owls (total of 2,025 acres) respectively with this alternative. Below each table are explanations for disturbance associated with temporary roads, rock pit development, and haul route preparation. Table 3-20. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative C.

164

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-20. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative C.

*Portions of these units are scheduled for August 6-February 28, so the disturbance will occur during the latter part of the murrelet breeding season. However, the total disturbance was determined for the whole unit and not broken up by area of logging system. ** Stands harvested with “light-noise” helicopters, i.e. those that generate noise below 92 dB, during the early breeding season would result in less disturbance than if “heavy-noise” ships, which create more noise, are used. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact from the larger aircraft was calculated. *** The 265-yard disturbance buffer for helicopter work was placed over a line (the estimated flightline) connecting a point in the center of the unit with the nearest landing. ****In addition to disturbance from work associated with the thinning activities (felling and yarding), there is also the disturbance from work associated with 1) temp roads in units not being harvested during the breeding season (road work still must occur in the drier months), 16 acres disturbed; 2) rock pit development, 380 acres (1/4 mile disturbance distance for blasting activities), and 3) haul road preparation along Level 1 roads, 1,439 acres.

165

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-21. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative C.

166

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-21. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative C.

Unit* Acres of Acres of Acres of Acres of Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance around unit around unit along flight path resulting from from ground from helicopter and helicopter temp road operations-65 operations-265 landings construction and yard buffer yard buffer** associated with reconstruction- unit-265 yard 65 yard buffer*** buffer**** D25* 30 0 0 3 D7 13 0 0 1 D9 14 34 75 13 TOTALS**** 533 88 150 71 *Portions of these units are scheduled for August 6-February 28, so the disturbance will occur after the early owl breeding season. However, the total disturbance was determined for the whole unit and not broken up by area of logging system; thus, these numbers will be an overestimate for owl disturbance but it would simply be too complicated to try and determine disturbance for slivers of units. ** Stands harvested with “light-noise” helicopters, i.e. those that generate noise below 92 dB, during the early breeding season would result in less disturbance than if “heavy-noise” ships, which create more noise, are used. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact from the larger aircraft was calculated. *** The 265-yard disturbance buffer for helicopter work was placed over a line (the estimated flightline) connecting a point in the center of the unit with the nearest landing. ****In addition to work associated with the thinning activities (felling and yarding), there is also the work associated with 1) temp roads in units not being harvested during the breeding season (road work still must occur in the drier months), 2 acres disturbed; 2) rock pit development, 380 acres (1/4 mile disturbance distance for blasting activities), and 3) haul road preparation along Level 1 roads, 801 acres.

Critical Habitat Where Alternative B accelerates development on approximately 5,005 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat, Alternative C develops 1,838 acres, of which 1,321 are within the critical habitat unit. This represents an increase of 3% (down from 8% in Alternative B). Though minimal compared to what presently exists, these acres would provide future suitable nesting habitat within 15 to 27 miles of marine foraging areas in the Pacific Ocean, which is an important feature to CHU function (USDI 1996, USDI 2003).

For the 2012 revised spotted owl critical habitat block of 592,601 acres, treatment acres reflect an increase of less than 1% in suitable habitat. The PCE of suitable habitat would not be

167

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project removed in critical habitat with this project, so implementation of Alternative C would maintain the long-term viability of critical habitat.

The proposed action should not result in the direct harm to any nesting northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets. Indirect Effects These effects, risk of nest predation for murrelets from developing habitat adjacent to edges and changes in prey abundance for owls, would be similar to those resulting from Alternative B, with any negative consequences diminished only slightly by treating fewer acres. The uncertainty with how the project would affect barred owls would be the same under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects These are the same as described under Alternative B. Timber harvest and road building, on and off the National Forest, have had the biggest impacts on murrelets and owls and these effects continue to be felt.

Alternative D– Maximize Economic Viability Direct and Indirect Effects Habitat This alternative includes approximately 3,395 acres of commercial thinning treatments. The decrease from Alternative B comes from dropping all those units that were not economical, including helicopter units and those requiring a high expense of road building or reconstruction. Again, the project would not remove or degrade any suitable habitat. The estimated 15 trees larger than 20” dbh around landings and temporary roads that may need to be removed would still apply with this alternative.

Approximately 20.1 miles of temporary road construction would occur with this alternative, which includes 17.0 miles of existing temporary road, 1.9 miles of new temporary road, and 1.2 miles of existing decommissioned road. Approximately 13.4 miles of existing unclassified roads would be reconstructed as specified (engineered) roads. Approximately 3.7 acres of dispersal habitat would be lost to new temporary road construction within the proposed stands. There will be no loss of dispersal habitat from helicopter landing development since those units have been dropped. Immediate decommissioning and revegetation of the temporary roads will help to mitigate the effects of this loss. Dispersal habitat would be maintained in the watershed, and current habitat connections, which facilitate dispersal of individuals, should remain.

168

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Disturbance Fewer units than Alternative B, but more than C, are being harvested with this option. However, because all of the helicopter units have been dropped, the amount of disturbance is less than Alternative B, the proposed action. Tables 3-22 and 3-23 below show the amount of disturbance to murrelets (total of 2,966 acres) and owls (total of 1,773 acres) respectively with this alternative.

Table 3-22. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative D.

169

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-22. Disturbance to marbled murrelets by unit, Alternative D.

Unit* Acres of Acres of Acres of Acres of Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance around unit around unit along flight path resulting from from ground from helicopter and helicopter temp road operations-110 operations-265 landings construction and yard buffer yard buffer** associated with reconstruction- unit-265 yard 110 yard buffer*** buffer**** C6 0 0 0 3 D14* 24 0 0 7 D15* 27 0 0 0 D16* 35 0 0 16 D17* 30 0 0 0 D18* 15 0 0 3 D20* 73 0 0 39 D24* 40 0 0 14 D25* 49 0 0 15 D7 22 0 0 3 D8 12 0 0 0 D9 25 0 0 22 TOTALS**** 937 0 0 186 *Portions of these units are scheduled for August 6-February 28, so the disturbance will occur during the latter part of the murrelet breeding season. However, the total disturbance was determined for the whole unit and not broken up by area of logging system. ** Stands harvested with “light-noise” helicopters, i.e. those that generate noise below 92 dB, during the early breeding season would result in less disturbance than if “heavy-noise” ships, which create more noise, are used. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact from the larger aircraft was calculated. *** The 265-yard disturbance buffer for helicopter work was placed over a line (the estimated flightline) connecting a point in the center of the unit with the nearest landing. ****In addition to disturbance from work associated with the thinning activities (felling and yarding), there is also the disturbance from work associated with 1) temp roads in units not being harvested during the breeding season (road work still must occur in the drier months), 24 acres disturbed; 2) rock pit development, 380 acres (1/4 mile disturbance distance for blasting activities), and 3) haul road preparation along Level 1 roads, 1,439 acres.

170

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-23. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative D.

171

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-23. Disturbance to spotted owls by unit, Alternative D.

Unit* Acres of Acres of Acres of Acres of Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance around unit around unit along flight path resulting from from ground from helicopter and helicopter temp road operations-110 operations-265 landings construction and yard buffer yard buffer** associated with reconstruction- unit-265 yard 110 yard buffer*** buffer**** D24* 25 0 0 5 D25* 30 0 0 3 D7 13 0 0 1 D8 10 0 0 0 D9 14 0 0 13 TOTALS**** 512 0 0 73 *Portions of these units are scheduled for August 6-February 28, so the disturbance will occur after the early owl breeding season. However, the total disturbance was determined for the whole unit and not broken up by area of logging system; thus, these numbers will be an overestimate for owl disturbance but it would simply be too complicated to try and determine disturbance for slivers of units. ** Stands harvested with “light-noise” helicopters, i.e. those that generate noise below 92 dB, during the early breeding season would result in less disturbance than if “heavy-noise” ships, which create more noise, are used. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact from the larger aircraft was calculated. *** The 265-yard disturbance buffer for helicopter work was placed over a line (the estimated flightline) connecting a point in the center of the unit with the nearest landing. ****In addition to work associated with the thinning activities (felling and yarding), there is also the work associated with 1) temp roads in units not being harvested during the breeding season (road work still must occur in the drier months), 7 acres disturbed; 2) rock pit development, 380 acres (1/4 mile disturbance distance for blasting activities), and 3) haul road preparation along Level 1 roads, 801 acres.

Critical Habitat Alternative D accelerates development on approximately 3,395 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat, of which 2,350 are within the critical habitat unit. This represents an increase of 5% (down from 8% in Alternative B and up from 3% in Alternative C). Though minimal compared to what presently exists, these acres would provide future suitable nesting habitat within 15 to 27 miles of marine foraging areas in the Pacific Ocean, which is an important feature to CHU function (USDI 1996, USDI 2003).

172

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

For the 2012 revised spotted owl critical habitat block of 592,601 acres, treatment acres reflect an increase of less than 1% in suitable habitat. The PCE of suitable habitat would not be removed in critical habitat with this project, so implementation of Alternative C would maintain the long-term viability of critical habitat.

The proposed action should not result in the direct harm to any nesting northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets. Indirect Effects These effects, risk of nest predation for murrelets from developing habitat adjacent to edges and causing changes in prey abundance for owls, would be similar to those resulting from Alternative B or Alternative C. The uncertainty with how the project would affect barred owls would be the same under this alternative.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Effects Determination: Marbled Murrelet— The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect individual murrelets potentially nesting in suitable habitat within the planning area due to harassment from project activities taking place during the early breeding season (3,899 acres—Alternative B, Proposed Action).

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Unit WA-02-c— The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect critical habitat since primary constituent element 1 will not be marked and buffered in all project stands. Northern Spotted Owl— The proposed action may affect, likely to adversely affect individual murrelets potentially nesting in suitable habitat within the planning area due to harassment from project activities taking place during the early breeding season (2,572 acres—Alternative B, Proposed Action).

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit 1— The proposed action is a “may affect, but would not likely adversely affect” critical habitat within the planning area because there would be no removal or degradation of suitable habitat.

173

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Environmental Consequences for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Alternative A – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative would not result in any direct impacts to any sensitive species for which there is suitable habitat in the project area. Current forest conditions would not change. Accelerated development of late-successional characteristics, including large trees for species such as the Townsend’s big-eared bat or fisher, would not occur and would comprise the indirect impacts of no action. Ongoing effects to aquatic habitat in terms of sediment delivery, as discussed in the Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries section, could still potentially impact amphibians during their aquatic phase.

Cumulative Effects Timber harvest on state, private, and tribal lands around the southern and western portions of the Queets project area is expected to continue, and it is assumed based on past harvest practices that most areas on these ownerships will not provide late-successional forest characteristics for sensitive species, such as the Pacific fisher, Townsend’s big-eared bat, or Johnson’s hairstreak.

It is probable that there has never been habitat in the project area for common loon (large, inland bodies of water), Olympic Mazama pocket gopher (glacial outwash prairies), or six of the eight butterfly species (alpine meadow and prairie habitat). Therefore, the cumulative impacts of maintaining the current condition would have little impact on these species.

The effects of previous harvest, road building, and human disturbance would have had the greatest impact on Pacific fisher and, indeed, their recent status as “extirpated” from Washington (before reintroduction began in 2008) is likely based on past over-exploitation via commercial trapping as well as loss, degradation, and fragmentation of suitable habitat (Lewis and Hayes 2004). A similar situation exists for Keen’s myotis since its forested habitat includes the sloughing bark of old-growth trees and snags, which have been harvested in great quantities in the past. The “No Action” alternative would not add to these historic impacts.

Action Alternatives (Differences between alternatives are noted as appropriate) Direct and Indirect Effects Due to a lack of potential habitat, there would be no impacts to American peregrine falcon, common loon, Olympic marmot, Olympic Mazama pocket gopher, and six butterflies, Taylor’s Checkerspot, Olympic Arctic, Golden Hairstreak, Valley Silverspot, Makah Copper, and Lupine Blue.

174

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The total of 5,005 acres that would be thinned under Alternative B (3,899 under C and 2,572 under D) would assist in the development of structural characteristics needed for Pacific fisher. The loss of small diameter snag recruitment due to self-thinning mortality would be offset by skip areas and/or the development of larger trees that would serve as more suitable potential resting or denning sites in the future. Recruitment and retention of large trees, along with overall development of structural diversity will benefit fisher (Zielinski et al. 2004) over the long-term. Short-term impacts, which may not be fully understood given our lack of knowledge of fishers currently using the Queets area, would include avoidance of areas without overhead cover (Weir and Harestad 2003), which could include the “gaps” created during thinning. In short, while there might be short term minor impacts, long term habitat impacts to fisher would be beneficial. The conservation measure, as outlined in the Reintroduction Plan Environmental Assessment (USDI 2007b) that would be applicable in the Queets project area is the implementation of seasonal restrictions around all known, active denning sites, should they be discovered, between mid-March and late May for motorized, mechanized activities.

The trees harvested do not likely provide microhabitat needs for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. The types of roosts most commonly used by this species (Caves, mines, buildings) would not be impacted under any alternative. Bats roosting under bridges could potentially be affected by nearby road construction and reconstruction activities, though this work is mostly planned away from such bridge structures. There could be minor, short-term disturbance impacts to any Keen’s myotis roosting in residual trees or legacy snags in stands to be thinned, due to harvest activities. Long-term impacts, including those for Johnson’s hairstreak, would more likely be positive given that thinning would promote the growth of larger trees for roosting.

Thinning the proposed stands, as well as the construction or reconstruction of temporary roads (18.4 miles—Alt. B; 10.5 miles—Alt. C; 17.0 miles—Alt. D), may have a short-term, negative effect on Van Dyke’s salamander, if individuals are in the forested areas, as opposed to the stream corridor (the other two salamanders are almost exclusively associated with the stream channel and, for the present, it is assumed that RRs buffer widths adequately protect microclimate for both. Likewise, harlequin duck that may be nesting in streams within and adjacent to proposed thinning units should be protected from disturbance with riparian no-cut buffers. The impact from temporary road construction and reconstruction could include some direct mortality but would likely be minimal in terms of effects upon the entire population. Changes in micro-climate of the thinned stands could have minor impacts on Van Dyke’s salamanders in the terrestrial environment. As mentioned previously, impacts to aquatic habitat through sediment delivery are expected to be minimal, due to riparian no-cut buffers, under all action alternatives (See Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries section). Amphibians would likely experience minimal impacts due to changes in water quality. Additionally, the mobility of aquatic-phase amphibians could be impacted by culverts at temporary road crossings during project implementation and would return to pre-project levels after the roads are decommissioned.

175

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Cumulative Effects Continued harvest on state, tribal, and private lands west and south of the project area will mean continued lack of mature forest for Pacific fisher, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Keen’s myotis, and Johnson’s hairstreak in those areas. Thinning 5,005 acres in the proposed action, however, would add to the acres previously thinned within the project area boundary (See Silviculture and Forest Stand Development section) and would promote the growth of large trees suitable for nesting and roosting or denning by these species. Previous aerial fertilization on nearby private lands may have impacted amphibian species, though to what degree is not known. Sensitive Species Determination: Due to a lack of habitat, the proposed project activities will have no impacts to American peregrine falcon, common loon, Olympic marmot, Olympic Mazama pocket gopher, and six butterflies, Taylor’s Checkerspot, Olympic Arctic, Golden Hairstreak, Valley Silverspot, Makah Copper, and Lupine Blue under any alternative.

The proposed activity may impact individual Pacific fisher, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Keen’s myotis, Olympic torrent salamander, and Van Dyke’s salamander, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to any populations or species. This impact would probably take the form of disturbance and/or displacement rather than direct mortality. Harlequin duck in the project area should be minimally affected, if at all, with the implementation of riparian no-cut buffers.

Environmental Consequences for Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species—Mollusks Alternative A – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects There would not be any direct impacts to any of the mollusk species likely found in the project area with the No Action alternative. Given that these species seem to be associated with hardwood or mixed conifer-hardwood forests, and wetland or riparian areas, there would be no indirect negative impacts from not developing late-succession habitat because these species do not depend on this habitat type.

Cumulative Effects The impacts of previous harvest, road building, and human disturbance would have had the greatest impact on mollusk species. A “No Action” alternative would not add to the historic impacts. There would be no additional impacts beyond what has occurred previously.

176

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Action Alternatives (Differences between alternatives are noted as appropriate) Direct and Indirect Effects The potential effects to mollusk species would include removal of overstory vegetation that provides microclimate buffering of habitat, removal of habitat (the scope of this would be the greatest for Alternative B with correspondingly less impact to C and D owing to fewer acres treated in each of those alternatives), and the potential for direct loss of individuals during thinning operations or the construction, reconstruction, and use of temporary roads. Duncan et al. (2003) state that in cases where habitat elements being used by a particular species are being negatively affected by a project, significant negative impacts are not expected if less than 5% of the available amount of that element, or 5% of the project area, is affected. Project design criteria that retain CWD and avoid excessive soil compaction will minimize direct and indirect impacts to many mollusk species. In addition, silvicultural prescriptions which retain and promote maintaining hardwood species and shrub and ground cover species diversity should also provide microclimate, food, and substrates for the fungi that mollusks feed upon and are consistent with management recommendations (Burke et al. 1999). However, as mentioned in the spotted owl section, there may be some short term impacts to fungi associated with thinning operations and construction and reconstruction of temporary roads.

Because the project area is outside of the documented range of occurrence of the Hoko Vertigo snail, there would be no expected impacts to this species.

Silvicultural prescriptions and project design criteria would maintain hardwood patches in proposed units and would not thin them. Incidental removal of individual trees could occur due to road construction and yarding corridors, but this would represent less than 5% of the available habitat in proposed units and across the project area. Therefore, there would be negligible direct or indirect effects to Puget Oregonian snails, a species that has been documented on the forest at only one location.

Project design criteria that retain CWD, protect riparian areas, and protect or promotes vegetative diversity will minimize impacts to Malone’s jumping slug and the broadwhorl tightcoil snake. Previous surveys on the forest have not identified any sites for the jumping slug and indicate that its presence to be highly unlikely in the project area. Therefore, while the proposed activity may impact individual Malone’s jumping slugs, it would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. There have not been any surveys for the snail, however if it is present in the project area, it is not expected that management activities will contribute to a trend towards listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Project design criteria that maintain hardwoods, along with CWD retention and RRs, would also

177

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project minimize impacts to the mixed conifer-hardwood portion of blue-gray taildropper slug habitat. Information from previous surveys on the forest indicates that the presence of the blue-gray taildropper in the project area would also be highly unlikely. However, project activities would still occur in habitats potentially used by this species. Therefore, while the proposed activity may impact individual blue-gray taildropper slugs, it would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Some level of mortality could be expected for Keeled jumping slug species, given that these jumping slugs have been found to be locally common and abundant on the forest, however, there should be no risk to species viability or a trend toward federal listing.

The Oregon megomphix is more commonly found in mature or late-seral forests and so should not be affected by project activities in younger stands. The retention of hardwoods and coarse wood habitat throughout the treated stands will provide habitat should the species be located in some areas of project activities, particularly along edges that border late-successional forest.

Cumulative Effects Historic timber harvest and road building have had the greatest impact on these mollusk species. Harvest of conifer habitat around the project area is expected to continue on other ownerships, limiting the potential of these species to occur on private lands. Removal of conifers in the proposed Queets thinning units, and the associated short-term disturbance, may impact certain individuals. Given the large amount of habitat in the watershed not being treated and the project’s short-term impacts on mollusks, any lasting, negative effects upon these species should be minimal.

Sensitive Species Determination: Because the project area is outside of its range, the proposed activities would not impact the Hoko Vertigo snail.

Because of hardwood protection guidelines, the low likelihood of occurrence, and the small scale of impact to existing hardwood habitat in the project area, the proposed activities may impact individual Puget Oregonian snails, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Because of project design criteria and the low likelihood of occurrence, project activities may impact individual Malone’s jumping slug, the broadwhorl tightcoil snail, blue-gray taildropper slug, and the Oregon megomphix, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Project activities may impact individual Keeled jumping slug, however due to being common

178

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project and abundant, these effects would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Environmental Consequences for Olympic National Forest Management Indicator Species Alternative A – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects There would not be any direct effects to any management indicator species with the No Action alternative. Indirect effects would include delayed development of late-successional forest characteristics for all MIS and lost opportunities to decommission roads and enhance forage opportunities (through thinning) for deer and elk. An opportunity to increase the levels of snags and down wood in the stands would also be foregone.

Cumulative Effects The effects of previous harvest, road building, and human disturbance would have had the greatest impact on management indicator species. The early successional habitat created through previous harvest did offer forage benefits to elk and deer, especially when combined with commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, and fertilization. A “No Action” alternative would not add to the historic impacts. There would be no additional impacts, beyond what has occurred previously.

Action Alternatives (Differences between alternatives are noted as appropriate) Direct and Indirect Effects

Most of the best bald eagle habitat on the Olympic Peninsula is not located on the National Forest. Eagles need a combination of both large trees and adequate foraging resources and while ONF does have good amounts of nesting habitat along its major rivers, the amount of feeding habitat is limiting (USDA 1990a). For this reason, there are far fewer nesting territories in the interior of the Peninsula as compared with the coast, strait, and Hood Canal. Matheny Creek is the largest stream in the project area and it is not large enough to support an eagle pair, therefore, there should not be any negative effects to eagles from this project with any of the action alternatives. Indirect impacts to any bald eagles potentially foraging in the lower part of Matheny Creek would likely be negligible. Given the apparent lack of birds in the project area, there should be no effects from disturbance to eagles that may be in the area during management activities.

Pileated woodpeckers need large snags for nesting, roosting and foraging. Approximately 53% of the watershed provides optimal habitat (late-successional stands) for the species. Thinning the 5,005 acres in the proposed action may have short term negative impacts from disturbance

179

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project on foraging pileated woodpeckers and other primary cavity excavators. Additionally, future recruitment of snags will be affected as trees are removed as part of the thinning process. However, the long-term, more indirect, impacts would be to increase the size of future snags due to increased tree growth and improve overall habitat, including the snag and down wood component, which also can be enhanced through mitigation measures, such as snag creation. Snags and down wood would not be removed in the thinning prescriptions except for safety reasons. Large snags will also be buffered to maintain what currently exists in the units. Given the amount of proposed treatments (5,005 acres) compared with the size of the project area (43,936 acres), it is not expected that habitat gains from this project will be substantial.

A similar situation exists for the primary cavity excavators, which also rely on snags, as well as down wood. There is a greater range of snag sizes and snag densities required and decay classes used among this group of species. In generally, the homogenous nature of the Queets project stands do not provide for the various habitat needs for species such as the downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and red-breasted nuthatch to occur in the same area. It is expected that some species, such as red-breasted nuthatch and hairy woodpecker, may be more common in older forests and so would not be as affected by project activities (though foraging activity by hairy woodpeckers was commonly observed in project stands). Downy woodpeckers can be most common in deciduous forests and within riparian woodlands, habitat that would be protected with mitigation measures and the silvicultural prescription for this project.

For pileated woodpecker and primary cavity excavators, it is expected that there may be some disturbance, particularly within units that are to be done during the breeding seasons (under Alternative B, potentially up to 1,295 acres could be thinned during the spring and summer; Alternative C and Alternative D would have less). Because these species are less likely to be nesting within project units, the impacts should not be adverse. Habitat capability will improve over the long-term. The DecAid analysis done for the Queets watershed concludes that there are fewer medium-large snags (≥10” dbh), that there are also fewer large snags (≥20” dbh), that there is less small-large down wood cover, and that there is less large down wood cover. The silvicultural prescriptions used with this project would maintain all snags of all size classes unless they pose a human safety hazard. Likewise, coarse wood would not be removed and, if disturbed, would in some instances be returned to its original location. This project is expected to improve habitat conditions for users of snags and down wood on 5,005 acres of the watershed.

American martens use live trees, snags, and slash piles for resting, denning and foraging. Efforts to maintain these habitat components within project units would benefit marten, and enhancement efforts, such as snag and down wood (slash piles, log pyramids) would also benefit the species. At the present time, it is uncertain if marten even exist in the watershed, therefore negative impacts are not expected and habitat would be improved in future across

180

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

5,005 acres.

Black-tail deer and Roosevelt elk appear to be common residents of the Queets project area. With forage a limiting factor, using the Westside Elk Summer Nutrition model to show the current situation, as well as to predict future benefits from project activities, is helpful for assessing the capability of the area to support elk. The new elk models (summer nutrition and elk habitat use) are intended to be applied across “regional” landscapes of at least 25,000 acres. For planning purposes, this may equate to watershed or subwatershed boundaries. At the regional landscape level this typically involves multiple land ownerships. The model could show an area large enough to include the average home range size reported for elk in two studies on the Olympic Peninsula (Hutchins 2006, Storlie 2006).

The DDE (dietary digestible energy) values output of the model are expressed in kilo-calories of energy per gram. “Poor” refers to nutrition levels that would markedly affect reproduction and reduce survival probability. “Marginal” pertains to nutrition levels that may affect nutrition and survival through enhanced probability of winter death, delayed breeding, delayed puberty, etc. “Good” refers to autumn-summer nutrition levels that may exert minor limitations on performance, but the small magnitude of the limitations may not have any practical effects. “Excellent” summer-autumn nutritional status indicates settings in which there are virtually no nutritional limitations during that period, and therefore approximate the maximum for elk (Boyd et al. 2011).

Pre-commercial thinning of younger stands will also have a benefit on future forage areas. Apart from enhancing habitat, disturbance will have the biggest impact on both deer and elk. All temporary roads constructed and reconstructed will be closed following completion of project activities. Additionally, proposed roads for decommissioning with this project would contribute to lower road densities.

Cumulative Effects Historic timber harvest and road building have had the greatest impact on management indicator species. Commercial thinning and pre-commercial thinning in the project area in the past likely benefited Roosevelt elk and deer. Increasing the complexity of the Queets proposed stands would be of benefit to all MIS species in terms of increasing the amount of late- successional habitats. Benefits to deer and elk would also include forage enhancement and decreased road density.

Management Indicator Species Determination: Approximately 5,005 acres (proposed action) of presently homogenous stands of second- growth would be improved as future habitat for MIS species. Increasing the number of large trees and snags will benefit cavity users, such as various bird species as well as American marten, and in the very long term, may also benefit bald eagles by providing future roost trees if the birds are foraging along Matheny Creek. Project activities to improve habitat for

181

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project anadromous fish will also benefit eagles. The commercial thinning work specifically will benefit foraging habitat for deer and elk.

Environmental Consequences for Neotropical Migratory Birds Alternative A – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects There would not be any direct effects to any of the forest landbird species with the No Action alternative. Similar to the mollusks, many forest birds are, particularly during the breeding periods, associated with hardwood and mixed conifer-hardwood forests. The no-action alternative would maintain these habitats in the current condition and would result in no negative effects to those particular species.

Cumulative Effects Previous habitat removal, road building, and human disturbance have had the greatest impact on forest landbirds. A “No Action” alternative would not add to the historic impacts. There would be no additional impacts, beyond what has occurred previously.

Action Alternatives (Differences between alternatives are noted as appropriate) Direct and Indirect Effects Responses of birds to thinning vary with species of bird, thinning type and intensity, season, and the timescale over which the effects are examined. Wilson et al. (2004) suggested that second-growth management activities may create trade-offs for some species in terms of the disturbance effects to the understory versus the value of opening the canopy, along with longer term benefits as both the understory and overstory respond to silvicultural treatment. Previous studies in thinning areas have shown that some species will increase in numbers, some will decrease, and some will have negligible changes in numbers. For example, Hagar and Howlin (2001) and Hayes (2001) both noted positive responses in species such as the western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), among others, whereas negative responses were noted for Pacific slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), hermit warbler, and Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), all of which occur (based on range and habitat preference) in the project area. For species such as the Pacific-slope flycatcher or brown creeper (Certhia americana) that are associated with old-growth or late-successional forest, the net benefit over time would be expected to be positive. Additionally, Haveri and Carey (2000) found that thinning produced stands that supported more winter birds than legacy retention alone (in second-growth stands) and that variable density thinning was a valuable adjunct to legacy retention, both of which are proposed under this alternative. It should be noted though that Hagar et al. (1996) found no significant differences in winter bird densities between thinned and unthinned stands and only marginally greater species richness in thinned stands.

182

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

All such changes would all be indirect effects from the habitat manipulation. There may be some direct effects in terms of mortality of nests or chicks from harvest operations and possibly adults. Approximately 1,295 acres of project stands under Alternative B are proposed to be done during the owl and murrelet early breeding seasons, which also largely correspond to songbird breeding seasons (there would be fewer acres done under Alternatives C and D). It is likely however that this mortality would be minimal (particularly compared with how much habitat is not being impacted in the watershed), except perhaps around temporary road construction due to impacts to ground nesters such as the dark-eyed junco. Indirect effects of temporary road construction in RRs would likely have greater effects on this group due to the overall importance of riparian habitats on migratory birds. Likewise, increases in predator numbers or hunting efficiency by opening up the stands could potentially offset positive impacts of thinning.

Hardwood clumps and individual trees will be protected under all action alternatives, except for individual trees needing to be removed for roads, yarding corridors, or other safety or operational concerns. It is expected that numbers removed would be relatively small. The planting of hardwoods along decommissioned temporary roads and landings would be of benefit to these species. The overall retention or enhancement of hardwood species would be particularly relevant and positive for neotropical migrants. For example, species such as the western tanager may respond well to thinning, but are also influenced by hardwood and snag components (Hagar et al. 1996). Hardwood retention or enhancement is consistent with the information and emphasis given in both watershed analyses. As mentioned previously in various sections, effects to snags and down wood from any of the alternatives would likely be minimal, with longer term benefits expected through the growth and eventual recruitment of larger size-classes.

Hagar et al. (1996) suggested that some patches be left unthinned to provide for competition- related (self-thinning) mortality of trees for certain species, and also to provide for species such as the Pacific-slope flycatcher and golden-crowned kinglet. This is consistent with the proposal to leave unthinned “skip” areas in all project units.

Cumulative Effects On other ownerships west and south of the project boundary, it is likely that conifer and hardwood habitat will be harvested, depending on market conditions, limiting the potential of the species requiring older forests to occur on private lands, and placing more importance on federal lands. Species requiring younger or more fragmented forest would likely continue to occur on state and private lands.

Neotropical Migratory Birds Determination: For the various species of neotropical migratory birds inhabiting the project area, effects will be

183

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project variable, that is, some species may increase in numbers, some may decrease, and some will exhibit no change. For those negatively affected by thinning activities, the amount of impact across the watershed should be minimal (5,005 acres compared with 43,936 acres in the project area). Implementation of the proposed action should not contribute toward a need for conservation action for any of these species.

Environmental Consequences for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Species of Concern Alternative A – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects to any of the Species of Concern, for which there is suitable habitat in the project area. Accelerated development of late-successional characteristics, including large trees for goshawk nesting along with roosting habitat for bat species such as the long-eared myotis and long-legged myotis, would not occur and would comprise the indirect impact of no action. Indirect effects, in terms of delayed development of habitat, would possibly affect the flycatcher, with its preference for uneven canopies, interspersed openings, and dead/partially dead trees and overall habitat heterogeneity compared to what are relatively more homogenous stands in their present state. The current conditions in many of these stands, with largely open understories, are more suitable for foraging goshawks, as they prefer forest floors with little cover for hunting, however most nests have been found in mature or late-seral forests. There would be no direct effects on the Cascades frog, tailed frog or western toad with the No Action Alternative. However, ongoing effects to aquatic habitat in terms of sediment delivery, as discussed in the Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries section, could still potentially impact amphibians during their time spent in aquatic environments. Cumulative Effects The effects of previous harvest, road building, and human disturbance have had the greatest impact on the species of concern (creating large tracts of homogenous habitat with few nesting/roosting structures), with water quality effects to amphibians as well. A “No Action” alternative would not add to the historic impacts. Action Alternatives (Differences between alternatives are noted as appropriate) Direct and Indirect Effects The silvicultural prescription across 5,005 acres (proposed action) of late-successional habitat development and project design criteria for this project would protect the larger trees and legacy snags preferred for potential roosting by bats, nesting by goshawks, perching by olive- sided flycatchers, and nesting and foraging by potential goshawk prey species. Additionally, the prescription requires protection of vine maple unless cutting is necessary for yarding. This will serve to minimize effects to insects that many bat species prey upon due to the importance of vine maple to the forest lepidopteran communities. Thinning would likely benefit bats in the

184

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project long term as vine maple, and other understory shrubs that support Lepidopterans, respond to more open understory conditions post-treatment. The vine maple provisions would also serve to benefit small mammal prey (goshawk) that feed on its seeds.

The trees harvested likely do not provide at present the roosting potential at present for the long-eared myotis and long-legged myotis bat species. The most likely roosts used by these species (old-growth trees) would not be affected with this project, and legacy trees in the units would be protected. There could be minor, short-term disturbance effects to any bats roosting in residual trees or legacy in stands to be thinned (or in adjacent old-growth), due to harvest activities, particularly in the stands that may be harvested during the owl and murrelet breeding seasons (1,295 acres-proposed action), which is also the breeding and rearing time for the bats. Longer-term effects would more likely be positive given that thinning would promote the growth of larger trees for roosting. Implementing project activities would not contribute toward a need for conservation action for the long-eared myotis and long-legged myotis. Project design criteria would protect any active goshawk nests located in the project area. Goshawks would not likely be actively nesting within areas to be proposed thinning stands (except possibly in remnant old-growth trees which will be retained under the silvicultural prescription). They would however more likely be nesting in adjacent late-successional “suitable habitat.” Seasonal restrictions designed to prevent disturbance to nesting spotted owls and murrelets in suitable habitat on the majority of the Queets stands would overlap with the majority of the March 1 through September 30 nesting season restrictions on activities that are recommended for nesting goshawks (Desimone and Hays 2004). Recruitment and retention of large trees, along with overall development of structural diversity would benefit goshawks at the landscape scale and is generally consistent with management recommendations (Desimone and Hays 2004, Finn et al 2002). In the short term, reductions in canopy cover and resulting development of understory may not be in line with recommendations outlined by Desimone and Hays (2004) and Finn et al. (2002) which are intended to ensure foraging access to goshawk prey. Wiens et al. (2006) also stressed the importance of forest management prescriptions that support an abundant prey population, while maintaining access to that prey in nesting areas, in order to increase juvenile goshawk survival. Retention of dominant overstory trees and thinning from below to maintain and develop deep canopies, CWD and snag protection, and development of mature and late- successional forest characteristics at the large scale are aspects of the project that are consistent with recommendations by these same authors. Overall, enhancement of structural diversity would benefit goshawk prey population abundance. The availability of prey in thinned units would likely improve over time as canopy closure exceeds 70% and understory cover levels off. Availability in adjacent unthinned forest would not likely change. In short, while there might be minor short-term effects, overall long-term term effects to goshawks would be beneficial. Implementing any of the action alternatives would not contribute toward a need for conservation action for the northern goshawk.

185

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Variable density thinning would likely benefit olive-sided flycatchers in proposed units by improving overall heterogeneity and accelerating the development of late-successional forest conditions. Snag retention practices would help to retain these structural features valuable for perching and singing. Altman and Hagar (2007) recommend areas within thinned stands that are open and patchy with scattered trees to benefit olive-sided flycatchers. This would be emulated, though likely at a much smaller scale, by gaps and heavy thin areas prescribed under the action alternatives. Development of late-successional habitat adjacent to openings, in contrast to many other species, would likely benefit olive-sided flycatchers, though they still could be susceptible to nest predation concerns mentioned for other avian species. The limited potential for direct mortality from thinning activities would be similar to what was described under the section on Neotropical Migratory Birds. Implementing the action alternatives would not contribute toward a need for conservation action for the olive-sided flycatcher.

Thinning the proposed stands, as well as the construction of temporary roads, may have a short-term, negative effect on western toads, if individuals are in the forested areas. This effect could include some direct mortality due to road traffic but would likely be minimal in terms of effects upon the entire population. Terrestrial (adult) Cascades frogs and tailed frogs would be unlikely to be found outside of areas immediately adjacent to water bodies, which are protected by no-cut riparian buffers. There would be potential to affect these adults from proposed road building through riparian areas. With all three of these amphibian species, effects to aquatic environments are generally viewed as the greater threat. Amphibians in the aquatic environment would likely experience some effects due to changes in water quality. Additionally, the mobility of these species could be impacted by culverts at temporary road crossings during project implementation and would return to pre-project levels after the roads are decommissioned. Implementing any of the action alternatives would not contribute toward a need for conservation action for the Cascades frog, tailed frog, or Western toad.

Cumulative Effects Continued harvest on state, tribal, and private lands west and south of the project area will mean continued lack of more diverse mature or old-growth forest for nesting and roosting by northern goshawk, long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis, and less heterogeneity than preferred by the olive-sided flycatcher, though it would entail the edge components that olive- sided flycatchers will utilize. Thinning approximately 5,005 acres, however, would add to the acres previously thinned within the project area boundary (See Silviculture and Forest Stand Development section) and would promote the growth of large trees suitable for nesting and roosting by these species. According to the Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries section, Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives would still be achieved, therefore effects to amphibians are expected to be minimal. Previous aerial fertilization on private lands may have affected amphibian species, though to what degree is not known.

186

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Species of Concern Determination: Due to a lack of required habitat, the proposed project activities would have no effect on the Makah copper butterfly.

For the other species of concern discussed above, implementation of the proposed action would not contribute toward a need for conservation action. 3.3 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants This evaluation addresses the potential effects of the proposed Queets Commercial Thin on threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive vascular and non-vascular plants, fungi and lichen species in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.), the federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and the National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1604 et seq.). In addition, Forest Service Manual 2600, Chapter 2670 provides direction designed to ensure that Forest Service actions (1) do not contribute to the loss of viability of any native or desired non-native species or cause a trend toward Federal listing for any species; (2) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act; and (3) provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process. This report also includes a discussion of the potential effects of the proposed action upon invasive plant spread, and measures prescribed to mitigate these effects. Background 3.3.1 Affected Environment The proposed project area lies within both the Tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock) and Abies amabilis (silver fir) zones. The Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone is characterized as warm temperate to maritime. Winter and summer temperatures are moderate. Dominant tree species are Douglas-fir and western hemlock. Sitka spruce, Pacific silver fir, red alder and bigleaf maple occur in lesser quantities. This vegetation zone occurs primarily below 1000 ft elevation within the project area. The Abies amabilis vegetation zone is characterized as cool temperate with moderate winter temperatures and moderate snowpack. Dominant tree species are western hemlock and silver fir, with western red cedar and Alaska yellow cedar also being relatively common in this zone (USDA 1989). Pre-Field Analysis In order to determine whether the activities proposed in this project pose a potential threat to Regional Forester’s Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Sensitive species, a pre-field review was performed. The Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (USDA Forest Service 2011), the Olympic National Forest Rare Plant Occurrence GIS cover, the Forest Service Natural

187

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Resource Information System (NRIS), Interagency Species Management System (ISMS), BLM Geographic Biotic Observations (GeoBOB), Washington State Natural Heritage program, aerial photographs, and district files were reviewed for documented occurrences of these species. Field Survey Methodology Intuitive-controlled field surveys for Region 6 sensitive and invasive plant species were conducted June – October, 2012 and May – October, 2013. All units proposed for treatment within the Project Area received some level of botanical analysis to assess potential habitat for sensitive vascular plants and mosses. A number of units were surveyed that have since been dropped from consideration for treatment under this proposal. Surveyors targeted microhabitats such as tree boles and branches, the forest floor, litterfall, decaying logs, stumps, snags, forest openings, road cuts, seeps, and stream edges. Federally Listed Species There are no Endangered or Federally listed, Candidate, or Proposed bryophytes, fungi or lichens documented or suspected on the Pacific Ranger District of the Olympic National Forest. There is one Federally listed Endangered vascular plant, Arenaria paludicola (Marsh sandwort), that was suspected to occur on the Olympic National Forest, but is now considered potentially extirpated from the state of Washington (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species, and Proposed or Designated Critical Habitat, January 2008). This species was removed from the most recent Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List, dated December 1, 2011. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), an R6 Sensitive Species and a Federal Candidate species under the Endangered Species Act, occurs in subalpine habitats above 5,000 feet in the Buckhorn Wilderness on the Hood Canal Ranger District of the ONF. The US Fish and Wildlife Service issued their twelve (12) month finding on a petition to list whitebark pine as a threatened or endangered species on July 19, 2011, in Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138. The finding was that of “warranted but precluded” with a Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 2. The Listing Priority Number of 2 indicates that the species has a very high priority for listing as threatened or endangered because of eminent threats to the species. Whitebark pine is long-lived, cold-tolerant, five-needle pine of high elevations. It is a keystone species, important to numerous species of wildlife, including Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) its seed dispersal agent. Major threats to the persistence of whitebark pine are an exotic fungus, white pine blister rust (Croartium ribicola), mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonous ponderosae) infestations, succession, fire and fire suppression, and climate change (Aubry et al, 2008).

188

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Vascular Plants Sensitive vascular plant species were assessed for the Queets Commercial Thin planning area in April, 2012. Of the 31 documented or suspected sensitive vascular plant species for the Olympic National Forest, four sensitive species, Coptis aspleniifolia (spleenwort-leaved goldthread), Erythronium quinaultense (Quinault fawn lily), Polemonium carneum (great polemonium) and Parnassia palustris var. tenuis (northern grass of Parnassus) were identified as having potential habitat in the proposed project area (Table 3-24) and are known to occur in or adjacent to the 5th field watersheds in which the planning area is located. Two of these species - E. quinaultense and P. palustris var. tenuis - are known to occur inside the planning area. Typical habitat for

Table 3-24. Sensitive vascular plant species with potential habitat in the planning area.

Scientific name Status Common name Habitat

spleenwort-leaved Moist, cool sites with a well- Coptis aspleniifolia Sensitive goldthread developed litter layer. Erythronium Openings and rock ledges in Sensitive Quinault fawn lily quinaultense coniferous forests. Parnassia palustris var. Northern grass of Seepy road cuts and rock faces, Sensitive tenuis Parnassus wet meadows and along streams. Woody thickets, open and moist Polemonium carneum Sensitive Great polemonium forests, prairie edges, and roadsides.

C. aspleniifolia includes moist, cool sites with a well-developed litter layer; typical habitat for E. quinaultense includes openings, road cuts, and rock ledges in coniferous forests; typical habitat for P. carneum includes woody thickets, open and moist forests, prairie edges, and roadsides; typical habitat for P. palustris var. tenuis includes seepy road cuts and rock faces, wet meadows and along streams. All of these habitat types can be found within the project area. Field surveys were conducted for these species June – October, 2012 and May – October, 2013. Erythronium quinaultense occurs in several units, but none of the other species listed above

189

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project were found during the surveys. Entire units or portions of units were dropped where E. quinaultense was found, with one exception (See Chapter 2, PDCs). Unit D16 has a population of E. quinaultense located primarily east of the 2190170 spur. Occurrence of this plant within this portion of the unit is very patchy, with a broad range of patch size, density and vigor. During the 2013 field surveys, it was observed that within the Queets planning area, populations of E. quinaultense located in sunnier microsites (such as along road edges, or within stands with a relatively open canopy) typically had a higher proportion of flowering/fruiting plants than populations in shaded areas, such as the interiors of stands with a partially closed to closed canopy. In addition to this, there appeared to be more flowering plants with more than one flower per stem in the sunnier locations, while shaded populations rarely had individuals with multiple flowers per stem. In order to determine if these observations represent a measurable difference and if an increase in sun exposure will increase the overall vigor of E. quinaultense populations in thinned stands, Unit D16 will be harvested and selected E. quinaultense populations subsequently monitored.

Several existing rock sources have been identified as being suitable for development to supply materials for this proposed project, several of which are close to known E. quinaultense populations. The footprint of these rock sources could be as large as two acres once they are developed. The areas around these rock sources were not examined to determine if E. quinaultense is present or not, but locations associated with these rock sources where it is likely this species occurs will be surveyed prior to development.

Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) Sensitive bryophyte species were assessed for the Queets Commercial Thin planning area in April, 2012. Of the two species documented or suspected to occur on the Olympic National Forest, one species - Iwatsukiella leucotricha - was identified as having potential habitat in the proposed planning area (Table 3-25). There are four previously documented occurrences of I. leucotricha located within the Queets Commercial Thin planning area. In addition to this, this species was also documented during surveys in 2006 – 2007 at over 200 sites in 23 different stands in the West Fork Humptulips planning area, which is located approximately 10 miles to the southeast of current planning area, and is ecologically similar.

Table 3-25. Sensitive bryophytes with potential habitat in the project area.

Scientific name Status Common name Habitat

Iwatsukiella Sensitive Iwatsukiella moss Moist, fog drenched forest, usually leucotricha in the Pacific Silver Fir zone.

190

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Twenty five new occurrences of this moss were discovered during the course of the surveys associated with the Queets planning area. These occurrences are in 16 different units located throughout the planning area. Each site consists of one to several small patches of I. leucotricha on a single host tree.

Iwatsukiella leucotricha (Mitt.) Buck & Crum

Globally I. leucotricha occurs in Japan, the Russian Far East, and Siberia. In the Pacific Northwest it is known from coastal Alaska, British Colombia, Oregon, and Washington. In Oregon it has been found on state (Saddle Mountain) and private land (Onion Peak) in Clatsop County. In Washington the known sites occur on the Olympic National Forest in Clallam, Jefferson, and Grays Harbor Counties and Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land in Jefferson and Pacific Counties. It is not abundant at any of the known locations (Harpel and Davis 2005). This species is ranked S1 (critically imperiled and fewer than 5 occurrences) in both Oregon and Washington (Oregon Natural Heritage Program 2007, Washington Natural Heritage). There is no information on population trends of I. leucotricha but it is speculated to be less common than before habitat changes brought on by timber harvest of coastal forests.

I. leucotricha is a small, green to yellowish-green, irregularly branched, creeping moss that forms sparse to dense mats. Since this species has never been found with sporophytes within the continental United States there is speculation that I. leucotricha is dispersed via gametophytic fragmentation in our area. Habitat for this species in the Pacific Northwest has been generally thought to occur at elevations between 1800 – 3000 feet, and be restricted to forests on fog drenched ridges where high relative humidity is maintained much of the time. However, this species was documented in the West Fork Humptulips planning area in a much wider elevation range, a variety of landscape positions, and on a variety of woody substrates. Because of this finding, surveys conducted in the Queets planning area, while focused on ridges and other similar features within the units, included areas with a wide variety of ecological characteristics. Despite this, all of the occurrences documented in the Queets planning area were found on or near ridge tops and on the saddles between peaks, at elevations of approximately 1800 - 2800 feet. All but two occurrences are on the boles of Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis); the other two host trees are Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla).

As of the 2005 Conservation Assessment for I. leucotricha, there had been no formal studies of this species ecology or habitat requirements. Thus, there is some level of uncertainty regarding how management activities might directly or indirectly impact a known site. Management considerations suggested in this document include minimizing or avoiding damage to substrates at occupied sites, minimizing or avoiding collection of this species, maintaining greater canopy cover near occupied sites in the direction of the prevailing wind, and using variable tree density spacing when implementing projects around known sites to help maintain microclimate (Harpel and Davis 2005).

Given these management considerations, mitigation measures (See Chapter 2) were developed with the goal of minimizing damage to host trees, maintaining canopy cover near these locations, and maintaining microclimatic conditions. These include 125 foot buffers around

191

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project each host tree, where no trees will be cut and operation of equipment will not be permitted. In addition to this, in cases where there are multiple host trees located along a ridge top within units, the 125’ buffer around the host tree still applies, but the area along the ridge top outside of these buffers will either receive no heavy thinning and no gaps will be created, or it will be skipped altogether.

Fungi There are no fungal species documented or suspected to occur on the Olympic National Forest that are designated as Forest Service Sensitive in Washington State. Lichens There are no lichen species documented or suspected to occur on the Olympic National Forest that are designated as Forest Service Sensitive in Washington State. Environmental effects: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Alternative A (No Action) Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Vascular plants and bryophytes Under Alternative A, no management activities would occur, and there would be no direct or indirect effect on sensitive vascular plants or bryophytes. This alternative would not affect species viability, nor would it cause a trend toward listing for any of these species. Activities would not occur that might damage the structural integrity of the substrates being occupied by the sensitive moss species Iwatsukiella leucotricha documented within the project area. Thinning would not occur in the single unit proposed for harvest where Erythronium quinaultense is known to occur, so conditions would not improve or decline due to this action, and natural processes would continue along their current trajectory. There would also be no cumulative effect with past, current, or reasonably foreseeable actions. Natural processes would continue to dominate, habitat conditions would remain unchanged, canopy cover would remain high, and existing microclimate conditions would remain essentially the same. Action Alternatives B, C, and D Direct and Indirect Effects Vascular plants Erythronium quinaultense was found in four units, and all but one of these units has been dropped from the proposed project under all alternatives, and therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects on this species in the three dropped units. Thinning is proposed to occur under all three Alternatives in a single unit with a goal being to improve habitat for E. quinaultense, and to better understand how to successfully manage this

192

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project species in the future. Direct effects of this action could include the loss of some individuals or portions of the existing populations of E. quinaultense in that unit due to equipment operation, felling and yarding of trees, etc. Negative indirect effects could include an increase in understory shrub density, resulting in increased competition for resources and subsequent decline of E. quinaultense in the stand, the introduction of invasive plants into the stand, or alteration of site conditions by other means to the extent that it is no longer capable of supporting E. quinaultense. Positive indirect effects may include an increase in reproductive capacity for E. quinaultense and a subsequent increase in density within the stand, or expansion of this species into previously unoccupied locations. In addition to this, we expect to gain valuable information about this species and will be able to make better informed decisions in the future about how to actively manage this species. Implementation of this project would pose no risk to species viability, nor a trend toward listing. Any negative effects would be highly localized over a relatively small area when compared to the extent of this species within the Queets planning area. Bryophytes Direct and indirect effects to documented locations of I. leucotricha should be minimal with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 2. However, because only a tiny portion of suitable habitat for this species can be surveyed (litterfall, and the lowest part of the boles of trees, while the entire tree is suitable habitat for this moss), if any of these alternatives were implemented, the potential exists for damage or removal of undetected occupied trees from felling, yarding, or road building operations. Indirect threats to I. leucotricha involve modification of habitat that could alter the microclimate, in particular, reducing high relative humidity (Harpel and Davis 2005). Specifically, reduced canopy closure would likely result in increased solar radiation and wind penetration, resulting in increased temperature and decreased moisture at these sites.

According to the conservation assessment for this species, dispersal within stands appears to be limited and colonization of younger substrates is tied to legacy trees occupied by this species. Since larger trees will generally be kept in the stands in all Alternatives, these larger trees may harbor additional sites of I. leucotricha that could provide propagules to colonize younger remaining trees. Also, since there are stands over 80 years old adjacent to several of the units proposed for thinning, larger trees in those stands may serve as refugia where additional sites of this species might exist.

By implementing the mitigation measures discussed above, all of the known sites in the proposed units in the planning area would be protected from both direct and indirect effects by being placed in buffers or skips in units to be treated.

With implementation of the mitigation measures described above, this project may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely contribute to a loss of viability of the species, or a trend towards listing.

193

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives B, C, and D Cumulative effects are assessed at the planning area scale. In the past 80 years, the units proposed for harvest have experienced stand replacing events, either in the form of fire, or by being clearcut, followed in some cases by broadcast burning and replanting. It is reasonable to assume that vascular plant and bryophyte species richness in general declined in these areas as a result of this habitat loss and fragmentation. Direct and indirect effects of any of the action alternatives are anticipated to be minor, and to recover over time. There are no foreseeable actions on federal lands that would impact these sensitive species or their habitat. Therefore, cumulative effects on sensitive vascular plants or bryophytes will be negligible. Survey and Manage Species The Queets Commercial Thin planning area applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006), as discussed in Chapter 1 of this document. Please refer to that section for details of that decision and how it applies to this proposal. The exemption does not apply to rock sources planned for development. Prior to development, areas will be reviewed in conjunction with maps of existing known species locations to determine, whether occupied habitat sites exist, or whether habitat is present. If areas identified contain known species presence or suitable habitat, surveys will be conducted, if required for that species (USDA 2001). 3.3.3 Invasive Plants Noxious weeds and other invasive plants pose a serious threat to the health of National Forests. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species (Feb. 1999), provides direction that “Federal agencies shall: (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (2) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (3) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (4) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded.” Prevention of invasive plant spread or new infestations, along with timely treatment and monitoring of infestations, are key objectives for the Olympic National Forest under the 2008 Olympic National Forest Invasive Plant EIS “Beyond Prevention: Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project” (USDA Forest Service 2008). Invasive plant surveys were conducted concurrently with the sensitive plant surveys, and the Olympic National Forest Invasive Plant GIS cover was reviewed to determine what invasive plant species are present in the project area; those that have a high potential to have an adverse ecological effect if left unchecked are listed in Table 3-26 below. Almost all of the sites where these species occurred were strongly associated with roads in current use or closed roads within the proposed treatment units.

194

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-26. Invasive plant species documented in the Project Area.

Scientific name Common name Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom

Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry

Rubus laciniatus Cutleaf blackberry

Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort Alternative A (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative would not change the current condition of invasive plant species infestations in the project area. No project activities that might increase the risk of invasive plant infestation and spread would take place, and no project-related treatment of existing invasive plant infestations would occur. Existing infestations would likely persist and continue to spread via future road management activities and other Forest use, and would eventually extend beyond the project boundaries into adjacent areas. Cumulative Effects Because there would be no active management, there would be no cumulative effects with past, current, and foreseeable management actions. Action Alternatives B, C, and D Direct and Indirect Effects Each of the action alternatives would result in newly exposed ground associated with road construction, landings, and skid roads. These areas would be susceptible to noxious weed and invasive plant colonization, particularly because there are already invasive species documented in the area that could provide a ready seed source. Under all of the action alternatives, without mitigation, invasive species would continue to spread along existing road corridors, and could colonize disturbed areas within harvested units. In order to control invasive plant colonization and spread under the proposed action, prevention and weed eradication activities will be implemented before, during and after project activities as described in the Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures section of Chapter 2. Gravel, straw mulch, and other material

195

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project used for road construction and maintenance would come only from sources certified by Forest Service botanists or other qualified officials to be weed-free. Implementation of any of the action alternatives with these mitigations would provide positive results in the treatment of current infestations and prevention of invasive plant spread. Cumulative Effects Past activities that have likely contributed to the introduction and spread of invasive plant species include but are not limited to the following:  Construction of gravel and paved roads providing ease of access to the watershed;  Timber harvest activities using machinery imported from other geographic areas containing different invasive species propagules;  Erosion control measures and forage seeding projects introducing non-native invasive plant species in seed mixes and straw sediment barriers;  Riding horses or use of livestock for packing introducing weed propagules through grain (feed) or manure. On-going road maintenance in the form of blading, ditch pulling, and hauling away of associated debris to waste sites is currently spreading some invasive species, as is the use of material from infested rock sources for resurfacing. Foreseeable future activities that may impact the spread of invasive plant species either positively or negatively include:  Weed treatment projects under the Olympic National Forest 2008 Invasive Plant Treatment EIS: “Beyond Prevention: Site Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project” (USDA 2008)  Timber harvest on adjacent land that could potentially introduce additional unwanted plants to National Forest lands;  Forest Service road decommissioning and culvert replacement projects;  Proposed forage enhancement projects; and  Potential post-thinning weed treatment projects. The management requirements described in Chapter 2, and similar requirements that would be imposed by the 2008 Olympic National Forest Invasive Plant EIS (USDA Forest Service, 2008) on future projects on National Forest Lands in the project area, should serve to minimize the risk of invasive plant establishment and spread due to active management. Pre- and post-activity weed treatments would be likely to reduce or eliminate existing infestations, thereby improving conditions and reducing the potential for future spread. No cumulative adverse effects to invasive plant conditions in the project area would be anticipated under any of the action alternatives proposed for the Queets Commercial Thin planning area.

196

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.4 Soils and Landslide Risk Introduction This report summarizes the potential effects to soil productivity and landslide risk associated with the proposed and connected actions within the Queets Vegetation Management Project Area (QVMP). The following is a discussion of the relevant information pertaining to past and predicted disturbances to the soil resource and landslide risk.

The effects analysis section assumes that the project design criteria, mitigations, best management practices, and seasonal operating restrictions specified in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Analysis are applied to the project implementation. These measures were designed to minimize or mitigate potential impacts, and to ensure that the project would comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies.

Analysis Area and Scale There are three geographic scales for this soils analysis of this project. From largest to smallest, they are:

 Planning Area – The 44,000-acre Queets Vegetation Management Project Area.  Project Area – The area in which project analysis occurs for proposed specific activities, including actions associated with designated treatment units as well as other connected actions outside of those units such as helicopter landing construction, rock pit development, log haul, and sale area improvement projects.  Activity Area – The ~5,000-acre area of direct ground impacting activity, consisting of the smaller, forest stand-scale units delineated in the proposed action, either individually or collectively. Also included are the proposed 22.2 miles of road development, 12 one-acre helicopter landings, and 20 acres of rock pit expansion development in 10 separate locations. The analysis areas for soil resources for direct, indirect and cumulative effects are the outer boundaries of the stands (units) proposed for thinning. These are appropriate boundaries because actions outside the unit boundaries would have little or no affect to soil productivity within the units, and actions within the unit boundaries would have little or no affect to soil productivity elsewhere.

Analysis Methods Soil distribution is complex within the planning area. All soil mapping units delineated with the Olympic National Forest Ecological Unit Inventory (EUI) and other mapped features have been assessed for several potential risks and hazards, and are summarized in this document. Assessments are supported through field verification and GIS analysis. These are most useful as an initial broad-scale planning tool to identify and display maps of possible soil concerns and sensitive areas. Interpretations are based on observations of soil characteristics at sites thought to best represent the entire soil mapping unit. Soil properties can vary within a mapping unit and on-site investigations are often required to refine or modify interpretations.

197

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The project Soil Scientist has adjusted the management interpretations to reflect on the existing and likely ground conditions at the time of activities considering project design criteria (PDC), mitigation measures, best management practices (BMP), and seasonal operating restrictions, as outlined in Chapter 2. These interpretations have also been adjusted based on the types of disturbances to the soils based on the proposed ground disturbing activities, and provide resolution to the soil map units at a site-specific scale. Sources of Information Used for Analysis This analysis utilized the surveys and information sources listed below to evaluate and interpret potential effects associated with the proposed action. In addition, previous field experience, personal observations, consultation with other local experts, and knowledge of how soils respond to the proposed types of management actions were used to predict impacts. Sources of information include:

 Olympic National Forest EUI (USDA, 2000), a certified National Cooperative Soil Survey for all soil mapping unit (SMU) delineations and interpretations of properties for use and management  Olympic National Forest National Cooperative Soil Survey Data (NRCS Soil Data Viewer) for some interpretations for use and management  Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey of the Olympic National Forest (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm)  Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1995)  Salmon River Watershed Analysis (Quinault Indian Nation, 2002)  Sams River Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1997)  Tacoma Creek-Queets River Watershed Analysis (De Cillis, 2013)  Historic aerial photos  Other resource information in Olympic National Forest GIS data sets

A three-step methodology was used to gather data needed for this effects analysis. Priority stands were chosen for field evaluation and validation of soil mapping units, slopes, hydrologic characteristics, and other features. Appropriate map changes were made to reflect field observations. With updated and validated soil mapping, pertinent management interpretations should be more accurate and therefore provide high confidence when determining levels of risk. Stands were also chosen based on logging method (with emphasis on ground based systems) for field estimates and study of existing soil disturbance conditions. Skyline and helicopter stands were included in the analysis, but stands where slopes averaged greater than 35 percent were not surveyed as intensively because of the relatively reduced soil impacts resulting from those logging methods compared to ground based logging activities. Soil disturbance condition was assessed using visual observations on the ground, and quantitative estimates were made using historic air photos and GIS mapping.

A total of 13 field days were spent in the planning area in spring and summer of 2013. Investigations were primarily focused on the activity areas of potential harvest units and haul

198

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project routes, and examined landforms and soil types (physical properties, existing disturbance, hydrologic conditions, topography, landslide risk, road conditions and proposed development, stream courses, wet areas, and restoration opportunities; see Map 8, Appendix D, page D-9). Specific logging systems and road development concerns associated with the proposed action were examined, including:

 Soils with seasonal high water table  Surface soil textures and bearing strength/rock fragments  Surface erosion and delivery potential  Existing and potentially unstable areas  Unique features such as rock outcrops, wet areas, wetlands, seeps and springs  Proximity to riparian areas  Potential effects to soil productivity and hydrologic conditions

Field notes regarding specific concerns and recommendations were taken. These observations, notes, and maps are available in the Project Files.

In general, the field investigations confirmed most of the EUI mapping and characterization of landforms and soils. The proposed actions for each unit (logging systems, road development, operating season) were considered, and used to inform site-specific recommendations, design criteria, mitigations, and best management practices that are included in this report. Maps showing Soil Geomorphic Units (GMUs), parent materials, harvest units near escarpments, unstable landforms in the QVMP area can be found in Appendix D, pp. D-9 through D-15.

Issues and Measures Used to Assess the Soils and Landslide Risk Effects of the Proposed Action Detrimental Soil Conditions

 Ground Based Yarding Operations On Sensitive Soils (key issue)  Overall Detrimental Conditions (non-key issue)

Some of the soils of the Queets Vegetation Management project are particularly susceptible to compaction, displacement, and rutting from ground disturbing management activities. Commercial thinning treatments associated with proposed action that utilize conventional ground based yarding equipment, especially during winter months when soil moisture levels are higher, may result in unacceptable soil impacts. The extent and degree of these soil disturbances may not meet Forest and Regional standards for soil quality. The consequences of these effects are reduced soil productivity and increased potential for erosion, runoff and sedimentation. The distribution of sensitive soil types in the QVMP area can be found on page D-10.

Background: Under the proposed action, many of the units identified for ground based yarding operations are located on landforms and SMUs that are highly sensitive to heavy equipment. They are vulnerable to detrimental soil impacts due to the wet climate, silty soil textures,

199

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project restrictive layers, low rock fragment content, high seasonal water tables, and other factors. These soils are particularly vulnerable to soil disturbances by conventional ground based equipment during the winter months when rainfall is highest. Seasonal operating restrictions because of wildlife concerns often require operations to occur during the winter months. Detrimental soil impacts that may result from trafficking during wetter times of the year include compaction, displacement (topsoil removal), rutting, puddling, and shifting to a wetter soil moisture regime. Alteration and loss of soil organic matter and organisms, erosion and sedimentation, shifts in potential vegetation communities, alteration of hydrologic regimes, and overall loss of soil productivity may also result from these activities.

Elements of proposal that may cause loss of soil productivity:

 Logging activities – impacts from ground based equipment on skid trails and landings, impacts from log drag in skyline corridors, helicopter landing development  Road development – temporary road construction and reconstruction of forest roads

Measurement Indicators for Ground Based Equipment Operations on Sensitive Soils:

 Acres of ground based yarding operations on sensitive soil types (Appendix D, pg. D-10)  Qualitative description of degree and extent of expected detrimental soil impacts

Measurement Indicators for Overall Detrimental Soil Condition

 Percentage of ground within individual proposed treatment units (activity areas) in non- detrimental and detrimental soil condition classes  Percentage of ground of the overall project area in non-detrimental and detrimental soil condition classes

Analysis Area and Temporal scale: Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts focuses on the activity area (harvest units, landings and adjacent road system).

Landslide Risk (Non-key issue)

Road development and timber harvest activities associated with the proposed action may result in an increased potential for landslide risk.

Background: Shallow rapid landsliding in the project area has been an active agent in the downslope movement of soil, rock and vegetation for at least the last one hundred years, and deep seated mass movement for thousands of years, as described in the three watershed analyses consulted for this report. Some of the proposed harvest units and road development are located on landforms that may pose a landslide risk.

Measurement Indicators:

200

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

 Acres of harvest units planned within and adjacent to potentially unstable landforms (Appendix D, Map 14, pg. D-15).  Miles of road development planned within and adjacent to potentially unstable landforms

Analysis Area and Temporal scale: Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts focuses primarily on the potentially unstable landforms and soils that pose a landslide risk where proposed road development and timber harvesting is planned, and considers no-cut buffers, other design criteria, BMPs and mitigations to reduce the potential for landslide risk. 3.4.1 Affected Environment The project planning area encompasses 43,935 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Salmon River (5,747 acres/13%) , Matheny Creek (20,331 acres/46%), Sams River (16,182 acres/37%), and Tacoma Creek-Queets River (1,675 acres/4%) subwatersheds. Three Watershed Analysis reports—Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1995), Salmon River Watershed Analysis (Quinault Indian Nation, 2002), and Sams River Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1997)—characterize the climate, geology, landforms, mass wasting and erosion potential, and watershed processes and conditions in detail at the watershed scale. The Tacoma Creek-Queets River Subwatershed Report (De Cillis, 2013) describes the effects of past National Forest land management and the associated impacts to the aquatic environment, but is not a full Watershed Analysis. These reports are available at the Olympic National Forest Supervisor’s office. Physiographic Setting The planning area is entirely within National Forest System lands in the southwest corner of the Olympic Mountains. It is located in the Sams River, Salmon River, Matheny Creek, and Tacoma Creek-Queets 6th field watersheds, which all fall within the Queets River 5th field watershed. The Sams River originates in the forested slopes of Sams and Matheny ridges and flows westerly for roughly 30 miles to its confluence with the Queets River at River Mile (RM) 23.5. The 19,709-acre watershed (of which 16,182 acres fall within the planning area) is characterized by long, broad east-west ridge systems that are highly dissected by north- and south-facing tributaries. The Salmon River watershed (20,359 acres total) is drained by three major tributaries, the North, Middle, and South Forks. Most of the area covered in this analysis lies within the North and Middle Fork subwatersheds. (5,747 acres in planning area) The North and Middle Forks and their tributaries cut deep v-shaped valleys and have a dendritic drainage pattern. After the three forks converge, they flow into the Queets River at RM 10.1. Matheny Creek originates from the forested slopes of Higley and Matheny ridges, and flows westerly for 17.2 miles to its confluence with the Queets River. The 24,100-acre watershed

201

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

(20,331 in planning area) is characterized by highly dissected ridge systems and steep tributary drainages. Tacoma Creek-Queets River 21,339 acres total 1,675 acres in planning area. Precipitation ranges from about 120 inches along the western boundary of the planning area to over 200 inches in the northeastern part of the watershed. The majority of the precipitation occurs between November and April. Most of the planning area is in the rain-dominated and rain-on-snow zones, although the higher elevations in the glacial mountains landforms are generally snow-dominated. Geology According to Tabor and Cady (1978) mapping, the bedrock geology of the planning area is composed of two major geologic map units. The dominant geologic map unit is comprised of tertiary-aged sedimentary rocks, primarily coarse-textured, thinly bedded greywacke interbedded with fine-textured, thinly bedded mudstone, siltstone and argillite (mapping unit Tur). During the Pleistocene era, alpine glaciers advanced down the Queets valley along a narrow two-mile-wide path until reaching the mouth of the Salmon River, where the ice was able to spread and form lobes up to seven miles wide. The valley and lowland areas in the northwestern part of the planning area are now filled with glacial deposits of till, outwash and lacustrine sediments (mapping unit Qo). Minor amounts of alluvium (Qa) are found in the far northwestern corner of the planning area, near the Sams River-Queets River confluence. Localized exposures of basaltic rocks (interbedded with the tertiary sedimentary rocks) are found in the Salmon River watershed. Landtype Association and Landforms Landtype Association (LTA) mapping (USFS, Unpublished) classifies the project area into four basic landforms: Glacial Mountains, Glacial Valleys, Glacial Valley Bottoms, and Outwash Plains. Coastal Fluvial Valleys and Paraglacial Margin LTAs also comprise small areas in the northern and western part of the planning area. For the purposes of this analysis, the four major LTA types will be used to categorize the soils and landforms in the planning area. Soils Detrimental Soil Conditions (Key Issue) Most of the soil types found on Glacial Valleys, Glacial Valley Bottoms, and Outwash Plains landforms within the Queets Vegetation Management project area are highly susceptible to compaction and displacement resulting from ground disturbing management activities. The surface soils generally have silt loam to sandy loam textures with low rock fragment contents, which result in low resistance (bearing strength) to heavy equipment. In the absence of disturbance, water will percolate freely through the surface soils but may be restricted by a compact till layer located in the subsoil. Depth to compact till varies, so seasonal water table generally ranges from 2 to 5 feet in most glacial valley soil types during the months of

202

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

November through April. Water perching above the compacted till subsoil, along with andic soil properties that retain significant amounts of moisture, further reduces bearing strength. When heavy equipment is operated on these landforms, especially during winter months when soil moisture is high and a water table may be present, surface soil materials are easily displaced/removed or mixed with subsoil, resulting in deep rutting, puddling, and compaction. Alteration of soil structure, reduction of macropore space, and loss of organic matter and organisms may reduce overall soil productivity and impair hydrologic function. Surface erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters may result, and are more likely to occur if ground based activities take place during wet weather conditions. Monitoring conducted by Craigg (2012) and Bennett (2012) on these sensitive soil types where conventional ground based management activities were recently conducted in an adjacent nearby watershed found evidence that validates these detrimental soil impacts and concerns. This monitoring and other field investigations of soil types 673M2, 679N2, 674N4, and 678N4 that have medium surface textures (low bearing strength) and seasonal high water tables show the presence of detrimental soil conditions many decades after historic logging activities. While many of these units were “high-lead” cable yarded, others used mechanized equipment (caterpillar tractors and skidders) that has left a legacy of compacted skid trails and landings. Field observations and use of aerial photos to estimate extent show that detrimental soil impacts are still present where this heavy equipment was allowed to travel throughout harvest units up to 40 percent slopes. Compacted and displaced skid trails and landings are still evident. Scattered alder and small conifer are common along the edges of skid trails and between tracks where less compaction occurred. Minimal shrub and understory vegetation are present on most of these trails due to compaction, with mosses and forbs dominating. In many cases, compaction has destroyed structure and altered soil pore size distribution, leading to a soil moisture regime shift. Strong hydric soil indicators and presence of hydrophytic vegetation suggests longer-term saturation than is observed on adjacent, unimpacted sites.

Soil types found on Glacial Mountains landforms are also susceptible to compaction and displacement resulting from harvesting activities, but tend to have higher rock fragment contents within the profile which conveys some protection against puddling and rutting. Impacts from high lead cable yarding are also still evident where temporary roads and landings were built, and even where old growth logs were dragged without one end suspension on cable roads, although these impacts were not observed on many sites. Even where seasonal operating restrictions are not imposed, conditions should continually be monitored and operations suspended if PDCs cannot be fulfilled.

Compacted soils have reduced soil infiltration rates, which may lead to increased rates of surface erosion if the soil remains exposed and a pathway exists for eroding soil to move across the landscape. Most forest soils have low potential for natural surface erosion. This is because they tend to have generally high natural porosity, high infiltration rates, high water storage potential, and they are usually fully occupied with vegetation and surface litter. Surface erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to streams is possible only when storm events are large

203

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project enough to saturate soils and cause overland surface water flow. If surface soils are not compacted or displaced for long distances, the probability of surface erosion is relatively low in forested watersheds where water infiltration rates into the soil are normally greater than the precipitation intensity. When soils aren’t compacted, infiltration capacities may be many times greater than maximum rainfall rates, and no surface runoff occurs (Harr 1976). Within the project area, there are few identified pathways within the forested harvest units, whereas there are pathways for transport of soils along roadways to adjacent streams. Occasionally, road crossdrains may concentrate water into sheet or channelized flow where that it cannot infiltrate into compacted surfaces (especially on steeper slopes), and it could potentially reach surface water. Field observations documented water movement along some roadside ditches which transported minor amounts of sediment into the stream channels. The road and stream crossings are the primary areas where soil can be transported to streams. The water quality section of the Fisheries report further describes the road erosion and sedimentation conditions within the project area. Given the low percentage of area with exposed mineral soils, the present current soil conditions are not likely to have a measureable adverse effect on aquatic organisms. The extent of detrimental soil conditions on individual harvest units was estimated by a combination of on-the-ground reconnaissance and aerial photo interpretation. Harvest history for each stand was derived from the TRI database. Nearly every stand was clearcut at some time between the late 1940’s and late 1970’s, and most stands were re-entered for a precommercial thin and/or commercial thin. Year of clearcut harvest from the TRI spatial database was used to determine the year of aerial photo acquisition that should be used to estimate the extent of on-the-ground impacts. System roads, temporary roads, primary and secondary skid trails, landings, and large bare areas visible on the aerial photos were all assumed to be in detrimental soil condition. Several features visible on aerial photos were field-verified for current detrimental condition. Heavy compaction (15% increase in bulk density as determined by shovel probe and/or presence of platy soil structure) displacement of A horizons (50% or more loss compared to undisturbed areas), and soil moisture regime shifts (aquic conditions induced by compaction) were the common detrimental soil conditions observed in the field. GIS analysis (digitization of visible features on georectified aerial photos and calculation of areas) was used on a number of harvest units to calibrate visual DSC estimation.

Overall cumulative detrimental soil conditions for the Queets Vegetation Management project area is estimated at 12 percent, that includes existing roads, landings and compacted skid trails. Based on field investigations and air photo interpretation, about 356 acres (7 percent) of the total proposed action activity areas are in the detrimental condition class of less than 10 percent. About 1,680 acres (34%) of the proposed treatment acres are in the 10-15% detrimental condition class. About 2,440 acres (49%) of the proposed treatment acres are in the 15-20% detrimental condition class. Roughly 367 acres (7%) of the proposed treatment acres are in the >20% detrimental condition class. The activity areas in a condition class less

204

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project than 10 percent are primarily units that were previously high lead or skyline cable yarded from existing roads, and are located on glacial mountain LTA landforms on slopes averaging 40 to 100 percent. Field observations determined that most detrimental conditions in these units result from compacted roads and landings. Most of the proposed treatment acres fall within the 10-15% and 15-20% detrimental soil condition classes. Ground based units with the highest overall detrimental soil condition classes (>20%) were ground based yarded with conventional mechanized equipment. Of these, units that were observed with the highest impacts from these activities include A7, A9, B30, B35, C15, C17, C28, and D15. These units are on ridgetop positions in the glacial mountains LTAs, on gentle slopes in glacial valley LTAs, and in outwash plains in the northwest corner of the project area. Impacts are primarily system roads that border the units, existing unclassified roads and historic compacted skid trails and landings. There are some helicopter (C16, C28, D9), heli-processor (B35), cable (C30, B8), and downhill cable (D14, D20) units in the >20% detrimental soil condition class. These units are small (averaging around 10 acres), so the permanent transportation system, landings, and skyline corridors constitute a larger proportion of the area than in larger units.

Unsuitable and Unmanageable Lands All of the proposed harvest units in the Queets Vegetation Management project area are considered suitable for timber management as defined by the Forest Plan. Areas unsuitable for timber management would include areas with high slope instability, wetlands, and soils that are excessively shallow, rocky and very low productivity. There are however, small areas within several harvest units where acreage has been identified as having very shallow soils, rock outcroppings, or wet areas that were too small to delineate. These unsuitable areas would be excluded from harvest with Project Design Criteria (primarily no-cut buffers), and are described in Chapter 2. These would be identified and omitted during the layout process, or included as skips. Landforms where very shallow soils were identified and mapped in the EUI as inclusions or minor component of the soil map units include mountain headwalls (K), dissected mountain slopes (H), and escarpments (X). Landslide Risk The evaluation of historic mass wasting, potentially unstable landforms and landslide risk was made using the Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1995), the Salmon River Watershed Analysis (Quinault Indian Nation, 2002), the Sams River Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1997), the Olympic National Forest EUI, and Olympic National Forest GIS layers. These documents were used to identify landforms that were determined in the watershed analyses as having a high potential for slope instability, based on mass wasting inventory and field investigations. Descriptions of these landforms and map units can be found in the appendix section of the referenced Watershed Analyses and the Olympic National Forest Ecological Unit Inventory.

205

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The Queets Vegetation Management project area lies on both steep sideslopes (40 to 100 percent) of Glacial Mountains LTAs and on stable, gently-sloping Glacial Valleys, Glacial Valley Bottoms, and Outwash Plains LTAs. Three of the four watershed analyses that cover the project area quantify and characterize both rotational (slump type) and translational (debris slide) mass wasting that is evident within these LTAs. The Tacoma Creek-Queets River Subwatershed Report does not explicitly describe specific landtypes or geomorphic surfaces, but acknowledges the importance of natural mass wasting events in the sediment regime of the watershed. Matheny Creek In the Matheny Creek watershed, debris flows have been the most dominant slope-movement process and are extensive throughout the watershed. Historically, major storm events likely triggered debris flow events that contributed major pulses of sediment and LWD to Matheny Creek. Most were relatively small and confined within or adjacent to high-gradient stream channels (based on 1939 aerial photo interpretation). GMUs 26, 36, 52, 53, and 77 showed the greatest numbers of natural mass failures (see Appendix D, pg. D-11). Deep-seated landslides have occurred in the watershed, but are believed to have played a lesser role in the basin’s sediment regime. They seem to be associated with glacial deposition on slopes or undercutting of slopes by stream or glacial action. GM’s 26, 32, 36 and 90 have the highest frequencies of deep-seated mass movements. While these features appear to now be dormant, shallow rapid landslides on their margins have continued to be active. Once road-building and timber harvest began mid-century, the number of debris flows increased. Eight sets of aerial photography, taken from 1939 through 1993, were evaluated to determine frequency and cause (natural or management-induced) of debris flows in the watershed. During the 1962-1993 period, natural debris flows only accounted for 0 to 10 percent of the total failures, while management-related failures (due to road-building and/or clearcutting activities) accounted for 75 to 90 percent of failures. Management-related failures appeared to be larger in scale, and required smaller storm events to initiate. GMU’s 36, 52, and 53 have shown the greatest mass-wasting response due to roading (see Appendix D, pg. D-11). Deep midslope soils on steep, dissected slopes are most prone to failure, and unstable sidecast road fills are likely failure points. Failures associated with clearcutting had the highest frequencies in GMU’s 26, 36, and 77. Decreases in root strength and hydrologic shifts (more water in the soil profile after respiring vegetation is removed) are believed to be the main contributing factors in clearcutting-induced failures. However, current silvicultural thinning prescriptions are not believed to increase the likelihood of failure above that in an untreated stand. Salmon River The majority of the Queets Vegetation Management project area that falls within the Salmon River watershed is located within the Middle Fork Salmon River and North Fork Salmon River

206

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project subwatersheds. In the both the Middle Fork and North Fork, mass wasting is concentrated in the eastern portions of the subwatersheds, and the number of failures increased markedly when road building and timber harvest commenced. The number of mass failures peaked in the 1973 photo series, and is believed to be a result of poor road building and harvesting practices during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Most shallow-rapid failures are associated with thinly-bedded marine sedimentary (Thsr) and sheared sedimentary (Thm) geologic units and are on south-facing slopes of the main drainages where stream and road densities are higher. Culvert failure, sidecast failure, and inadequate ditch relief cause most mass wasting from roads. Converging headwater areas in GMU 77 are especially prone, particularly if road drainage is not properly designed and maintained. Concave slopes and planar slopes in gorges are also highly susceptible. However, the WA concludes that GMUs are not good tools for categorizing or assessing cause of landslides in the watershed, and that strength of geologic units combined with road-building practices has a greater influence on mass wasting. Roads 2140-100, 2140-090 and 2140-030 were identified in the Watershed Analysis as needing maintenance and/or examination to determine suitability for future use. Sams River In the Sams River watershed, alpine glaciation, debris slides and torrents, and deep-seated slumps have been the dominant erosion processes. Valleys in the watershed tend to have U- shaped profiles. Debris flows tend to occur in steep stream channels on convergent topography and on slopes that are perpendicular to rock bedding planes. The Sams River Watershed Analysis team examined aerial photos from 1939, 1968, 1982, 1989, and 1993 to identify portions of the landscape most susceptible to mass wasting and to understand failure mechanisms in natural versus managed conditions. The GMU’s most susceptible to increases in frequency of failures due to forest management were 53, 72, 77, 78, and 91. GMU’s with a high natural sensitivity are 26, 33, 53, 77, 78, and 91. GMU’s 71, 72, 77, 78 and 91 are considered high-hazard landforms and are sensitive to management activities as well as to natural disturbances (e.g., large storms) (see Appendix D, pg. D-11). Tacoma Creek-Queets River Steep, dissected headwaters and inner gorges are most susceptible to landslides and debris flows following natural disturbances such as fire or large storm events. No assessment was made in the subwatersed report (De Cillis, 2013) regarding increased susceptibility due to roading or harvest. About half of the Subwatershed area that falls within the QVMP consists of convergent headwalls, highly dissected mountain slopes, and debris avalanche track GMUs, all of which are considered to have a greater landslide risk (see Appendix D, pg. D-11). The other half consists of alluvial fans and outwash terraces, GMUs which are considered to be relatively stable. As emphasized in the three watershed analyses, slope failures are a natural mechanism in this environment and are important sources of large wood in streams. This analysis seeks to

207

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project identify areas where road-building or harvest activities may increase the likelihood of a mass failure through alteration of hydrologic regime or vegetation characteristics. Shallow rapid landsliding features are found primarily in glacial mountain LTAs, in convergent mountain headwalls, bedrock hollows, and steep 1st order channels. Within the Glacial Valley LTA, both shallow rapid landsliding and deep-seated features are located within inner gorge and escarpment landforms. Triggers of these landslides are generally on slopes greater than 70 percent, shallow soils, high degree of stream dissection, and concave shape with numerous seeps, springs and headwater streams. Fewer shallow rapid landsliding features are found within the Coastal Fluvial Valleys, Glacial Valley Bottoms, Outwash Plains, and Paraglacial Margin LTA’s, and are mostly associated with GMU 91 (inner gorges). Deep-seated landsliding (mostly now dormant) are triggered by soils with low cohesive soils and subsurface water movement in soil layers with variations in soil textures, steep slopes and major stream undercutting altering the angle of repose. The major geomorphic map units (see Resource Report and individual Watershed Analyses for more detailed descriptions and Appendix D for maps), and EUI landforms (refer to Olympic National Forest EUI) associated with the historic mass wasting (both shallow and deep seated) that were analyzed for this project include the following:

 GMUs 26, 33, 77, 78, 90 and 91  Within 100 feet of streamcourses in GMUs 53, 71, and 72  EUI Landforms Mountain Headwall (K) and Escarpments (X)

During the development of the proposed action, areas of active landsliding were identified on the ground and were deemed unsuitable for timber harvest due to potential slope instability, concerns associated with construction or reconstruction of roads, or logging systems/economic feasibility. Several other potentially unstable areas identified were excluded as “skip” no cut harvest areas within units and will be protected. During the layout process, a Forest Service soil scientist or geotechnical engineer will assess on the ground proposed activities (timber harvest, road development) that are located within or near these potentially unstable landforms. Within the Queets Vegetation Management project area, the proposed action has about 19 percent (947 acres) of the total harvest units and about 23 percent (5.09 miles) of total road development planned that is within these potentially unstable landforms. Harvest units located along escarpment landforms associated with the Queets River and tributaries where active mass wasting is present near the unit boundaries include the following: A2, A3, A7, A9, A22. Active blowdown and slope failures along the landslide margins were observed adjacent to numerous units. Partial tree removal may increase windthrow on these unstable slopes that may result in loss of root strength, erosion and possible landsliding. Road development (new and unclassified construction) may redirect water onto these slopes, and may further destabilize these areas. Other harvest units located within and near these landforms and road development can potentially increase the rate of mass failures, and the size

208

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project and number of landslides, erosion and potential sedimentation. Poorly located, poorly constructed, or poorly maintained roads can result in slope failures, sedimentation and other resource damage. Well located, well-constructed, and properly maintained roads would have minimal effect on slope stability. The effects of forest roads on geomorphic and hydrologic processes range from chronic and long-term contribution of fine sediment into streams to catastrophic effects associated with mass failures of road fill material during large storms. Primary mechanisms by which roads affect geomorphic processes include accelerating erosion from the road surface and prism itself by both mass wasting and surface erosion processes; directly affecting channel structure and geometry; altering surface flow paths, leading to diversion or extension of channels onto previously un-channelized portions of the landscape; and causing interactions among water, sediment, and woody debris at engineered road-stream crossings (USDA 2001). Mass soil movements influenced by roads include debris slides, deep- seated slumps and earth flows, and debris flows. Studies, including one conducted on Washington (Reid 1981); show that areas with roads have accelerated erosion rates due to landslides compared to unmanaged forest areas. Swanson and Dryness (1975) documented increased frequency of landslides – up to 30 times the rates in unmanaged forests in the Pacific Northwest following the major flood of 1964. Changes in hydrologic processes and root deterioration can contribute to these effects (Sidle, R.C. 1985). 3.4.2 Environmental Effects Alternative A – the No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A is provided to serve as a baseline of the existing condition for comparison with the Proposed Action. Under the No Action alternative, no thinning treatments or associated project activities would take place. Forest stands in the project area would remain untreated. All existing roads – authorized system roads, decommissioned roads, and existing unclassified roads – would remain in their current condition. Detrimental Soil Conditions Effects of Ground Based Yarding Operations (Key Issue) Under Alternative A (No Action), soils within the activity areas would have no additional ground based activities or ground disturbing impacts that would result in a change in the current condition of detrimental soil conditions.

Overall Detrimental Soil Conditions Within the no action alternative, soils within the project area would have no additional detrimental soil impacts associated with yarding and road development activities. Overall average detrimental soil conditions would remain unchanged at approximately 12 percent. About 367 acres (7 percent) of the proposed treatment area would remain in a detrimental soil condition class of >20 percent. Another 2,440 acres (49 percent) of the proposed treatment

209

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project area would remain in a detrimental condition class ranging from 15 to 20 percent, while 1,680 acres (34 percent) would remain in a detrimental condition class ranging from 10 to 15%. Existing compacted skid trails, landings and unclassified temporary roads that are present from the previous entry within the activity areas would not be used or restored, and would remain in a long-term detrimental condition as an irretrievable commitment. Opportunities to alleviate detrimental soil compaction on existing landings and skid trails designated for reuse would be foregone. Soil structure on impacted soils would likely continue to recover slowly in the upper 2 to 4 inches, while deeper soil layers would likely remain compacted for many more decades. Some vegetation root penetration and mixing by soil organisms will occur, but these are generally slow processes. At higher elevation sites, freeze-thaw action might ameliorate some near-surface compaction, though this effect is diminished at depth. Some of the existing compacted soils on existing temporary roads, landings and some isolated skid trails are likely to persist for the long-term, since current detrimental impacts are 30 to greater than 60 years old. Detrimental soil conditions would essentially stay the same as described under the current conditions in the Affected Environment section. Improvements to system roads associated with the project would not occur. No ML-1 roads would be reopened. Road maintenance and repair would continue at the current level and imprevements to primary haul routes or problem sites would only pe pursued on a site-by-site basis. Secondary road segments with drainage control problems could remain unrepaired for years. In addition, no potential funds would be generated from timber sale receipts for timber sale area improvement or other projects that target road and soil remediation work.

The indirect effects of this alternative on soil erosion would be that the impacts from past activities would only be ameliorated slowly through root elongation/ expansion, below-ground organic matter additions, litter layer development, and vegetative ground cover. Erosion sites are primarily associated with historic skid trails and landings, unclassified roads, and system roads. Because no activities associated with the proposed action would occur in units, erosion risk and rates would not increase, but would remain at current levels. Most of these sites are small in scale, and are not contributing toward sedimentation with exception of system roads where cut slope erosion and road surface runoff are carried to streams (refer to Fisheries Water Quality section). Erosion rates would decrease somewhat with time through decay and incorporation of organic matter into soil profile (stabilization), increased effective ground cover from tree litter fall (direct cover and protection), and increased vegetative cover as shrub vegetation increases and stands develop multi-story canopies (secondary protection). Under the no action alternative, opportunities to address existing erosion sites with the potential to contribute sediment to streams would be foregone. The opportunity to improve soil quality by treating selected stands, including young plantations established in the 1960s and 1970s, would not be available. Without thinning, growth rates and soil productivity in the plantations would decline as competition for nutrients, light and growing space increased. Vertical and horizontal differentiation of trees would remain sluggish,

210

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project and stand diversity would be delayed until disturbance occurred naturally. The ability to enhance growth and soil productivity through active management could be lost. Inherent soil productivity could be overutilized and long-term carrying capacity exceeded. Soil function would be committed toward supporting a stagnant stand condition at risk of loss or reversion to poor forest health, rather than the development into a vigorous, structurally-complex stand. Landslide Risk Under the No Action Alternative, the frequency and extent of natural landsliding would be unaffected. For harvest units located within potentially unstable landforms, the overcrowded trees would continue to grow slowly and provide some stability through additional root strength and water uptake. Landsliding in areas of high instability would likely continue when triggered by intense rainstorm events, which may increase in frequency due to climate change. Existing shallow landslide scars within the project area would slowly stabilize and revegetate. An indirect effect of this alternative is that no new temporary road development, specified road construction, or reconstruction of system roads would occur, so there would be no increased landslide risk from additional road development. Within the project area (activity areas and haul routes), there would be no change in current maintenance of system roads. However, structural and drainage improvements to haul routes that would reduce the risk of landsliding would also be foregone. Culverts, cross drains, and general road conditions would continue to deteriorate due to declining road maintenance budgets and time. Intense rainstorms common to the area would continue, resulting in culvert washouts, diversions and mass wasting. It is likely that future landsliding on existing system roads and unclassified abandoned roads located on or near unstable landforms would continue, resulting in pulses of sedimentation and negatively affecting aquatic habitat conditions. Cumulative Effects The affected area for cumulative soil effects under the No Action alternative includes the Queets Vegetation Management planning area boundary. The watershed analyses referenced earlier identified and described the negative effects of erosion, sedimentation, loss of soil productivity, and impacts to aquatic habitat conditions from past timber harvesting and road development. The planning area is currently recovering from these past effects. Since 1994, the Forest Service has focused some restoration efforts on protecting and improving the watershed conditions by reducing road-related sedimentation through decommissioning and upgrading.

The analysis of detrimental soil condition cumulative effects considered the total area proposed for treatment in each alternative. The effects of the current project area and the effect of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects were considered in the analysis and portray the extent and duration of detrimental soil conditions cumulative effects. For past projects, the detrimental soil analysis includes effects from railroad logging, tractor logging, high-lead cable and skyline cable yarding, current roads and landings, and broadcast burning

211

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project within project activity areas; these actions are part of the existing condition on the landscape. There are no present and foreseeable project effects. Forest roads have caused extensive erosion and landsliding, as described in the watershed analysis. Over the past decade, numerous miles of forest roads within the planning area have been decommissioned, repaired, maintained and upgraded. Foreseeable activities include additional road repairs, upgrading and maintenance of the forest road network. Because impacts of the No Action alternative would be minor and due to the discountable effects of overlap of past, present and future actions within the watershed no cumulative impacts are anticipated in the Queets watersheds associated with this alternative.

For Alternative A, it is estimated that approximately 12 percent of the total project treatment area would have detrimental soil conditions from the cumulative effects of management activities.

Alternative B– The Proposed Action Treatment acres and logging systems Alternative B includes approximately 4,843 acres of commercial thinning treatments (does not include 222 acres of skips). Proposed logging systems include ground-based skidding, cable yarding, helicopter yarding, and helicopter yarding with ground-based pre-bunching equipment. Alternative B also includes 164 acres of pre-designated skips, which would receive no thinning treatment. These skips are located in portions of units in which other resource concerns or conditions preclude either access for or feasibility of available logging systems. They are within thinning unit boundaries (described as the boundaries of the original clearcut harvest units) and would be identified as skips in the silvicultural prescription. Of the 4,843 acres designated for treatment (skips omitted from these total acres), 3,662 are in LSR, 1,180 are in AMA, and 1,836 acres are overlain by RRs. Chapter 2 provides a summary of treatment acres by logging system and NWFP land allocation. Although 4,843 acres are designated for thinning, , riparian no-cut buffers, and other resource protection buffers and exclusions described in the project design criteria section of this chapter would decrease the number of acres that would actually be thinned by approximately 25 to 30 percent. Temporary and specified road development In order to access treatment units, the Proposed Action includes a total of approximately 22.2 miles of road development. Temporary roads include: existing roads that are not part of the authorized Forest Service road system that would be used to access treatment units; previously-decommissioned roads that would be reopened to access treatment units; and/or newly-constructed segments of road needed to access treatment units. Temporary road development would include approximately 18.4 miles of existing unclassified roads; 1.4 miles of previously decommissioned road; and 2.4 miles of new temporary road construction. Because

212

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project of the need to responsibly maintain access for future harvest while addressing resource concerns, 12.70 miles of existing unclassified roads would likely be reconstructed as specified (engineered) roads. In addition, 1.36 miles of previously decommissioned roads and 1.91 miles of new temp road would likely be reconstructed/built as specified roads. If built as specified roads, these roads would be added to the system as ML 1 (closed) roads and placed into long- term storage after stand treatments are completed. Any temporary roads that are not reconstructed as specified roads would be decommissioned after treatment activities are completed. Approximately 2.82 miles of road development are within RRs. Chapter 2 provides a summary of proposed temporary road development by road type. System road use – log haul System roads are existing roads that are part of the authorized road system. Within the QVMP area, log haul would occur on about 66.5 miles of system roads, including 19.6 miles of closed roads (ML1) that would be reopened, and then closed again after project use. Of this total, 7.1 miles lie within the Tacoma Creek-Queets River subwatershed, 34.5 miles lie within the Matheny Creek Subwatershed, 8.8 miles lie within the Sams River Subwatershed, and 16.2 miles lie within the Salmon River subwatershed. Of the roads that would be used for log haul, 2.83 miles pass through RRs. Road maintenance and upgrading would need to occur on some of these roads to bring them up to a standard suitable for log haul. The ML1 roads, of which 2.0 miles are located in RRs, would generally need the most reconstruction. Helicopter landings Alternative B includes up to 16 proposed helicopter landings to accommodate the units proposed for helicopter yarding. To allow for safe operations within the landing, each helicopter landing would entail the clearing of approximately one acre. Landings designated as service landings may be smaller. Rock sources Ten existing rock sources in the planning area would provide material for road development and maintenance associated with this project. Up to two acres of development per pit is proposed for the Queets Vegetation Management project, for a total of up to 20 acres of rock source development for the project. Rock source development may include clearing trees and other vegetation and blasting. These identified pits have been previously used in the past. Direct and Indirect Effects Detrimental Soil Conditions Effects of Ground Based Yarding Operations Implementation of Alternative B would result in both the greatest extent of area in detrimental soil condition and the greatest degree of detrimental soil impacts associated with ground based yarding operations, compared with Alternative C and D (Tables 3-27 through 3-29 below).

213

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Alternative B has the most ground based yarding acreage (989 acres) that would be harvested by conventional ground based equipment. Of this total, 29 percent (288 acres) of the ground- based units occur on potentially-sensitive soil types and would be harvested during winter months due to wildlife disturbance concerns. Units of primary concern include the following: A4, A5, A6, A7, A16, A33, B8, B8A, B35, D15, and D20. Alternative B has project design criteria (see Chapter 2) intended to limit the severity and extent of operational soil impacts (these are the same for all action alternatives). The feasibility of Alternative B to conduct ground-based yarding with conventional equipment on sensitive soils during the wet winter season and meet the PDCs for soil productivity will rely heavily on operator ability and communication between the operators and the timber sale administrator. The ability of the operator to create and maintain adequate slash mats on skid trails, minimize off-trail travel, and make effective movements that minimize disturbance will be crucial. This alternative would likely require different felling methods or a different felling sequence than have been used on most recent commercial thinning sales. Operating on sensitive soils in the winter period would also likely require additional attention to skid trail design and layout. This alternative would require the most oversight and monitoring by timber sale administrators. This alternative would also have the highest potential to require operational shutdowns during wet weather periods or require a change to different logging equipment and/or techniques to meet the PDCs. Under Alternative B, ground-based yarding would create new Class 2 or low level Class 3 soil disturbance over most of the primary and secondary skid trails. The likely extent of these detrimental impacts is about 133 acres (assuming an average of 15 percent of the activity area is impacted by skid trails, landings and the permanent transportation system, and 90 percent of that area consists of this lower-level disturbance). About 39 acres of impacts are likely to occur in units with sensitive soils to be harvested during winter months. Typical soil disturbance impacts on skid trails would be characterized by the one or more of the following: compacted duff and soil organic matter, removal or compaction of forest floor layers, wheel tracks or depressions that are evident in the mineral soil, compacted mineral soil down to about 12 inches, change in soil structure from granular to platy, reduced macropore space and shifts in pore distribution, partial mixing of surface soil with subsoil. These impacts would likely be most severe on the primary skid trails that are subjected to numerous passes due to long yarding distances, especially during winter operations. Typical adverse soil effects resulting from these impacts may include: reduced infiltration and percolation through the upper soil profile (leading to increased runoff), reduced air exchange, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, reduced nutrient availability, altered nutrient cycles, and reduced resilience to future impacts. There may also be changes in vegetation composition and structure on these sites in response to these impacts. Some of these effects may be relatively short-term, though soil conditions and soil productivity throughout most of the skidding network may take decades to recover to near pre-existing conditions. The extent and depth of slash mats that would be

214

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project needed on most skid trails to meet soil productivity PDCs on sensitive soils would likely impact soil nutrient cycling and inhibit reestablishment of vegetation if not decompacted after use. High-level Class 3 soil disturbance such as rutting greater than 12 inches, creating areas of standing water, deep puddling, severe compaction, or total removal of the topsoil layer would occur in some skid trail areas, but this degree of impact would be rare and would be limited to small, isolated areas. These locations would mostly be concentrated near landings on primary trails that are subject to a large number of equipment passes, on sloping terrain (15-30 percent), and concave depressions and swales. This level of soil impact could also occur along skid trail areas where inadequate slash was placed. The extent of these Class 3 detrimental impacts is about 15 acres (10 percent of total skid trails), of which about 3 acres of impacts are likely to occur on skid trails in units with sensitive soils to be harvested during winter months. Typical soil disturbance impacts in these highly disturbed areas would be characterized by: highly-evident wheel tracks and depressions into mineral soil; missing forest floor duff layers; mixing and displacement of surface soil; displacement of the majority of the topsoil and exposure subsoil; change in soil structure from granular to massive or platy at depths greater than 12 inches. Typical adverse soil effects where these rare high level Class 3 detrimental soil impacts occur would be greatly reduced infiltration and percolation through the upper soil profile (leading to increased runoff), reduced air exchange, shifts to wetter moisture regimes (potential development of aquic conditions), significant changes in soil temperature regimes/heat fluxes, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, reduced nutrient availability, severely altered nutrient cycles, and reduced resilience to future impacts. Vegetation recovery would be halted in the near term and there would be a substantial long- term reduction in overall soil productivity in these areas. Recent monitoring on similar soils types under similar topographic and climactic conditions has demonstrated long-term changes in soil structure, soil moisture, and vegetation composition/structure along highly disturbed skid trails. Soil conditions and soil productivity within the rare, heavily impacted portions of the skid trails would not be expected to recover for decades or even centuries. Heavily impacted portions of skid trails would be rehabilitated by minor ripping and filling in the deeper ruts, scarifying the skid trail, and adding slash and coarse wood. These mitigation measures are considered moderately beneficial but would have limited effects if performed during wet soil conditions. The skid trail mitigation measures would not be sufficient to correct detrimental soil conditions, but would put the sites on a trajectory toward accelerated recovery. Because the areas of high-level Class 3 soil disturbance would be rare and isolated, there would be no long-term adverse impacts to soil productivity at the harvest unit scale. The majority of detrimental impacts that would be expected as a result of the proposed activities would overlap the impact footprint from previous harvest entries, which is currently in a detrimental soil condition. Careful planning and reuse of skid trails and landings (where other resource concerns do not prevent this) will greatly aid the containment of additional impacts.

215

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Overall Detrimental Soil Conditions Implementation of Alternative B would result in the greatest number of ground based harvest units (49 units; 988 acres) than under Alternative C or Alternative D. Under Alternative B, there are 19 ground based treatment units (279 acres or 5.6% of the total proposed treatment acreage) that are already in the >20% detrimental soil condition class. Another 17 ground based units (429 acres, or 8.6% of the total proposed treatment acreage) currently fall within the 15-20% detrimental soil condition class and will likely exceed 20% DSC following the proposed thinning treatments and associated activities. Ground based units of concern include: A7, A9, A33, B6, B8, B8A, B30S, B35, C15, C15S, C17S, C28S, D15, and D 20 (all currently in >20% DSC class); and A2S, A3S, A4, A5, A6, A16, A59, B1S, B6, B13S, B36S, and B85S (all currently in 15-20% DSC class and expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity). These units are on glacial valley LTAs on gentler slopes, and have high levels of existing impacts from system roads that border the units, unclassified roads, and historic compacted skid trails and landings.

Table 3-27. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative B. DSC Class Logging 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% >20% Totals System G 0 ac (0%) 280 ac 429 ac 279 ac 988 ac (5.6%) (8.6%) (5.6%) (19.8%) C 344 ac 1,221 ac 1,789 ac 17 ac 3,371 ac (6.9%) (24.4%) (35.7%) (<0.1%) (67.3%) DC 0 ac (0%) 16 ac 20 ac 19 ac 55 ac (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (1.1%) HP 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 15 ac 17 ac 32 ac (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (0.6%) H 12 ac 161 ac 186 ac 37 ac 396 ac (<0.1%) (3.2%) (3.7%) (0.1%) (7.9%) SKIPS 164 ac (3.3%) 164 ac (3.3%) Totals 356 ac 1,678 ac 2,439 369 ac 5,006 ac (7.1%) (33.5%) ac(48.7%) (7.4%) (100%)

The remaining 13 ground based units (280 acres or 5.6% of the total proposed treatment acreage) fall within the 10-15% DSC class and are not expected to exceed the 20% threshold after treatment. Careful planning of the skidding network, adherence to PDC’s, oversight by the timber sale administrator, caution and skill on the part of the operator, and appropriate mitigation measures will be required to contain and treat impacts in order to meet the Regional soil quality standards for the ground based harvest areas. For all other logging systems (other

216

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project than ground based), an additional 9 units (90 acres, or 1.3% of the proposed treatment acreage) fall within the >20% DSC class while an additional 50 units (2,010 acres, or 40.1% of the proposed treatment acreage) falls within the 15-20% DSC class. The remaining 58 treatment units (1,755 acres, or 35.1% of the proposed treatment acreage) would remain in the 0-10 or 10-15 percent detrimental condition classes. Because these logging systems have a much lower ground-disturbing potential and will use existing landings and yarding corridors, it is not expected that detrimental soil conditions will increase as a result of harvest and yarding activities. Total road development is also higher than under Alternative C or D, with 22.2 miles constructed, including 1.55 miles (3.8 ac) of new temporary road. Unit B8 is the only ground base unit with greater than 20% existing DSC that has new temporary road development associated with it. This temp road would be used to access and haul from several other adjacent units as well, all of which are expected to require future entries for stand treatment. Under Alternative B, ground based systems would be utilized on the most existing impacted skid trails, and those trails would then rehabilitated. Ground based yarding would use existing skid trails and landings where feasible, but would create up to 5 percent new skid trails and 2 percent new landings within each ground based harvest unit. Skyline cable yarding would be a minor impact (change of 1.8 percent) (Allen, 1997), with detrimental soil conditions occurring primarily at landings and cable yarding corridors. Helicopter yarding is also anticipated to result in low amounts of detrimental soil conditions (change of +0.5 percent) with most of the impact being associated with the landings. Fuel treatments (primarily lop and scatter branches and unmerchantable tops, and occasional small slash pile burns along system roads) are considered negligible, as they would not change the detrimental soil conditions as the methods proposed are not likely to detrimentally compact or displace soils. This alternative would result in an estimated overall average of 16 percent of the activity areas being in a detrimental soil condition, an increase of approximately 4 percent compared with Alternative A – no action. Some units already exceed the 20% allowable threshold for DSC, and some will cross that threshold as a result of the proposed activities. Those units currently in the 15-20% and >20% DSC classes will require more oversight and emphasis on containment of impacts (prevention) and strict adherence to PDC’s (mitigation). Some units may require active rehabilitation to bring levels below 20% or to prevent a net increase in DSC percentage (for those units already exceeding 20%). All new and existing unclassified temporary roads (excluding the miles of existing unclassified to be reconstructed as specified), Class 3 skid trails, and landings used would be rehabilitated by ripping the compacted and disturbed soils to a depth of 14 inches, and have vegetation and erosion control treatments applied to them. These treatments are meant to set a trajectory toward recovery by beginning to restore soil structure, increasing root penetration and soil organism activity, improving hydrologic function, and reducing erosion and runoff, but are not expected to return the soil to its original condition and productivity for many decades. However, other compacted temporary roads, landings, and

217

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project skid trails not used for the project within activity areas under Alternative B would remain in a compacted and displaced irretrievable condition. These may be treated as a sale area improvement if funds are available.

The expansion of existing rock pits (6 acres) and specified roads (1.3 acres) are considered an irreversible effect on soil productivity as described in 40 CFR 1502.16. Alternative B would result in about 7.3 acres of irreversible detrimental soil conditions. New detrimental soil conditions associated with skyline cable and helicopter yarding systems would be minimal due to one-end or full suspension of logs that would result in minor short term displacement. Application of the several soil PDCs, BMPs, and other rehabilitation mitigations would also help to minimize these soil disturbance impacts. Expected soil erosion and potential for sedimentation would also be higher under Alternative B than Alternative C or D, due to the higher amount of ground based harvest logging systems and road development than the other alternatives. While limited overall effects on ground cover would occur, modification of natural processes such as surface erosion and nutrient cycling would be the highest under this alternative. Under Alternative B, all thinning units would have some temporary reductions in effective ground cover, but the remaining ground cover would be sufficient to minimize erosion. Ground disturbing activities associated with timber harvest and road development have been designed to maintain effective ground cover and to minimize the risk of erosion and the potential for sediment to be transported to streams. These concerns are primarily addressed through riparian no-cut buffers, road drainage improvements, and road development restrictions that provide adequate vegetation with effective ground cover/tree canopy between streamcourses and areas where activities would occur. Project design criteria and BMPs that confine road development and ground based yarding activities to the dry season, restrict activities during wet weather, and/or implement erosion control plans will reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. All new temporary roads, unclassified roads used as temporary roads, and primary skid trails would be decompacted and have slash and mulch placed on them following completion of harvest operations to reduce compaction, increase infiltration rates, and provide for effective ground cover to reduce surface erosion. Implementation of the erosion and sediment control management practices described in this report and in Chapter 2 of the EA, as well as the numerous standard timber sale contract clauses that address erosion, should minimize sedimentation from these activities. These effects are considered minor and short in duration. Landslide Risk Implementation of Alternative B would result in higher potential landslide risk concern than Alternative C or Alternative D due to the greater amount of commercial thinning harvest and road development located within or near potentially unstable landforms. Alternative B will harvest about 947 acres and develop 5.09 miles of temporary roads (4.47 miles unclassified, 0.16 miles new, and 0.46 miles decommissioned road to be reopened) that are located within

218

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project or near potentially unstable landforms of concern. Refer to the soils Resource report (located in the project file) for specific harvest units and road development located within or adjacent to these features. Logging systems associated with harvest vary, but are primarily skyline cable and helicopter systems in these terrains. Riparian no-cut buffer distances for potentially unstable landforms incorporated as PDCs under Alternative B are the same as for Alternatives C and D. These alternatives provide a minimum 50-foot stream buffer exclusion for tree removal and equipment operation (non-fish-bearing streams) with 100- to 200-foot buffers required on certain fish-bearing streams. All alternatives require Alternative C treats fewer acres, drops treatments within RRs, and has no road development in RRs. Alternative D seeks to maximize economic feasibility by treating fewer young stands, dropping helicopter treatments, and dropping high-cost road development. All of the proposed thinning units under Alternative B were clearcut harvested between 22 and 66 years ago. No considerations were made to protect potentially unstable areas located within riparian zones and other potentially unstable landforms. Cable and tractor logging equipment traveled on steeper slopes, dragging logs and causing significant soil damage. Road construction techniques and logging practices did not meet the standards that they do today. Therefore, the level of stability of all proposed thinning stands have been “tested” by past activities that were considerably more impactful than the current proposal. Areas that remained stable after the original clearcut harvest would likely continue to be stable after the proposed thinning. Thinning of the proposed units, road development, and associated activities are not expected to contribute to any new landslides within or adjacent to the activity areas. There is a potential for increased blowdown within potentially unstable landforms as a result of thinning activities, thereby reducing root strength and increasing potential for erosion and sedimentation. Road development may also result in landslide risk if water is concentrated and redirected onto unstable slopes. During the layout process, a Forest Service soil scientist or geotechnical engineer will assess on the ground proposed activities (timber harvest, road development) that are located within or near these potentially unstable landforms. Unstable areas identified during layout would be evaluated and determined whether additional “skips” or other exclusions are needed. Thinning would not have a serious effect on hillslope stability in the short term because the roots of the remaining trees already intermingle with those trees that would be cut, and new root growth would result before the roots of cut trees decay and lose their strength. Over the long term, the thinning would enhance tree growth and tree root development, restoring hillslope stability to original levels. Existing shallow landslide and small rotational failures within the activity area would be protected and would continue to slowly stabilize and revegetate. Existing system roads that would be used for haul would be maintained, repaired, and improved as needed. These actions would reduce risk associated with the proposed action, as well as some of the risk of future resource damage from road-related landsliding.

219

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Cumulative Effects The affected area for cumulative soil effects under Alternative B includes the Queets Vegetation Management Project planning area and the five watersheds that are partially covered by the planning area. The positive and negative effects include a combination of management actions that occur on private, tribal, State, National Forest, and National Park lands, along with natural occurrences. The major impacts to soil and water resources across all watersheds from past actions have come from timber harvest, broadcast burning, and road development. The area has had extensive timber harvest since the early 1900’s. Additionally, harvest units and logging roads have caused landslides.

The watershed analyses covering the area identified and described the negative effects of erosion, sedimentation, loss of soil productivity, and impacts to aquatic habitat conditions from past timber harvesting and roading. The planning area is currently recovering from these past effects. Since 1994, the Forest Service has focused some restoration efforts on protecting and improving the watershed conditions by reducing road-related sedimentation through decommissioning and upgrading.

The analysis of detrimental soil condition cumulative effects considered the total area proposed for treatment in each alternative. The effects of the current project and the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects were considered in the analysis and portray the extent and duration of detrimental soil conditions cumulative effects. For past projects, the detrimental soil analysis includes effects from railroad logging, tractor logging, high-lead cable and skyline cable yarding, construction and use of roads and landings, and broadcast burning within project activity areas. Forest roads have caused extensive erosion and numerous landslides, as described in the watershed analyses. Over the past decade, many miles of forest roads within the planning area have been decommissioned, repaired, maintained and upgraded. The current proposal would result in more miles of road being maintained and upgraded, thereby reducing risk to aquatic resources. Foreseeable future activities include additional road repairs, road upgrades, and maintenance of the forest road network. Some stands within the planning area would likely be entered again in the future to achieve long-term restoration objectives. Existing roads, landings and skidding networks would be used for future treatments, and additional impacts to soil quality and increases in detrimental soil condition would be expected to be negligible.

Because of these minor impacts and the discountable overlap of effects of past, present and future actions within the watersheds, negligible cumulative impacts are anticipated for the Queets Vegetation Management Project planning area under Alternative B.

220

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Alternative C Treatment acres and logging systems Alternative C was developed to minimize impacts to aquatic species through minimizing the potential for sedimentation and water temperature variation. It varies from Alternative B in that all temporary roads were dropped from the RRs along with stands or portions of stands that became uneconomical as a result of the amount of road needed to access the reduced number of acres. Alternative C includes approximately 1,800 acres of commercial thinning treatments. Proposed logging systems include ground-based skidding, cable yarding, helicopter yarding, and helicopter yarding with ground-based pre-bunching equipment. Alternative C includes 87 acres of pre-designated skips, which would receive no thinning. This alternative excludes all treatment within RRs, including areas adjacent to unmapped streams located during project implementation. It is estimated that 30% to 50% of the acres would be excluded from treatment during layout due to unmapped streams located in the project area. Although 1,838 acres are designated for thinning, skips, riparian no-cut buffers, and other resource protection buffers described in the project design criteria section of this chapter would decrease the number of acres that would actually be thinned by approximately 30 to 50 percent. Temporary and specified road development Alternative C includes a total of approximately 10.5 miles of new road development, 9.1 miles of which would be specified road development. Approximately 0.5 miles are within RRs. The remaining 1.8 miles of temporary roads would be decommissioned after use. The specified roads would be converted to ML 1 (closed) system roads, used for future reentry for restoration projects, and would then be decommissioned at the earliest opportunity. Chapter 2 provides a summary of proposed temporary road development by road type for Alternative C. System road use – log haul Log haul routes for Alternative C would are reduced as compared to Alternative B. Helicopter landings Alternative C includes up to 14 proposed helicopter landings to accommodate the units proposed for helicopter yarding. To allow for safe operations within the landing, each helicopter landing would entail the clearing of approximately one acre. Landings designated as service landings may be smaller. Rock sources Rock source development for Alternative C is the same as that proposed for Alternative B.

221

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Direct and Indirect Effects Detrimental Soil Conditions Effects of Ground Based Yarding Operations Implementation of Alternative C would result in a similar degree of detrimental soil impacts but a much lower overall extent of area impacted with ground based yarding operations compared with Alternatives B and D. Alternative C has less ground based yarding total acreage (408 ac) that would be harvested by conventional ground based equipment. Of this total, 32 percent (132 ac) of the ground based units occur on sensitive soil types that would be harvested during winter months due to wildlife disturbance concerns. Units of primary concern include the following: A4, A5, A6, A7, A16, D15, and D20. Alternative C also has project design criteria (see Chapter 2) intended to limit the severity and extent of operational soil impacts (these are the same for all action alternatives). The ability of Alternative C to conduct ground-based yarding with conventional equipment on sensitive soils during the wet winter period and meet the PDCs for soil productivity will rely heavily on operator ability and communication between the operators and the timber sale administrator. The ability of the operator to create and maintain adequate slash mats on skid trails, minimize off-trail travel, and make effective movements that minimize disturbance will be crucial. This alternative would likely require different felling methods or a different felling sequence than have been used on most recent commercial thinning sales. Operating on sensitive soils in the winter period would also likely require additional attention to skid trail design and layout. This alternative would require oversight and monitoring by timber sale administrators similar to Alternatives B and D. This alternative has a moderate potential to require operational shutdowns during wet weather periods or a change to different logging equipment and/or techniques to meet the PDCs. Alternative C would have the lowest potential for these requirements, while Alternatives B and D would be higher. Under Alternative C, ground based yarding would create new Class 2 or low level Class 3 soil disturbance over most of the primary and secondary skid trails. The extent of these likely detrimental impacts is about 55 acres (assuming an average of 15 percent of the activity area is impacted by skid trails, landings and the permanent transportation system, and 90 percent of that area consists of this lower-level disturbance), of which about 18 acres of impacts are likely to occur on skid trails in units with sensitive soils to be harvested during winter months. Typical soil disturbance impacts on skid trails would be characterized by the one or more of the following: compacted duff and soil organic matter, removal or compaction of forest floor layers, wheel tracks or depressions that are evident in the mineral soil, compacted mineral soil down to about 12 inches, change in soil structure from granular to platy, reduced macropore space and shifts in pore distribution, partial mixing of surface soil with subsoil. These impacts would likely be most severe on the primary skid trails that are subjected to numerous passes due to long yarding distances, especially during winter operations. Typical adverse soil effects resulting from these impacts may include: reduced infiltration and percolation through the

222

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project upper soil profile (leading to increased runoff), reduced air exchange, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, reduced nutrient availability, altered nutrient cycles, and reduced resilience to future impacts. There may also be changes in vegetation composition and structure on these sites in response to these impacts. Some of these effects may be relatively short-term, though soil conditions and soil productivity throughout most of the skidding network may take decades to recover to near pre-existing conditions. The extent and depth of slash mats that would be needed on most skid trails to meet soil productivity PDCs on sensitive soils would likely impact soil nutrient cycling and inhibit reestablishment of vegetation if not decompacted after use. High-level Class 3 soil disturbance such as rutting greater than 12 inches, creating areas of standing water, deep puddling, severe compaction, or total removal of the topsoil layer would occur in some skid trail areas, but this degree of impact would be rare and would be limited to small, isolated areas. These locations would mostly be concentrated near landings on primary trails that are subject to a large number of equipment passes, on sloping terrain (15-30 percent), and concave depressions and swales. This level of soil impact could also occur along skid trail areas where inadequate slash was placed. The extent of these Class 3 detrimental impacts is about 6 acres (10 percent of total skid trails), of which about 2 acres of impacts are likely to occur on skid trails in units with sensitive soils to be harvested during winter months. Typical soil disturbance impacts in these highly disturbed areas would be characterized by: highly-evident wheel tracks and depressions into mineral soil; missing forest floor duff layers; mixing and displacement of surface soil; displacement of the majority of the topsoil and exposure subsoil; change in soil structure from granular to massive or platy at depths greater than 12 inches. Typical adverse soil effects where these rare high level Class 3 detrimental soil impacts occur would be greatly reduced infiltration and percolation through the upper soil profile (leading to increased runoff), reduced air exchange, shifts to wetter moisture regimes (potential development of aquic conditions), significant changes in soil temperature regimes/heat fluxes, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, reduced nutrient availability, severely altered nutrient cycles, and reduced resilience to future impacts. Vegetation recovery would be halted in the near term and there would be a substantial long- term reduction in overall soil productivity in these areas. Recent monitoring on similar soils types under similar topographic and climactic conditions has demonstrated long-term changes in soil structure, soil moisture, and vegetation composition/structure along highly disturbed skid trails. Soil conditions and soil productivity within the rare, heavily impacted portions of the skid trails would not be expected to recover for decades or even centuries. Heavily impacted portions of skid trails would be rehabilitated by minor ripping and filling in the deeper ruts, scarifying the skid trail, and adding slash and coarse wood. These mitigation measures are considered moderately beneficial but would have limited effects if performed during wet soil conditions. The skid trail mitigation measures would not be sufficient to correct detrimental soil conditions, but would put the sites on a trajectory toward accelerated recovery. Because the areas of high-level Class 3 soil disturbance would be rare and isolated, there would be no long-term adverse impacts to soil productivity at the harvest unit scale.

223

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The majority of detrimental impacts that would be expected as a result of the proposed activities would overlap the impact footprint from previous harvest entries, which is currently in a detrimental soil condition. Careful planning and reuse of skid trails and landings (where other resource concerns don’t prevent this) will greatly aid the containment of additional impacts. Overall Detrimental Soil Conditions Table 3-28 provides a summary of acres of proposed treatment units within each DSC. Implementation of Alternative C would result in the lowest number of ground based harvest yarding units (37 units, 408 acres). Under Alternative C, there are 15 ground based treatment units (137 acres or 7.5% of the total proposed treatment acreage) that are already in the >20% detrimental soil condition class. Another 12 ground based units (149 acres, or 8.1% of the total proposed treatment acreage) currently fall within the 15-20% detrimental soil condition class and will likely exceed 20% DSC following the proposed thinning treatments and associated activities. Ground based units of concern include: A7, A9, A33, B6, B8, B35, C28, D15, and D20 (all currently in >20% DSC class); and A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A16, B1, B36, and B85 (all currently in 15-20% DSC class and expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity). These units are on Glacial Valleys and Outwash Plains LTA’s on gentler slopes, or on Glacial Mountains LTA’s in ridgetop positions. They have high levels of existing impacts from system roads that border units, unclassified roads, and historic compacted skid trails and landings. The remaining 10 ground based harvest treatment units (122 acres, or 6.6%) fall within the 10-15% DSC class and are not expected to exceed the 20% threshold after treatment. Careful planning of the skidding network, adherence to PDC’s, oversight by the timber

Table 3-28. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative C. DSC Class Logging 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% >20% Totals System G 0 ac 122 ac 149 ac 137 ac 408 ac (0%) (6.6%) (8.1%) (7.5%) (22.2%) C 73 ac 396 ac 601 ac 5 ac 1,075 ac (4.0%) (21.5%) (32.7%) (0.3%) (58.5%) DC 0 ac 12 ac 2 ac 14 ac 28 ac (0%) (0.7%) (0.1%) (0.8%) (1.6%) HP 9 ac 0 ac (0%) 35 ac 15 ac 58 ac (0.5%) (1.9%) (0.8%) (3.2%) H 79 ac 0 ac (0%) 55 ac 3 ac 182 ac (4.3%) (3.0%) (0.2%) (9.9%) SKIPS 87 ac (4.7%) 87 ac (4.7%) Totals 160 ac 575 ac 843 ac 174 ac 1,838 ac

224

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

(8.7%) (31.3%) (45.9%) (9.4%) (100%) sale administrator, caution and skill on the part of the operator, and appropriate mitigation measures will be required to contain and treat impacts in order to meet the Regional soil quality standards for the ground based harvest areas. Table 3-28 above summarizes existing detrimental soil condition classes for all proposed harvest units and logging systems under Alternative C in the QVMP area (unit specifics can be found in the project file in the Soil Resource Report). For all other logging systems, an additional 10 units (37 acres, or 2.0% of the total proposed treatment acreage) fall within the >20% DSC class, while an additional 30 units (693 acres, or 37.7% of the proposed treatment acreage) falls within the 15-20% DSC class The remaining 33 treatment units (613 acres, or 33.4% of the proposed treatment acreage) would remain in the 0-10% or 10-15% detrimental condition classes. Because these logging systems have a much lower ground-disturbing potential and will use existing landings and yarding corridors, it is not expected that detrimental soil conditions will increase as a result of harvest and yarding activities. Total road development for Alternative C is the lowest of the three Alternatives, with 10.5 miles constructed, including 1.1 miles (2.7 ac) of new specified road that would be converted to ML 1 and closed after use. Unit A16 (15-20% DSC class), Unit B8 (>20% DSC class), and Unit D20 (>20% DSC class) are the only ground based units that currently exceed or are anticipated to exceed 20% DSC that have new temporary road development associated with them. These roads would be used to access and haul from several other adjacent units as well, all of which are expected to require future entries for stand treatment. Under Alternative C, ground based systems would be utilized on the fewest existing impacted skid trails compared to Alternatives B and D. Ground based yarding would use existing skid trails and landings where feasible, but would create up to 5 percent new skid trails and 2 percent new landings within each ground based harvest unit. Skyline cable yarding would result in a minor impact (change of 1.8 percent) (Allen, 1997), with detrimental soil conditions occurring primarily at landings and cable yarding corridors. Helicopter yarding is also anticipated to result in low detrimental soil conditions (change of +0.5 percent) with most of the impact being )associated with the landings. Fuel treatments (primarily lop and scatter branches and unmerchantable tops, and occasional small slash pile burns along system roads) are considered negligible, as they would not change the detrimental soil conditions as the methods proposed are not likely to detrimentally compact or displace soils. This alternative would result in an estimated overall average of 16 percent of the activity areas being in a detrimental soil condition, an increase of approximately 4 percent compared with Alternative A – no action. Some units already exceed the 20% allowable threshold for DSC, and some will cross that threshold as a result of the proposed activities. Those units currently in the 15-20% and >20% DSC classes will require more oversight and emphasis on containment of impacts (prevention) and strict adherence to PDCs (mitigation). Some units may require active

225

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project rehabilitation to bring levels below 20% or to prevent a net increase in DSC percentage (for those units already exceeding 20%). This is similar to the increase expected with Alternative B. However, under Alternative C, all of the expected impacts occur outside of RRs and result in a proportionally smaller area of the overall QVMP being impacted. All new and existing unclassified temporary roads (excluding any new temp road converted to specified road, and existing unclassified reconstructed to specified), Class 3 skid trails, and landings used would be rehabilitated by ripping the compacted and disturbed soils to a depth of 14 inches, and have vegetation and erosion control treatments applied to them. Approximately 18.6 acres of existing unclassified roads, landings, and substantially-impacted skid trails currently compacted from historic activities would be partially rehabilitated. These treatments are meant to set a trajectory toward recovery by beginning to restore soil structure, increasing root penetration and soil organism activity, improving hydrologic function, and reducing erosion and runoff, but are not expected to return the soil to its original condition and productivity for many decades. However, other compacted temporary roads, landings, and skid trails not used for the project within activity areas under Alternative B would remain in a compacted and displaced irretrievable condition. These may be treated as a sale area improvement if funds are available.

226

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Alternative C, all thinning units would have some temporary reductions in effective ground cover, but the remaining ground cover, stream buffers, RRs no-cut exclusion areas, and skips would be sufficient to minimize erosion. Ground disturbing activities associated with timber harvest and road development have been designed to maintain effective ground cover and to minimize the risk of erosion and the potential for sediment to be transported to streams. Project design criteria and BMPs that confine road development and ground based yarding activities to the dry season, restrict activities during wet weather, and/or implement erosion control plans will reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation even further when coupled with RRs exclusions. All new temporary roads, unclassified roads used as temporary roads, and primary skid trails for the project would be rehabilitated by placing slash and mulch on them following completion of harvest operations to reduce compaction, increase infiltration rates, and provide for effective ground cover to reduce surface erosion. Implementation of the erosion and sediment control management practices described in this report and in Chapter 2 of the EA, as well as the numerous standard timber sale contract clauses that address erosion, should minimize sedimentation from these activities. These effects are considered minor and short term. Landslide Risk Implementation of Alternative C would result in a lower potential landslide risk concern than Alternatives B or D due to the least amount of harvest and road development activities located within or near potentially unstable landforms. Alternative C would harvest about 318 acres and develop 4.18 miles of temporary road (0.08 new, 0.38 unclassified) that is located within or near potentially unstable landforms of concern. Logging systems associated with harvest varies, but is primarily skyline cable systems and helicopter in these terrains. No-cut buffer distances for potentially unstable landforms planned as PDCs under Alternative C are the same as for Alternatives B and D, though the exclusion of harvest and road development in RRs in this alternative eliminates some of the potentially unstable areas that would be treated in the other action alternatives. All alternatives provide a minimum 50-foot no-cut buffer upslope from a headwall inner gorge, or potentially-unstable area, and a 100-foot no-cut buffer upslope from certain GMU’s deemed to have greater risk (see PDCs for Riparian No-Cut Buffers in Chapter 2) but Alternative C treats fewer acres and has less road development in these concern areas. All of the proposed thinning units under Alternative C were clearcut harvested between 22 and 66 years ago. No considerations were made to protect potentially unstable areas located within riparian zones and other potentially unstable landforms. Cable and tractor logging equipment traveled on steeper slopes, dragging logs and causing significant soil damage. Road construction techniques and logging practices did not meet the standards that they do today. Therefore, the level of stability of all proposed thinning stands have been “tested” by past activities that were considerably more impactful than the current proposal. Areas that remained stable after the original clearcut harvest would likely continue to be stable after the proposed thinning.

227

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Thinning of the proposed units, road development, and associated activities are not expected to contribute to any new landslides within or adjacent to the activity areas. There is a potential for increased blowdown within potentially unstable landforms as a result of thinning activities, thereby reducing root strength and increasing potential for erosion and sedimentation. Road development may also result in landslide risk if water is concentrated and redirected onto unstable slopes. During the layout process, a Forest Service soil scientist or geotechnical engineer will assess on the ground proposed activities (timber harvest, road development) that are located within or near these potentially unstable landforms. Unstable areas identified during layout would be evaluated and determined whether additional “skips” or other exclusions are needed. Thinning would not have a serious effect on hillslope stability in the short term because the roots of the remaining trees already intermingle with those trees that would be cut, and new root growth would result before the roots of cut trees decay and lose their strength. Over the long term, the thinning would enhance tree growth and tree root development, restoring hillslope stability to original levels. Existing shallow landslide and small rotational failures within the activity area would be protected and would continue to slowly stabilize and revegetate. Existing system roads that would be used for haul would be maintained, repaired, and improved as needed. These actions would reduce risk associated with the proposed action, as well as some of the risk of future resource damage from road-related landsliding. Cumulative Effects The affected area for cumulative soil effects under Alternative C includes the Queets Vegetation Management Project planning area and the five watersheds that are partially covered by the planning area. The positive and negative effects include a combination of management actions that occur on private, tribal, State, National Forest, and National Park lands, along with natural occurrences. The major impacts to soil and water resources across all watersheds from past actions have come from timber harvest, broadcast burning, and road development. The area has had extensive timber harvest since the early 1900’s. Additionally, harvest units and logging roads have caused landslides.

228

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project projects, the detrimental soil analysis includes effects from railroad logging, tractor logging, high-lead cable and skyline cable yarding, construction and use of roads and landings, and broadcast burning within project activity areas. Forest roads have caused extensive erosion and numerous landslides, as described in the watershed analyses. Over the past decade, many miles of forest roads within the planning area have been decommissioned, repaired, maintained and upgraded. The current proposal would result in more miles of road being maintained and upgraded, thereby reducing risk to aquatic resources. Foreseeable future activities include additional road repairs, road upgrades, and maintenance of the forest road network. Some stands within the planning area would likely be entered again in the future to achieve long-term restoration objectives. Existing roads, landings and skidding networks would be used for future treatments, and additional impacts to soil quality and increases in detrimental soil condition would be expected to be negligible.

Alternative D Treatment acres and logging systems Alternative D was developed in response to the key issue of maximizing the economics of the restoration project. This Alternative differs from Alternatives B and C by dropping helicopter yarding units, stands less than 43 years of age, and those units which include high expenses for road building or reconstruction. Alternative D includes approximately 3,395 acres of commercial thinning treatments. . Proposed logging systems include ground-based skidding and cable yarding. Alternative D includes 109 acres of pre-designated skips, which would receive no thinning treatment. The table below displays a summary of treatment acres, logging systems, and land management allocations for Alternative D. Although 3,395 acres are designated for thinning, skips and the riparian and other resource protection buffers described in the project design criteria section of this chapter would decrease the number of acres that would actually be thinned by approximately 25 to 30 percent. Multi-span cable logging system limitations may further decrease the number of acres operationally accessible (and economically feasible) for thinning. Temporary road development Alternative D includes a total of approximately 20.05 miles total of temporary road development, with 13.82 miles of this being specified road development. Approximately 2.66 miles total are within RRs. The remaining 6.23 miles of temporary roads not reconstructed as specified roads would be decommissioned after use. The specified roads would be converted to ML 1 (closed) system roads, used for future reentry for restoration projects, and would then be

229

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project decommissioned at the earliest opportunity. Chapter 2 provides a summary of proposed temporary road development by road type for Alternative D. System road use – log haul Log haul routes for Alternative D would be essentially the same as for Alternatives B and C. Helicopter landings Alternative D does not include any helicopter landing sites. Rock sources Rock source development for Alternative D is the same as that proposed for Alternatives B and C. Summary of Proposed Vegetation Treatment The proposed vegetation treatment for Alternative D is the same as the treatment described for Alternatives B and C. Direct and Indirect Effects Detrimental Soil Conditions Effects of Ground Based Yarding Operations Implementation of Alternative D would result in a lesser areal extent of detrimental soil condition and detrimental impacts associated with ground based yarding than under Alternative B, but more than under Alternative C. Alternative D utilizes conventional ground based yarding equipment on 926 acres (compared to 989 acres under Alternative B and 408 acres under Alternative C). Of this total, 31 percent (288 acres) of the ground base harvest units would be required to operate on potentially sensitive soil types during winter months due to wildlife disturbance concerns. Units affected include the following: A4, A5, A6, A7, D15, and D20. Alternative D has project design criteria (see Chapter 2) intended to limit the severity and extent of operational soil impacts (these are the same for all action alternatives). The feasibility of Alternative D to conduct ground-based yarding with conventional equipment on sensitive soils during the wet winter season and meet the PDCs for soil productivity will rely heavily on operator ability and communication between the operators and the timber sale administrator. The ability of the operator to create and maintain adequate slash mats on skid trails, minimize off-trail travel, and make effective movements that minimize disturbance will be crucial. This alternative would likely require different felling methods or a different felling sequence than have been used on most recent commercial thinning sales. Operating on sensitive soils in the winter period would also likely require additional attention to skid trail design and layout. This alternative would require an amount of oversight and monitoring by timber sale administrators similar to that in Alternative B. This alternative would also have a

230

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project high potential to require operational shutdowns during wet weather periods or require a change to different logging equipment and/or techniques to meet the PDCs. Under Alternative D, ground-based yarding would create new Class 2 or low level Class 3 soil disturbance over most of the primary and secondary skid trails. The likely extent of these detrimental impacts is about 125 acres (assuming an average of 15 percent of the activity area is impacted by skid trails, landings and the permanent transportation system, and 90 percent of that area consists of this lower-level disturbance). About 38 acres of impacts are likely to occur in units with sensitive soils to be harvested during winter months. Typical soil disturbance impacts on skid trails would be characterized by the one or more of the following: compacted duff and soil organic matter, removal or compaction of forest floor layers, wheel tracks or depressions that are evident in the mineral soil, compacted mineral soil down to about 12 inches, change in soil structure from granular to platy, reduced macropore space and shifts in pore distribution, partial mixing of surface soil with subsoil. These impacts would likely be most severe on the primary skid trails that are subjected to numerous passes due to long yarding distances, especially during winter operations. Typical adverse soil effects resulting from these impacts may include: reduced infiltration and percolation through the upper soil profile (leading to increased runoff), reduced air exchange, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, reduced nutrient availability, altered nutrient cycles, and reduced resilience to future impacts. There may also be changes in vegetation composition and structure on these sites in response to these impacts. Some of these effects may be relatively short-term, though soil conditions and soil productivity throughout most of the skidding network may take decades to recover to near pre-existing conditions. The extent and depth of slash mats that would be needed on most skid trails to meet soil productivity PDCs on sensitive soils would likely impact soil nutrient cycling and inhibit reestablishment of vegetation if not decompacted after use. High-level Class 3 soil disturbance such as rutting greater than 12 inches, creating areas of standing water, deep puddling, severe compaction, or total removal of the topsoil layer would occur in some skid trail areas, but this degree of impact would be rare and would be limited to small, isolated areas. These locations would mostly be concentrated near landings on primary trails that are subject to a large number of equipment passes, on sloping terrain (15-30 percent), and concave depressions and swales. This level of soil impact could also occur along skid trail areas where inadequate slash was placed. The extent of these Class 3 detrimental impacts is about 15 acres (10 percent of total skid trails), of which about 3 acres of impacts are likely to occur on skid trails in units with sensitive soils to be harvested during winter months. Typical soil disturbance impacts in these highly disturbed areas would be characterized by: highly-evident wheel tracks and depressions into mineral soil; missing forest floor duff layers; mixing and displacement of surface soil; displacement of the majority of the topsoil and exposure subsoil; change in soil structure from granular to massive or platy at depths greater than 12 inches. Typical adverse soil effects where these rare high level Class 3 detrimental soil impacts occur would be greatly reduced infiltration and percolation through the upper soil profile (leading to increased runoff), reduced air exchange, shifts to wetter moisture regimes

231

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

(potential development of aquic conditions), significant changes in soil temperature regimes/heat fluxes, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, reduced nutrient availability, severely altered nutrient cycles, and reduced resilience to future impacts. Vegetation recovery would be halted in the near term and there would be a substantial long- term reduction in overall soil productivity in these areas. Recent monitoring on similar soils types under similar topographic and climactic conditions has demonstrated long-term changes in soil structure, soil moisture, and vegetation composition/structure along highly disturbed skid trails. Soil conditions and soil productivity within the rare, heavily impacted portions of the skid trails would not be expected to recover for decades or even centuries. Heavily impacted portions of skid trails would be rehabilitated by minor ripping and filling in the deeper ruts, scarifying the skid trail, and adding slash and coarse wood. These mitigation measures are considered moderately beneficial but would have limited effects if performed during wet soil conditions. The skid trail mitigation measures would not be sufficient to correct detrimental soil conditions, but would put the sites on a trajectory toward accelerated recovery. Because the areas of high-level Class 3 soil disturbance would be rare and isolated, there would be no long-term adverse impacts to soil productivity at the harvest unit scale. The majority of detrimental impacts that would be expected as a result of the proposed activities would overlap the impact footprint from previous harvest entries, which is currently in a detrimental soil condition. Careful planning and reuse of skid trails and landings (where other resource concerns don’t prevent this) will greatly aid the containment of additional impacts. Overall Detrimental Soil Conditions Implementation of Alternative D would result in the second-highest number of ground based harvest units (45 units; 926 acres). Under Alternative B, there are 18 ground based treatment units (247 acres or 7.3% of the total proposed treatment acreage) that are already in the >20% detrimental soil condition class. Another 14 ground based units (398 acres, or 11.7% of the total proposed treatment acreage) currently fall within the 15-20% detrimental soil condition class and will likely exceed 20% DSC following the proposed thinning treatments and associated activities. Ground based units of concern include: A7, A9, A33, B6, B8, B8A, B35, C15S, C17S, C28S, D15, and D20 (all currently in >20% DSC class); and A2S, A3S, A4, A5, A6, A16, A59, B1S and B6 (all currently in 15-20% DSC class and expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity). These units are on Glacial Valleys and Outwash Plains LTA’s on gentler slopes or on Glacial Mountains LTA’s in ridgetop positions, and have high levels of existing impacts from system roads that border the units, unclassified roads, and historic compacted skid trails and landings.

Table 3-29. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative D. DSC Class Logging 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% >20% Totals System G 0 ac (0%) 281 ac 398 ac 247 ac 926 ac

232

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-29. Acres of soil by DSC for each logging system unit within the Queets project for Alternative D. DSC Class Logging 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% >20% Totals System (8.3%) (11.7%) (7.3%) (27.3%) C 149 ac 891 ac 1,258 ac 7 ac 2,305 ac (4.4%) (26.2%) (37.1%) (0.2%) (67.9%) DC 0 ac (0%) 16 ac (0.5%) 20 ac (0.6%) 19 ac 55 ac (1.6%) (0.6%) HP 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) H 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) 0 ac (0%) SKIPS 109 ac (3.2%) 109 ac (3.2%) Totals 149 ac 1,187 ac 1,677 273 ac 3,395 ac (4.4%) (35.0%) (49.4%) (8.0%) (100%)

The remaining 13 ground based units (280 acres or 8.3% of the total proposed treatment acreage) fall within the 10-15% DSC class and are not expected to exceed the 20% threshold after treatment. Careful planning of the skidding network, adherence to PDC’s, oversight by the timber sale administrator, caution and skill on the part of the operator, and appropriate mitigation measures will be required to contain and treat impacts in order to meet the Regional soil quality standards for the ground based harvest areas. Table 3-29 above summarizes existing detrimental soil condition classes for all proposed harvest units and logging systems under Alternative C in the QVMP area (unit specifics can be found in the project file in the Soil Resource Report). For cable and downhill cable logging systems, an additional 4 units (26 acres, or 0.8% of the proposed treatment acreage) fall within the >20% DSC class while an additional 33 units (1,279 acres, or 37.7 % of the proposed treatment acreage) falls within the 15-20% DSC class. The remaining 38 treatment units (1,056 acres, or 31.1% of the proposed treatment acreage) fall within the 5-10 or 10-15 percent detrimental condition classes. Because these logging systems have a much lower ground-disturbing potential and will use existing landings and yarding corridors, it is not expected that detrimental soil conditions will increase as a result of harvest and yarding activities. Total road development is higher than Under Alternative C but lower than that under Alternative B, with 20.0 miles constructed, including 1.89 miles (4.6 ac) of new temporary road. Unit B8 is the only ground base unit with greater than 20% existing DSC that has new temporary road development associated with it. This temp road would be used to access and haul from several other adjacent units as well, all of which are expected to require future entries for stand treatment.

233

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Under Alternative D, ground based systems would be utilized on the second-most existing impacted skid trails, and those trails would then rehabilitated. Ground based yarding would use existing skid trails and landings where feasible, but would create up to 5 percent new skid trails and 2 percent new landings within each ground based harvest unit. Skyline cable yarding would be a minor impact (change of 1.8 percent) (Allen, 1997), with detrimental soil conditions occurring primarily at landings and cable yarding corridors. Helicopter yarding is also anticipated to result in low amounts of detrimental soil conditions (change of +0.5 percent) with most of the impact being associated with the landings. Fuel treatments (primarily lop and scatter branches and unmerchantable tops, and occasional small slash pile burns along system roads) are considered negligible, as they would not change the detrimental soil conditions as the methods proposed are not likely to detrimentally compact or displace soils. This alternative would result in an estimated overall average of 16 percent of the activity areas being in a detrimental soil condition, an increase of approximately 4 percent compared with Alternative A – no action. Some units already exceed the 20% allowable threshold for DSC, and some will cross that threshold as a result of the proposed activities. Those units currently in the 15-20% and >20% DSC classes will require more oversight and emphasis on containment of impacts (prevention) and strict adherence to PDCs (mitigation). Some units may require active rehabilitation to bring levels below 20% or to prevent a net increase in DSC percentage (for those units already exceeding 20%). All new and existing unclassified temporary roads (excluding the miles of existing unclassified to be reconstructed as specified), Class 3 skid trails, and landings used would be rehabilitated by ripping the compacted and disturbed soils to a depth of 14 inches, and have vegetation and erosion control treatments applied to them. These treatments are meant to set a trajectory toward recovery by beginning to restore soil structure, increasing root penetration and soil organism activity, improving hydrologic function, and reducing erosion and runoff, but are not expected to return the soil to its original condition and productivity for many decades. However, other compacted temporary roads, landings, and skid trails not used for the project within activity areas under Alternative D would remain in a compacted and displaced irretrievable condition. These may be treated as a sale area improvement if funds are available.

234

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project and activities taking place within RRs. While limited overall effects on ground cover would occur, modification of natural processes such as surface erosion and nutrient cycling would be the occur under this alternative. Under Alternative D, all thinning units would have some temporary reductions in effective ground cover, but the remaining ground cover would be sufficient to minimize erosion. Ground disturbing activities associated with timber harvest and road development have been designed to maintain effective ground cover and to minimize the risk of erosion and the potential for sediment to be transported to streams. These concerns are primarily addressed through riparian no-cut buffers, road drainage improvements, and road development restrictions that provide adequate vegetation with effective ground cover/tree canopy between streamcourses and areas where activities would occur. Project design criteria and BMPs that confine road development and ground based yarding activities to the dry season, restrict activities during wet weather, and/or implement erosion control plans will reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. All new temporary roads, unclassified roads used as temporary roads, and primary skid trails would be decompacted and have slash and mulch placed on them following completion of harvest operations to reduce compaction, increase infiltration rates, and provide for effective ground cover to reduce surface erosion. Implementation of the erosion and sediment control management practices described in this report and in Chapter 2 of the EA, as well as the numerous standard timber sale contract clauses that address erosion, should minimize sedimentation from these activities. These effects are considered minor and short in duration. Landslide Risk

Implementation of Alternative D would result in a potential landslide risk concern similar to that of Alternative B, both of which are greater than Alternative C, due to the greater amount of harvest and road development activities located within or near potentially unstable landforms. Alternative D would harvest about 668 acres and develop 4.54 miles of temporary road (0.08 new, 4.00 unclassified for use, and 0.46 miles previously decommissioned) located within or near potentially unstable landforms of concern. Refer to the Soil resource report for specific units located within or adjacent to these features. Ground based and cable logging systems are associated with harvest in these terrains.

No-cut buffer distances for potentially unstable landforms and riparian areas planned as PDCs under Alternative D are the same as for Alternatives B and C. All alternatives provide a minimum 50-foot no-cut buffer upslope from a headwall inner gorge, or potentially-unstable area, and a 100-foot no-cut buffer upslope from certain GMUs deemed to have greater risk (see PDCs for Riparian No-Cut Buffers in Chapter 2). At 668 acres, Alternative D treats a much greater number of acres in potentially unstable landforms than Alternative C (318 acres), but substantially fewer acres than Alternative B (947 acres). All of the proposed thinning units under Alternative D were clearcut harvested between 22 and 66 years ago. No considerations were made to protect potentially unstable areas located within riparian zones and other potentially unstable landforms. Cable and tractor logging equipment

235

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project traveled on steeper slopes, dragging logs and causing significant soil damage. Road construction techniques and logging practices did not meet the standards that they do today. Therefore, the level of stability of all proposed thinning stands have been “tested” by past activities that were considerably more impactful than the current proposal. Areas that remained stable after the original clearcut harvest would likely continue to be stable after the proposed thinning. Thinning of the proposed units, road development, and associated activities are not expected to contribute to any new landslides within or adjacent to the activity areas. There is a potential for increased blowdown within potentially unstable landforms as a result of thinning activities, thereby reducing root strength and increasing potential for erosion and sedimentation. Road development may also result in landslide risk if water is concentrated and redirected onto unstable slopes. During the layout process, a Forest Service soil scientist or geotechnical engineer will assess on the ground proposed activities (timber harvest, road development) that are located within or near these potentially unstable landforms. Unstable areas identified during layout would be evaluated and determined whether additional “skips” or other exclusions are needed. Thinning would not have a serious effect on hillslope stability in the short term because the roots of the remaining trees already intermingle with those trees that would be cut, and new root growth would result before the roots of cut trees decay and lose their strength. Over the long term, the thinning would enhance tree growth and tree root development, restoring hillslope stability to original levels. Existing shallow landslide and small rotational failures within the activity area would be protected and would continue to slowly stabilize and revegetate. Existing system roads that would be used for haul would be maintained, repaired, and improved as needed. These actions would reduce risk associated with the proposed action, as well as some of the risk of future resource damage from road-related landsliding. Cumulative Effects The affected area for cumulative soil effects under Alternative D includes the Queets Vegetation Management Project planning area and the five watersheds that are partially covered by the planning area. The positive and negative effects include a combination of management actions that occur on private, tribal, State, National Forest, and National Park lands, along with natural occurrences. The major impacts to soil and water resources across all watersheds from past actions have come from timber harvest, broadcast burning, and road development. The area has had extensive timber harvest since the early 1900’s. Additionally, harvest units and logging roads have caused landslides.

236

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project improving the watershed conditions by reducing road-related sedimentation through decommissioning and upgrading.

Connected Restoration Actions Connected restoration actions were identified through the analysis process and are presented in Chapter 2. These potential projects do not occur on land or road segments that will be used for the proposed action or other action alternatives, but occur within the QVMP planning area and would contribute a beneficial effect for site productivity or surface water quality. 3.5 Aquatic Resources and Fisheries 3.5.1 Affected Environment The Queets Commercial Thinning planning area is located in the Queets sub watershed (5th field). The sub watershed is comprised of four 6th field watersheds including the Salmon River, Matheny River, Sams River and Tacoma Creek catchments. The planning area encompasses the Queets Watershed (Table 3-30).

237

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-30. Watersheds within the planning area.

6th Field Drainage Name Total 6th Field Planning Area Unit Acres Acres Acres Salmon River 20359 5747 1439

Matheny River 24034 20331 2071

Sams River 19709 16182 724

Tacoma Creek 21339 1675 772

Fish utilization and distribution The Queets planning area contains naturally reproducing anadromous and resident fish stocks including, spring/summer and fall Chinook, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), fall coho salmon (O. kisutch), winter and summer steelhead (O. mykiss), and anadromous and resident cutthroat trout (O. clarkia). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Dolly varden (Salvelinus malma) and Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) are also found within the Queets Watershed. Other fish species that have been reported in the watershed include sculpins (cottid spp.), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentate). Generally fish populations within these systems are naturally reproducing wild stocks with minimal hatchery influence. Hatchery strays and occasional coho fry plants are the only known hatchery influences on these populations (USDA 1997). Anadromous fish habitat extends into the upper reaches of Sams River, Matheny Creek, and the Middle Fork Salmon River. Anadromous fish species are also found in North Fork Salmon River, Hook Branch Creek, North Fork Matheny Creek, and limited use in the lower reaches of 6 other unnamed tributaries within the planning area.Natural barriers such as falls and cascades are present on many of the second and third order tributaries, excluding anadromous use above these segments. Electro fishing and snorkel surveys above anadromous barriers confirm resident forms of cutthroat and sculpin (spp. Unknown) in these streams are common. Table 3-31 shows a comparison of stream miles and fish utilization within the 6th field watersheds within the planning area.

238

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-31. Stream miles of anadromous and resident fish presence in planning area. 6th Field Drainage Stream Miles Anadromous Fish Resident Fish (miles) Name (miles) Salmon River 61 9.4 12.1 Matheny Creek 187 14.3 32.4 Sams River 113 46.3 32.6 Tacoma Creek 13 0.4 0.4

The 2002 Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and tribal co-managers is a standardized, uniform approach to identifying and monitoring the status of Washington’s salmonid stocks. Related to the Queets River stocks it rates fall Queets Chinook, Queets coho, Salmon River coho, and Queets winter steelhead as healthy. Queets spring/summer chinook are rated as depressed, and no determination was made for summer steelhead and fall chum due to lack of sufficient data. Table 3-32 displays the stock status of major salmonid species present in the Queets watershed. Some SaSI stocks that are listed as healthy may also be federally listed under the Endangered Species Act because listings are made on stock groups called Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) or Distinct Population Segments (DPS). In addition Region 6 of the Forest Service maintains a list of sensitive fish species.

Table 3-32. Current status (stock health) of salmonids in the Queets River watershed.

Stock SaSI DPS/ESU ESA Status R6 Status Sensitive Species

Chinook-Fall Healthy WA Coast Not No Warranted

Chinook- Depressed WA Coast Not No Spring/Summer Warranted

Chum-Fall Unknown Pacific Coast Not No Warranted

Coho-Fall Healthy Olympic Not No Peninsula Warranted

Steelhead-Winter Healthy Olympic Not No Peninsula Warranted

239

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-32. Current status (stock health) of salmonids in the Queets River watershed.

Stock SaSI DPS/ESU ESA Status R6 Status Sensitive Species

Steelhead-Summer Unknown Olympic Not No Peninsula Warranted

Bull Trout / Dolly Healthy Puget Threatened No Varden Sound/Coastal

Cutthroat Trout Unknown Olympic Not Yes Peninsula Warranted Past Riparian Management Early timber harvest in the Queets watershed began in the early 1900’s, and increased dramatically from the 1950’s through the 1990’s. Early logging was concentrated in the lowlands near mainstem channels and major tributaries since the terrain was flatter and facilitated easier access and removal of large old growth trees. Beginning in the 1960’s roads were constructed on steeper hillslopes to access additional timber. In some areas modest protection was given to riparian areas near fish bearing streams in the following decades. Minimal riparian buffers were mainly applied to larger tributaries while smaller streams continued to have clear cut logging right to the streams edge. Field analysis within the planning area confirmed that riparian areas, especially smaller tributaries, adjacent to streams were logged by removing all trees to the streams edge. This type of logging was completed by utilizing ground based tractor systems that operated near the streams edge and was one of the most impactful types of harvest. Past harvest methods have led to uniform vegetation conditions within riparian areas. Second growth conifers and alder stands dominate most riparian areas of second and third order streams within the watershed. Beginning in 1994 implementation of the NWFP and Record of Decision (USDA and USDI 1994b) halted clear cut logging on federal lands and established interim RRs as a means of protecting riparian depend species and aquatic resources. A detailed discussion of Interim RR boundaries for the Matheny Creek and Salmon and Sams River planning area watersheds can be found in the Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA 1995), and Sams River Watershed Analysis (USDA 1997) . Protection of riparian areas includes limiting activities adjacent to streams and additional focus on attaining Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals. Table 3-33 shows total number of acres in RR within the planning area drainages and the number of in-unit RR acres. The Tacoma Creek subwatershed does not have a completed watershed analysis designating interim RRs, further information and analysis is provided on the Tacoma Creek watershed as part of this analysis (see project record).

240

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-33. Acres Riparian Reserve in planning area by watershed. 6th Field Drainage Name Unit Acres Salmon River 652 Matheny Creek 680 Sams River 221 Tacoma Creek 270

Using a methodology developed by the Washington Forest Practices Board current riparian function was assessed for stream temperature (canopy closure) and LWD recruitment in the 6th field watersheds. The assessment examines the vegetative type, size and density of riparian vegetation within the first 100 feet adjacent to the stream channel on all fish bearing and non- fish bearing streams less than 20% gradient. The LWD assessment zone was based on research that showed the majority of all functional LWD is recruited within the first 100 feet of the stream channel (WFPB, Appendix D 1995). Details of the riparian assessments can be found in the Watershed Analysis Riparian Module D, (USDA 1999). Stream temperature data has been collected on federal lands within the planning areas by the USFS and Quinault Indian Nation. Large Woody Debris Recruitment Past timber harvest, stream cleaning, and selective removal of cedar from riparian areas and stream channels are physical activities that have occurred and continue to have effects on riparian area functions. Channel configuration and peak flow events also displace LWD within streams. The supply of tree species suitable for LWD recruitment from riparian areas to the stream channel is an important process that has a direct effect on litter, food, bank stability, and sediment transport. Using a combination of characteristics for size, age, type and density, an impact rating for each reach was determined to be either poor, fair, or good. A good rating suggests a high potential for at least minimal LWD recruitment; while a poor rating suggests a low potential for LWD recruitment (Table 3-34). These methods were used in the Sams River Watershed Analysis, Matheny River Watershed Analysis, and the Tacoma Creek-Queets River Subwatershed Report; a comparable method using the Washington Forest Practices Board Manual analyzed LWD recruitment potential in the Salmon River Watershed Analysis. LWD recruitment potential ratings of low, moderate, high, and naturally low were used in this analysis (Table 3-35). There is a combination of sub-watershed ownership consisting of Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park, private, and State.

241

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-34. Near-term LWD recruitment potential.

Total Poor Fair Good Subwatershed Miles (mi) % (mi) % (mi) %

Sams River Watershed

Lower Sams River Subwatershed 74.9 8.9 11.9 19.1 25.5 46.8 62.6

Upper Sams River Subwatershed 109.5 9.8 21.6 3.3 7.2 32.8 72.7

Matheny Creek Watershed (total) 65.4 7.2 11.0 14.1 21.6 44.1 67.4

Tacoma-Queets Watershed 39 30 31

Table 3-35. Near-term LWD recruitment potential.

Low Mod High Nat. Low Subwatershed Total Miles (mi) % (mi) % (mi) % (mi) %

Lower Salmon River 73.5 30.5 41.5 9.8 13.4 32.1 43.7 1 1.3

North Fork Salmon River 14.6 1.4 9.8 0.5 3.1 12.7 87.0 0 0

Middle Fork Salmon River 26.8 3.5 13.1 0.5 2.0 22.8 84.9 0 0

South Fork Salmon River 30.7 7.8 25.4 0 0.0 22.9 74.6 0 0

Total/Percent of Total 145.6 43.3 29.7 10.8 7.4 90.5 62.1 1 0.7

Over 60% of the riparian areas assessed in the Sams River and Matheny Creek Watersheds rated near term LWD recruitment potential as good. The lowest recruitment rated area (41.5%) was found in the Lower Salmon River subbasin consisting of primarily private and state lands. Data regarding the Tacoma Creek watershed and near term LWD recruitment potential is not available, but cursory observations appear to be within the ranges reported in the Salmon, Sams and Matheny River Watersheds. Stream Temperature- Riparian Canopy Stream temperature is an important characteristic of monitoring aquatic ecosystem health. The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) lists Matheny Creek and Sams River on the 303d list as impaired for water temperature. These are the waters listed by DOE as impaired within

242

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project the planning area, additional unpublished data from Quinault Indian Nation show reaches in upper Matheny Creek and Sams River as potential water quality impaired for water temperature by DOE standards (QIN personal communication). Healthy riparian canopy cover allows for shading of the stream and is used as a measuring target established by the Washington Department of Ecology for Class AA streams. Waters within the National Forest are considered Class AA streams, and therefor receive the highest level of protection. Standard methodology from the Washington State Watershed Analysis Methods (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1993) was used to conduct an analysis of riparian shading. Streamside shading in Matheny Creek indicates adequate shading for the majority of the watershed. The lower unconfined reach of Matheny Creek is naturally low in riparian shade and some of the increased water temperatures in the lower reaches are likely in part affected by past land management practices throughout the basin. Reduced shade, channel widening and reduced pool depths all contribute to the temperatures being elevated above natural levels (Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis, 1995). The Sams River Watershed exhibits similar conditions as Matheny Creek with overwidened channels and increased temperatures documented in a number of locations. Quantitative riparian canopy measurements using Washington State methods have not been conducted on Sams River although similar riparian conditions were found throughout reconnaissance of the planning area. The Salmon River Watershed Analysis (2002) rated riparian shade condition in the North Fork and Middle Fork Salmon River subwatersheds at above or equal to target levels in 80% plus of the subwatershed. Riparian shade conditions in the Lower Salmon River were above or equal to target in 46% of the watershed, and 19% and 35% respectively below target and naturally low. High stream temperatures in the Lower Salmon River are likely a result of past management, similar to the lower reaches of Matheny Creek. No field measurements for stream temperature and riparian canopy have been taken on USFS managed land in the Tacoma- Queets Watershed. Unlike the Sams River, Matheny Creek, and Salmon River there are no large mainstem rivers on USFS managed land within the Tacoma-Queets Watershed, making over widened channels less of an issue. 97% of standing trees are greater than 20 years of age and it is assumed that streams are well canopied in this subwatershed. The Olympic National Forest has conducted stream temperature monitoring on the mainstem of the Sams River and Matheny Creek. This data collection is part of an agreement with Washington State Department of Ecology aimed at working together in meeting state and federal water quality laws. Detailed results are reported under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between WDOE and the USDA Forest Service (USDA, 2003). In the summer of 1999 three sites were monitored in Sams River with temperature data loggers to assist in determining the maximum temperatures at these sites. Monitoring occurred at one site in Matheny Creek, and one site each in NF Matheny Creek, MF Matheny Creek, and Hook Branch (Matheny tributary). Additionally one data logger was deployed in North Fork Salmon and one in Middle Fork Salmon. Results generally indicate that tributary stream temperatures in the upper mainstems and tributaries meet WDOE standards for class AA waters. Temperature

243

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project monitoring on the mainstem Matheny Creek and Sams River exceeded standards in the lower river for Class AA waters (Table 3-36).

Table 3-36. Summary of water temperature data. Stream Name Site (RM) Monitoring period dates Max Temp/ # of days over 16°c Sams River 2.3 6/23/99-10/12/99 17.1/ 14 Sams River 7.0 6/30/99-10/12/99 14.3 Sams River 9.2 6/30/99-10/12/99 12.8 Matheny Creek 5.6 6/23/99-10/5/99 16.9/ 8

NF Matheny 0.1 7/6/99-9/15/99 15.2 Creek MF Matheny 0.2 7/6/99-9/15/99 15.4 Creek Hook Branch 0.2 7/20/99-9/15/99 15.6 NF Salmon River 0.1 6/30/99-9/15/99 14.7 MF Salmon River 12.2 6/30/99-9/15/99 15.9

Fish Habitat Fish habitat surveys have been conducted in the Matheny and Sams River Watersheds in 1992. Complete fish habitat surveys have not been conducted in the Salmon River or Tacoma Creek sub watersheds. Surveys were conducted using Forest Service protocols developed by Region 6 (USDA 1992). The effects of forest management on salmonid habitat have been extensively documented (Meehan 1991, Salo and Cundy 1987), in particular the role of LWD in channel processes affecting salmonids (Fox and Bolton, 2007). Only those reaches utilized by anadromous salmonids were compared against target values in the Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis Table F-2(WFPB, 1994). Values for the quality of salmonid rearing habitat for those stream reaches ranged from poor to good (Table 3-37). Target values were determined from research in un-managed forested streams and are used to gauge changes in habitat quality since no pre-disturbance information exists.

Table 3-37. Quality of rearing habitat of selected reaches in the Sams River and Matheny Creek (Based on USFS 1992 Survey). Stream Reach Percentage Pool LWD LWD pools spacing (all pieces) (key pieces) Matheny 4 good fair poor fair Creek

244

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Sams River 3 good good

Sediment It is well documented in the scientific literature that excessive sediment delivery to a channel network can be detrimental to the survival and growth of salmonids (Cederholm et al, 1987, Bilby et al, 1989). Generally, in forested environments sediment in stream networks are related to roads within the watershed. Sediment contributed from roads and delivered to streams can affect water quality, habitat, sediment transport regimes, and channel morphology. Road densities, location, construction methods, and maintenance rate all influence the amount and frequency of sediment that may be transported to streams. Roads contribute to increases in sediment by increasing the occurrence of mass wasting and from surface erosion of the road prism, which can be delivered to stream channels (Bilby, 1985). Roads located within RRs are more likely to deliver sediment because of their proximity to streams. Typical road and stream interactions occur when a road is either parallel to a stream within the RR or when roads intersect and cross streams. Road conditions, maintenance, and frequency of use have much influence on the amount sediment that is transported to streams. Road surfaces and ditchlines that are currently vegetated and receive no use typically deliver no road surface sediment, whereas a high use road that receives little maintenance increases the probability of sediment transport to streams. Regular maintenance and proper road design can help alleviate the potential for surface and mass wasting erosion. In the Matheny Creek, Sams River, and Salmon River Watershed Analyses an inventory of landforms with a moderate or high frequency of mass wasting events, showed that in most landforms, roads and past clearcut management were the dominant land uses connected with mass wasting events. Roads exacerbated the frequency and magnitude of mass wasting events that deposited sediment into the mainstem river systems. Roads and road density are often used as a coarse level descriptor of watershed characteristics and conditions. Road density is defined as a ratio of the length of roads per unit area. Usually reported in mi/mi2, road density is one measure used to assess the relative potential impacts of

245

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project roads on water quality and quantity and is typically calculated using GIS layers of mapped roads and analysis areas. Research by Cederholm and Lestelle (1974) found that 2.5 miles of road per square mile of watershed area was the threshold when impacts from roads begin to be noticeable on fish habitat. Road density within the Planning Area drainages was calculated using existing system road miles (ML 1 – 4) and unclassified roads identified from the project planning process. The average road density within the Project Planning Area (National Forest lands) is approximately 2.2 miles of road per square mile of watershed area for Forest Service system roads. Road densities varied by 6th field drainage, ranging from 0.5 mi/mi² in the Sams River watershed to 3.7 mi/mi² in the Tacoma Creek watershed (Table 3-38).

Table 3-38. Drainage/Watershed planning area road densities.

Catchment FS Unclassified, Planning Road Density Road Density Name (6th Syste temporary, and Area (mi 2 ) System Roads All Roads field) m decommissioned (mi/mi 2) (mi/mi 2) Roads roads for use (mi.) (mi.)

Salmon River 16.2 5 9 1.8 2.4

Matheny 34.5 11.4 31.8 1.1 1.4 Creek

Sams River 8.8 2.8 25.3 0.3 0.5

Tacoma 7.1 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.7 Creek

Project 66.6 21.7 68.7 1.0 1.3 Planning Area Total (USFS lands)

Field reconnaissance and aerial photo analysis of the project area watersheds identified additional miles of roads, once used for logging but long abandoned. These roads, labeled as “unclassified” roads are not managed as part of the forest transportation system and have an existing road prism sometimes with drainage structures. The roads are usually in varying states with road beds blocked by slides and/or fallen trees, grown in with vegetation, failing sidecast, and occasionally plugged culverts.

246

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Water Quantity Most of the hydrology analysis in the Planning Area watersheds centered on the effect of forest practices on hydrologic processes particularly increases in peak flows during rain on snow events. Substantial increases in peak flows or the frequency of channel changing flows from rain on snow events can increase bed scour (loss of salmon eggs), increase bank erosion (increasing sediment inputs), and cause the loss of stable instream woody debris (Chamberlin et al, 1991). Hydrologic maturity is important due to the vegetative (forest) canopies ability to intercept snow, reducing the amount on the hillside that would be available for runoff during large rainfall events. Analysis of hydrologic maturity conditions in the Queets subwatersheds showed that overall the watershed analysis area is predominantly hydrologically mature. Approximately half of the planning area is within the rain on snow zone and more susceptible to frequent rain on snow events. In this zone, shallow snowpacks accumulate and then melt rapidly during prolonged rainfall, accompanied by warmer temperatures and wind, dramatically increasing the rate of runoff. Hydrologic maturity is important due to the vegetative canopies ability to intercept snow, reducing the amount on the hillside that would be available for runoff during large rainfall events. Research has indicated that roads can affect watershed hydrology through the interception of ground water flow along the hill slope and more rapidly deliver via the ditch line or road surface to stream channels. The potential for increases in peak flows from the road network was only evaluated within the Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis (1995). Methods followed the work of Wimple (1994) and methods utilized in the Fish Creek Watershed Analaysis (USDA Mt. Hood National Forest 1994). The assessment indicated that channel length appeared to have increased by as much as 9 percent and drainage densities have increased as much as 10.5% overall in the Matheny Creek watershed. The extension of the drainage network due to roads suggests that potential increases in peak flows are at least partially attributable to increased road density.

Monitoring Aquatic Resources Common to All Alternatives

As part of our ongoing Forest monitoring program, every year the Forest will select at least seven sites to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in maintaining water quality. The BMP monitoring uses specific national protocols and results are reported into a national database. There are 10 categories of projects that will be monitored, including Road Management Activities and Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities. Within the general Road Management Activities, there are specific monitoring protocols for Temporary Roads and for Road Storage and Decommissioning. Within Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities, there are specific monitoring protocols for Erosion Prevention and Control, Aquatic Management Zones, Ground-based Skidding and Yarding, and Cable and Aerial Yarding.

247

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) is a Regional monitoring program designed to monitor stream health and the effectiveness of the NWFP in maintaining and improving stream and riparian conditions across the NWFP area at the watershed scale.

Other than the national BMP monitoring, monitoring is generally focused on implementation monitoring and periodic reviews of the completed projects over time by fish and watershed staff. Forest Service research studies provide information regarding evaluation of the effectiveness of our road projects in reducing the delivery of sediment to stream channels. 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action The No Action Alternative would leave all identified thinning acres in the project area watershed untreated. Forest stands in both upland and riparian areas would remain in the competitive exclusion stage until competition leads to the dominance by some trees and the death of other trees enough to open up the canopy to allow sunlight to the forest floor. This process will happen but can take decades to occur. In the stem exclusion or competitive exclusion stage, there is only one canopy layer, little understory vegetation, and low plan species diversity. No closed (Level 1), unclassified roads, or decommissioned roads, would be re-opened or new temporary roads constructed for timber harvesting. These roads would remain in their current condition. Direct, Indirect Effects Woody debris recruitment to stream channels in the project area watershed would remain unchanged from current conditions. Recruitment would continue to occur from natural causes, such as bank erosion, windthrow, disease, and mass wasting. Tree diameters would slowly increase and key pieces of LWD would eventually be recruited to the channel. Stream temperatures would remain unchanged where canopy closure currently provides adequate stream shading. Road densities in the project watershed would remain unchanged. Road maintenance would continue on system roads, but likely at longer intervals between maintenance. Unclassified roads would probably remain in their current state, and drainage and culvert problems on closed system roads and unclassified roads would remain uncorrected. Existing vegetation growing on unclassified and closed system roads would not be disturbed and continue to provide stability to the road bed and add to the vegetative canopy. Although some vegetation exists on these roads growing conditions are poor due to compacted surfaces and evidence of surface erosion is apparent. Surface erosion rates in the project area would remain unchanged from current levels. Water quantity would remain unchanged as the road drainage network, system, unclassified, and decommissioned, would stay at current levels. No new temporary roads would be constructed.

248

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Hydrologic maturity would remain unchanged since existing forest canopy closure would remain unchanged. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives would all be maintained with the No Action alternative. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect of the No Action Alternative on fish habitat indicators in the project area drainages of the Queets would be to maintain certain conditions associated with roads that can negatively affect water quality and fish habitat. Reductions in Forest Service funding for roads, the shifting of regional priorities to other river basins, make it unlikely that any significant road decommissioning will take place in Queets watershed. Road maintenance will continue on system roads, but with a declining trend in funding. The future status of non-Forest System roads is unknown, but changes in the Washington State forest practice regulations require that private and state land managers develop management plans for their road systems aimed at meeting Clean Water Act requirements. Regeneration (clearcut) timber harvesting on private, state, and tribal lands would continue at a level guided by landowner needs and policies. Alternative B- Proposed Action Alternative B proposes to commercially thin 5,005 acres of second growth timber in the Queets watershed. Of the 5,005 acres proposed for treatment, approximately 1,894 acres are in RRs. Applying no cut buffers on streams and sensitive areas would further reduce the number of RR acres that are treated. Thinning prescriptions would be predominantly thinning from below and would include skips (unthinned patches), gaps (small clearings, typically ~1/4 acre), and some more heavily thinned areas. Alternative B includes constructing 2.4 miles of new temporary road and utilizing about 18.4 miles of unclassified road and 1.4 miles of previously decommissioned roads would be opened. A combined 16.8 miles of these decommissioned, new temporary and unclassified roads would be added as permanent roads to the Forest Service system. 6.2 miles would be decommissioned when harvest was complete. The proposed commercial thinning activities essentially do two things; build (and use) roads and remove vegetation. These two activities can impact the input of wood, water, and sediment that shapes stream channels and fish habitat. Changes in quality, quantity, and timing of these variables cause channels to re-adjust and may negatively affect fish habitat (Peterson et al, 1992). Riparian - Silvicultural treatments to accelerate stand development will occur within the designated RR boundaries. Due to specific resource concerns that harvesting activities could negatively affect fish habitat through ground disturbing activities, varying width no-cut buffers are designated along all perennial and intermittent streams. Representative segments of near stream riparian zones on all fish bearing streams and many of the non fish bearing streams were field reviewed. In addition to field reviewing harvest unit locations adjacent to or encompassing streams, information generated from the Project Area watershed analyses was also utilized to identify areas of potential instability.

249

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The no cut buffers were developed based on a desire to restore riparian components lost through past logging (large conifers for instream woody debris recruitment) and a need to protect other ecological values - e.g., maintain stream side shading, protect water quality from sediment inputs during in unit timber harvest operations, protect seeps and areas of sensitive soils, etc. Research into riparian stream buffers suggested that 7.6 to 10 meters (about 30 feet) was effective in preventing sediment delivery to streams from about 95% of harvest related erosion features (Rashin et al, 2006 and Lakel et al, 2010). Minimum no-cut buffers would be 50 feet on non-fish bearing streams on stable ground, and 100 feet on fish bearing streams. Use of the slope break and adjustments made at the time of layout where questions remain on the extent of unstable areas on steeper landforms would extend the riparian no-cut buffers beyond the minimum no cut buffer widths. Riparian no cut buffers were expanded to 200 feet along Matheny Creek and the North Fork and Middle Fork Salmon River mainstems in order to provide additional protection. Within units A1, A2, A4, and A9 no cut buffers for fish and non- fish bearing streams would be 50 feet or between the slope break and streambank, whichever distance is greater. These units contain numerous ephemeral and intermittent channels that only run water during the wet time of year in the spring and winter. Resident fish presence in these ephemeral streams is limited to the wet periods when water is present, as they move downstream into larger perennial tributaries as drying occurs. Some of the individual harvest unit boundaries have been delineated to exclude streams and adjacent unstable areas, and may exceed the recommended no cut riparian buffer widths. However since the delineation was done from aerial photographs, some smaller first and second order streams and potentially unstable land forms may have been included in the unit boundaries. Of the 1,895 acres of RR within Alternative B thinning units, it is expected that at a minimum 350 acres will be included in no cut buffers and excluded from thinning. The information was generated from GIS using the prescribed no cut buffers for analysis purposes, and previous experience with similar thinning projects. The final determinations for riparian no cut buffer widths will be made at the time of harvest unit layout by the District Fisheries Biologist and/or Watershed Specialist. LWD - The fish biologist assessed the current growth of conifers within the first 50 – 100 feet of stream channels, the distance within which 80-99% of all in-channel LWD is recruited (WFPB 1996). The importance of LWD inputs on fish habitat, and channel processes have been extensively documented (Fox and Bolton, 2007). Research has also highlighted the functionality of smaller diameter trees in smaller streams (Beechie et al 2000). Restricting near-stream riparian thinning would balance the need for small diameter trees versus accelerating tree growth and increasing tree mass. Using the 100 foot criteria for significant LWD recruitment, Alternative B will maintain the current near stream riparian vegetation and LWD recruitment potential along all stream segments with no-cut buffers greater than or equal to 100 feet, and accelerate conifer growth for LWD recruitment along other streams where thinning occurs between 50 – 100 feet. These

250

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project untreated buffers along all streams would protect the immediate area along streams from a number of potential effects including direct and indirect impacts to channel functions or instream habitat, water temperature, sediment filtering, large wood, nutrient and detritus inputs, soil and ground cover, and microclimates. In all cases larger diameter trees would be retained. Little if any change on near stream tree growth would occur on fish bearing streams. Various factors such as a more developed floodplain, larger near stream conifers, steep and unstable hillslopes, were considered in determining near stream treatments. Under Alternative B current instream woody debris levels would remain unchanged in the Project Area drainages and would not be affected by project activities. Direct wood recruitment levels to fish bearing streams will remain unchanged. Treatments of riparian vegetation in Alternative B will have some beneficial effect on accelerating conifer growth along smaller, mainly non-fish bearing streams. However these streams have little potential to contribute LWD to larger fish bearing streams. Stream temperatures Stream temperatures would be maintained because of protective no cut buffers being applied to all streams. Many of the individual harvest unit boundaries have already been delineated to exclude near stream riparian areas and retain current shade levels. Research into the effects of riparian management on federal lands where young second growth stands are being thinned, found that summer mean daily maximum air temperature at the stream center was minimally affected by upslope thinning when unthinned buffers were at least 15 meters (about 50 feet) (Olsen et al, 2007). Mainstem rivers are given no cut buffers (200 ft.), from their channel migration zones to ensure that additional thermal input potential is limited or eliminated from reaching surface waters. Smaller order tributaries with 50 to 100 foot buffers are expected to have no impact to these narrower, less dynamic channels. Actions proposed in Alternative B would maintain existing shading levels in project area streams, protecting water quality and stream temperature. The riparian no-cut buffers and silvicultural prescriptions would make changes in stream shading or stream temperature very unlikely. Sedimentation Ground disturbance- timber harvesting The type of logging systems that would be used within the RR has the potential to have differing impacts to stream channels (Table 3-39). Ground-based logging has the highest potential to disturb soils of the different logging systems because of its potential to displace the organic and surface soil layers, increasing the potential for overland flow and erosion. There are no anticipated negative effects resulting from ground disturbance during timber harvesting activities in Alternative B. The recommended minimum no-cut buffers are designed to prevent sediment from entering the stream channel. Minimum no-cut buffers meet or exceed streamside buffer widths found by Rashin et al (2006) and Lakel et al (2010) to effectively protect water quality. Recent research found that the proper construction and post harvest

251

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project treatments of skid trails, the presence of organic matter and surface roughness such as logging slash, and woody debris were effective in preventing downslope sediment delivery (Litschert and MacDonald, 2009). No cut buffers combined with implementing BMPs within RRs would all but eliminate the potential for sedimentation associated with ground-based logging.

Table 3-39. Alternative B acres in RR by logging system.

Logging System Acres

Ground-based yarding 273

Cable yarding 1374

Cable yarding – downhill 13

Helicopter yarding 165

Helicopter/prebunching 10

Designated skips (no thinning) 59

Total 1433

Road reconstruction and decommissioning Alternative B has the highest potential for generating road related fine sediment. There are 18.4 miles of unclassified roads for use, 2.4 miles of new temporary road, and 1.4 miles of previously decommissioned road for use. Within this subset of roads 16.0 miles are proposed as becoming permanent roads added to the Forest Service network of system roads, and 6.2 miles will be decommissioned once they have been used for this project. There are 23.9 miles of existing level 1 system roads to be utilized for log haul; the condition of these existing ML 1 system roads varies widely. The majority of them are grown in with alders or conifers on the roadbed, have a shallow organic layer; and many have cross drain culverts or stream culverts that are plugged, or have previously failed. Few are currently in a condition that is contributing sediment to stream channels. Log haul, road improvements, road re-construction, and road decommissioning are the most likely activities to generate fine sediments that can be routed to the stream channel network. Alternative B would require the most miles of road construction, reconstruction and decommissioning and use more miles of gravel surfaced roads for log haul. Seasonal restrictions addressing other resource concerns often put timber harvesting operations at the wettest time of the year. Ground disturbance from heavy equipment used for road reconstruction or new temporary road construction when combined with heavy rainfall can

252

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project generate and transport fine sediments to stream channels, either directly from road surface runoff or through the ditchlines. Road construction involving stream crossings would occur during the drier seasons, in accordance with the provisions set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for hydraulic projects. Mitigation measures and limited seasonal work windows for the replacement and removal of culverts prior to and after timber harvesting activities generally are effective in controlling the production and transport of fine sediments. The amount of sediment mobilized during actual project activities would be small and transport would be limited. Duncan et al. (1987) demonstrated that even fine sediments produced from road surfaces settle out rapidly and were stored in small mountain stream channels. Less than 50% of sediments traveled further than approximately 310 - 410 ft. This type of activity generally has a minimal impact on water quality. Roads in close proximity to fish bearing streams and within RRs are a high concern for road construction and reconstruction. Applying best management practices and project design criteria, and having them in place prior to rain events will reduce the frequency and magnitude of potential sediment delivery to stream channels during the construction, use and rehabilitation of these roads. Of the 16.0 miles of road proposed to be constructed and added to the Forest Service system, 34 roads and 1.7 miles are within RRs (Table 3-40). These new specified roads are those most likely to contribute sediment during and after the project, given their proximity to streams. Once these roads are done being used, they will be placed in a closure status by excluding traffic, removing culverts from stream crossings, and constructing water bars where needed. Water bar structures will be installed to limit the frequency that culvert cross drains are actively carrying water. Pulling culverts and fill on stream crossings will remove the threat of culvert failure at these sites. Treatments to place new specified roads in a storage status will eliminate the risk of failures at stream crossing sites and reduce the risk of failures at cross drain culvert sites, but it can be expected that some cross drain sites will fail and deliver sediment to streams given the expected time of next entry into the unit (10-20 years) and no maintenance is expected to occur on these roads. Those sections of road most likely to deliver sediment to streams would be within the RR and have steep gradients that continue downslope to surface waters. Table 3- 37 identifies those roads within RR that would have the potential to deliver to stream channels. At the road design phase aquatics and engineering personnel would work together to identify the areas of greatest risk and design the most appropriate structures to minimize failures during haul and for the post haul storage period (10-20 yrs).

Table 3-40. Specified roads within RRs.

Status Miles in RR Name

Unclassified for use 0.013736 C86-1

253

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-40. Specified roads within RRs.

Status Miles in RR Name

Unclassified for use 0.015387 D25-4

Unclassified for use 0.082907 A2-4

Unclassified for use 0.006173 D16-4

Unclassified for use 0.050129 C15-1

Unclassified for use 0.025788 C28-3

Unclassified for use 0.13729 A2-4

Unclassified for use 0.059133 D16-1

New road 0.006154 B8-6

Decommissioned 0.052436 D25-2

Decommissioned 0.022406 B30-1

Unclassified for use 0.126624 D25-3

Unclassified for use 0.007171 A16-5

Unclassified for use 0.035519 D20-3

Unclassified for use 0.008036 A7-2

Unclassified for use 0.14972 C14-2

Unclassified for use 0.055403 D24-2

Unclassified for use 0.062397 C28-2

Unclassified for use 0.016957 D24-3

Unclassified for use 0.064786 D18-2

Unclassified for use 0.154565 C14-1

Unclassified for use 0.007406 A2-3

Unclassified for use 0.041015 B30-2

Unclassified for use 0.02442 C30-1

Unclassified for use 0.022152 D9-2

254

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-40. Specified roads within RRs.

Status Miles in RR Name

Unclassified for use 0.040167 A3-1

Unclassified for use 0.061278 A16-6

Unclassified for use 0.036931 C14-3

Unclassified for use 0.028512 A7-1

New road 0.042474 C14-7

Unclassified for use 0.095596 D20-4

Unclassified for use 0.062756 B60-1

Unclassified for use 0.069113 C26-1

Log Haul Sediment generated from surface erosion is a concern due to the fine grained material and its potential effect on fish habitat. Fine sediments are most likely to be transported to stream channels through ditch lines during wet weather periods, from mass wasting events, and from newly disturbed sites at stream crossings. Sediment will likely be generated by log haul during wet weather. Some sediment will enter streams, especially after significant rain storms and during heavy levels of timber haul. This road surface-derived sediment delivery generally occurs where roads are either close to or cross intersecting streams. Delivery would occur either directly or from ditch lines during storm events. Fine sediments that may reach the stream network would likely remain in suspension, move rapidly through the system, and be diluted by any measurable stream flows. A restriction on the timing of these activities to drier periods is the most effective way in preventing water quality problems from arising. However it is not always feasible to anticipate the timing or magnitude of rain events or unforeseen problems such as the appearance of springs or ground water. Mitigation measures to intercept turbid ditch water such as silt fences, straw bales, rock check dams, etc., are effective in intercepting the larger fine grained materials but have limitations if ditch flow is too great. Installing additional ditch relief culverts to limit water conveyance and directing silted water onto the forest floor is also very effective. Surface erosion generated from log haul during wet weather can have the greatest potential for producing and delivering sediment over a larger drainage area than more unit or site specific ground disturbance. Heavy and consistent rainfall combined with intense log haul, can increase erosion of the road surface. Heavy traffic on graveled roads can produce up to 7.5 times the rate of sediment of the same roads when not being used (Reid and Dunne, 1984). Roads

255

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project located at or near ridge tops, whether system, unclassified, or temporary, would have little impact due to the low number of significant stream crossings, and limited transport capacity. Log haul would occur on about 86 miles of existing system roads. Of these system roads approximately 13.7 miles are on a paved surface where fine grained sediment transport is not an issue. Monitoring of precipitation during storm events and the effectiveness of erosion control measures along the haul routes would provide the information necessary to curtail log haul during periods of wet weather if sediment from road surfaces is being transported into stream channels. There are a number of mitigation measures in place to monitor and restrict road haul during wet weather. Road surfaces and drainage would be improved as needed to decrease the erosion potential and intercept ditch line water that shows signs of turbidity. It is possible that there may be short term exceedence of State water quality standards for turbidity. These would be minimized with the application of the extensive project design criteria and mitigation measures (see Chapter 2 Mitigation Measures) dealing with the construction and use of temporary and system roads. The most effective mitigation measure that can take place is limiting or stopping haul during wet weather periods. This would be applied if other mitigation measures are not effective in curbing sediment transport. Road densities and drainage network Alternative B would result in an increase in road densities and the drainage network in the planning area during and after project implementation. All identified unclassified roads were considered as existing roads and used for calculating current watershed and drainage road densities. A calculation of road densities during project implementation includes new temporary roads and existing unclassified roads used for accessing timber harvest units. The increase in road densities would be permanent since 15.96 miles would be used and retained for a second harvest entry in the future. 6.23 miles proposed for use would be decommissioned once harvest was completed, which would reduce the drainage network and help restore hillslope hydrology. Alternative B would increase road densities in the Project Area watersheds. The 15.96 miles of permanent roads would permanently increase the drainage network in the project area. Measures to control drainage and sediment transport to streams would be reasonably effective, but some sediment would still reach streams either through surface runoff or road failures once they were put in storage status and not maintained for an undetermined amount of time. Water The removal of vegetation from the landscape may affect the hydrologic processes through changes in evapotranspiration, and changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt rates related to changes in canopy closure. These changes have the potential to affect streamflows by altering water yields and increasing peak flows (USDA 2007). Alternative B would result in a reduction in standing trees and canopy cover in the project area watersheds (Table 3-41).

256

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Table 3-41. Percentage of 6th field watershed treated. Watershed Acres / Acres / % Watershed 6th Field Watershed Thinning Treated Salmon River 20359 1439 7.1% Matheny Creek 24034 2071 8.6% Sams River 19709 724 3.7% Tacoma Creek 21339 772 3.7%

Variable density thinning (thinning from below, leaving unthinned patches and thinned gaps) of suppressed and intermediate conifers may reduce the current canopy closure on average by about 26% and remove less than 33% of the standing green trees over. Snow accumulations are greatest in large openings of greater than 8 tree heights diameter (Chamberlin et al, 1991). Variable density thinning, no cut buffers for streams, sensitive plants and mosses, wildlife trees and unstable landforms will maintain the current forested condition within the treated units. Increased tree growth in response to thinning has been documented (Comfort et al 2010) and it is reasonable to assume an increase in canopy growth following thinning. Models used on other National Forests (USDA 2007) suggest that for each 5% in a drainage converted from full forest to open conditions predicted peak flow conditions could increase by 1.5%. Variable density thinning does not convert stands to an open condition (clearcut) and on average may reduce the canopy closure by about 26% and remove less than 33% of the standing green trees. Factoring in a 26% removal of canopy cover, as opposed to full canopy removal , and only 11.2% of the watershed being treated increase in peak flows are not expected. Alternative B would have no effect on stream channel morphology and fish habitat indicators. Sale area improvements Those sale area improvements identified in Chapter 2 would have similar effects on sediment as described in the sediment road reconstruction and decommissioning section above. Replacing three existing culverts with structures designed to provide fish passage will enhance stream conditions and habitat connectivity. Measures employed during replacement such as diverting streamflow around the construction site, washing the streambed of fines prior to re-watering, and relying on Best Management Practices will reduce the potential for sediment production. Sediment that is generated would be low in intensity and duration. Road decommissioning and Level 1 storage treatments are similar in scope and effects as those described for temporary roads and system road closure. Indirect Effects Indirect effects are the biological changes resulting from the physical changes that can affect aquatic organisms. Loss of streamside shading can increase water temperatures in fish bearing streams, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks, fish mortality and growth. Changes or losses

257

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project of instream woody debris can negatively affect juvenile rearing and adult holding habitats, reduce instream cover and increase predation. Increased inputs of fine and coarse sediments can negatively affect summer and winter rearing habitat and affect juvenile survival, smother eggs in spawning gravels and reduce aquatic insect abundance, a major fish food source. The application of streamside no-cut buffers is designed to protect water quality (sediment) from timber harvesting activities. No cut buffers will maintain the current streamside shading and water temperatures, as well as existing instream woody debris. Logging activities will not alter the streamside riparian area physical environment. A Canadian study on the effects of logging second growth forests on coastal cutthroat trout populations found no detectable change on summer or winter abundance or body condition with careful logging treatments (DeGroot et al, 2007). The main concern for harmful physical and biological changes centers on sediment, mainly from road construction/reconstruction and log haul. Alternative B would generate some degree of surface erosion, but through application of mitigation measures and BMPs, there would be little direct impact to spawning gravel quality, and winter and summer rearing habitats. Although mitigation measures associated with converting roads to specified roads, and leaving them in storage, would reduce the risk of failures, culverts draining ditches and at stream crossings would continue to be at risk for future failures. Given current budgets these Level 1 roads will not likely have maintenance or be monitored until a second entry into the units is planned. Cumulative Effects Timber harvesting has been the dominant land use activity in the project area watersheds since Euro- American settlement. Early logging was concentrated in the lowlands near mainstem channels and major tributaries since the only method of log transport during that time was splash damming, which created major disturbance to riparian areas and stream channels in the watershed. Beginning in the 1960’s roads were constructed on steeper hillslopes to access additional timber. In some areas modest protection was given to riparian areas near fish bearing streams in the following decades. Minimal riparian buffers were mainly applied to larger tributaries while smaller streams continued to have clear cut logging right to the streams edge. The portions of the southwestern part of the watershed are primarily private and State land, whereas the Forest Service System land is primarily in the eastern portions of the drainage, and National Park Service to the north. Nearly all of the State and private lands have been harvested once with minimal riparian protection. A second rotation of clearcut logging is currently occurring in the lower watershed on private and state lands. These new harvest units have riparian buffers along fish-bearing streams. Since the implementation of the Record of Decision in 1994, often referred to as the NWFP, amending the Olympic National Forest’s Forest Plan clear cut harvesting has ceased on federal lands in the 3 project area watersheds. With the focus of the NWFP on restoring watershed health, timber harvesting has been limited to commercially thinning second growth conifer, and

258

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project accelerating the development of wildlife habitat. Fifty five miles of high risk roads have been decommissioned in the project area since the 1980’s. As Forest Service funds become available in the future it can be expected that identified fish passage problems on forest roads will be rectified. The future status of non-Forest System roads is unknown, but Washington State forest practice regulations require that private and state land managers develop management plans for their road systems aimed at meeting Clean Water Act requirements. Overall sedimentation generated from non-forest system roads should improve in the future. Alternative B would not add to the downstream cumulative effects in the project area watershed. Some sedimentation associated with surface erosion or bank disturbance may be delivered to the stream channel network but would be of limited duration and extent. There are no expected cumulative effects to water yield / peak flows as the result of Alternative B. Long term fish habitat (pool quality, frequency and rearing and spawning habitat) may improve as sediment rates decrease and LWD recruitment increases to levels approaching more natural conditions. Alternative C – Minimize soil disturbance and preserve water quality and temperature Alternative C proposes to commercially thin 1,800 acres of second growth timber. Of the 1,800 acres proposed for treatment, approximately 1 acre is in RRs. Alternative C is designed to minimize impacts to soil disturbance and water quality by not thinning in RRs, and limiting road construction within RRs. Thinning prescriptions would be predominantly thinning from below and would include skips (unthinned patches), gaps (small clearings, typically ~1/4 acre), and some more heavily thinned areas. Alternative C includes constructing 1.4 miles of new temporary road and utilizing about 11.7 miles of currently unclassified (10.5 mi.) or decommissioned (1.2 mi.) roads would be opened. 11.1 miles of these roads would be converted to specified system roads, and 2.0 would be decommissioned after use. Direct Effects Riparian, LWD and Water The direct effects of Alternative C would be similar to those described in Alternative B for LWD, stream canopy/temperature, fish habitat, and water available for runoff. The total amount of thinning would be 3,205 acres less than Alternative B, 1 miles less new temporary road construction, and 7.9 miles less miles of unclassified road reconstruction, and 0.2 miles less reopening existing decommissioned roads. There would be 11.1 miles of road for conversion to specified system roads, which is 5.7 miles less than Alternative B. Alternative C would have no effect on stream channel morphology and fish habitat indicators.

259

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Sedimentation Ground Disturbance-timber harvest Ground-based logging has the highest potential to disturb soils of the different logging systems because of its potential to displace the organic and surface soil layers, increasing the potential for overland flow and erosion. Since there would be no thinning within RRs in this Alternative, no cut buffers are essentially expanded to approximately 300’ or more for all streams. Not harvesting in RRs combined with implementing BMPs would all but eliminate the potential for sedimentation associated with ground-based logging. Log haul, road reconstruction, decommissioning Alternative C proposes to decrease new specified road construction by 5 miles and eliminate construction in RRs compared to Alternative B. Road reconstruction and maintenance involving stream crossings or ditch cleaning would still occur during the summer period and would have a minor impact on water quality, especially on or near ridge top roads. Applying BMPs, project design criteria and being prepared for winter rains will reduce the potential for sediment delivery to streams. Drainage and stabilization work needed on unclassified roads eliminated in this alternative would not occur as part of the project. Pool habitat quality and quantity, and spawning gravel quality in fish bearing streams would not be affected in the watershed from implementation of Alternative C. Reconstruction of existing system roads would still occur within RRs similar to Alternative B. Road densities and drainage network Alternative C would result in an increase in road densities and the drainage network in the planning area during and after project implementation. The ability for drainage to be directly connected to streams would be substantially reduced from Alternative B since fewer miles of road would be constructed or used within RR. The increase in road densities would be permanent since 10 miles would be used and retained for a second harvest entry in the future. Two miles proposed for use would be decommissioned once harvest was completed, which would reduce the drainage network and help restore hillslope hydrology. Sale area improvements The effects of Alternative C are similar to those described in Alternative B. Indirect Effects The indirect effects of Alternative C are similar to those described in Alternative B.

260

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects of Alternative C are similar to those for Alternative B. The reduction in temporary roads needed to implement Alternative C, will reduce the amount of road reconstruction and log haul. Thinning prescriptions would be the same as Alternatives B and C. Alternative D– Maximizing Economic Viability Riparian, LWD and Water The direct effects of Alternative D would be similar to those described in Alternative B and C for LWD, stream canopy/temperature, fish habitat, and water available for runoff. The total amount of thinning would be 1,610 acres less than Alternative B, The amount of existing unclassified, temporary, and previously decommissioned road use would be very similar to Alternative B. The miles of existing unclassified roads converted to permanent system roads is very similar to Alternative B as well (approximately 2 mile difference). Alternative D would have no effect on stream channel morphology and fish habitat indicators. Sedimentation Ground disturbance- timber harvesting Ground-based logging has the highest potential to disturb soils of the different logging systems because of its potential to displace the organic and surface soil layers, increasing the potential for overland flow and erosion. Ground based harvesting acres are similar to Alternative B and would have similar effects. Log haul, road reconstruction, decommissioning Alternative D proposes to slightly decrease new specified road construction compared to Alternative B. Road reconstruction and maintenance involving stream crossings or ditch cleaning would still occur during the summer period and would have a minor impact on water quality, especially on or near ridge top roads. Applying BMPs, project design criteria and being prepared for winter rains will reduce the potential for sediment delivery to streams. Drainage and stabilization work needed on unclassified roads eliminated in this alternative would not occur as part of the project. Pool habitat quality and quantity, and spawning gravel quality in fish bearing streams would not be affected in the watershed from implementation of Alternative D. Alternative D would not reconstruct previously failed stream crossing sites on 2170030, eliminating the amount of sediment input during construction and the potential for future failures. Reconstruction of existing system roads would still occur within RRs similar to Alternative B. Road densities and drainage network Alternative D would result in an increase in road densities and the drainage network in the planning area during and after project implementation.

261

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

The increase in road densities would be permanent and similar to Alternative B. Sale area improvements The effects of Alternative D are similar to those described in Alternative B. Indirect Effects The indirect effects of Alternative D are similar to those described in Alternative B. Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects of Alternative D are similar to those for Alternative B. The reduction in system roads needed to implement Alternative D, will reduce the amount of road reconstruction and log haul. Thinning prescriptions would be the same as Alternatives B and C. Threatened and Endangered Fish Species In 1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout as threatened. On September 30, 2010 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated and designated critical habitat for bull trout throughout their U.S. range, including the Olympic Peninsula Critical Habitat Unit which consists of 10 subunits. Bull trout within the Olympic Peninsula Critical Habitat Unit are found within the anadromous reaches of major coastal streams. Spawning populations are primarily found within watersheds fed by glaciers originating in Olympic National Park. The Queets River Critical Habitat Subunit is essential to bull trout conservation because it represents part of the core distribution of amphidromous bull trout along the Washington coast and is vital for population redundancy. Extensive portions of the habitat are within protected areas (Olympic National Park). Within the planning area the mainstem Queets River provides foraging and overwintering habitat for bull trout. Above its confluence with Tshletshy Creek (upstream of project activities) it provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Queets River local population of bull trout. Tributaries within the project area including the Salmon River, Matheny Creek, and Sams River provide foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat. Adult and subadult bull trout have been documented in these tributaries in the early 2000s (USDI 2010) and are designated essential habitat since they provide connectivity and an anadromous salmonid forage base utilized by bull trout. Additional information and analyses is available in the Biological Assessment for this project. Essential Fish Habitat This project would not adversely affect essential fish habitat for Chinook, coho, or pink salmon. While road construction and reconstruction, decommissioning and log haul may generate some sporadic pulses of fine and coarse sediment, measurable impacts to fish habitat are not expected to occur due to the application of project mitigation measures and the temporal and

262

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project spatial variability of project activities. Generally sediment pulses are of limited duration and within the range of natural variability. The project would improve road drainage, reduce overall road densities through road decommissioning of unclassified roads and may generate funds for restoration projects such as decommissioning high risk roads. In the long-term the project may benefit coho and Chinook salmon habitat by reducing the likelihood of road related mass wasting. 3.6 Cultural Resources 3.6.1 Affected Environment Prehistoric The Queets watershed was once occupied by the Queets, a group of people who were closely related to the Quinault and spoke a dialect of Quinault (Hajda 1990). Like other Northwest Coast groups they were skilled hunters, fishers, and gatherers who utilized a variety of resources. They harvested salmon as they swam upstream as well as other fish, sea mammals, and shellfish along the coast. Hunters ranged inland into the Olympic Mountains for game and a variety of plants, berries and roots were collected including camas from inland prairies. Travel was done both by canoe and by trail (Hajda 1990; Olson 1936). The Quinault Treaty of 1856, signed by Hoh, Queets, Quileute, and Quinault tribal leaders, ceded land to the United States government in exchange for a reservation and the rights to continue to fish, hunt, harvest shellfish, and gather plants. The current population of the Quinault Indian Nation includes Queets descendants (Quinault Indian Nation and USDA-FS 1999). Previous archaeology from the region suggests the Olympic Peninsula has been occupied since the early Holocene (Conca 2000; Gallison 1994; Gustafson et al. 1979; Wessen 1996). Relatively little information is known about the prehistory of the southern Washington coast or the adjacent inland areas. Shell midden sites have been recorded along the coast in this region and lithic-scatter sites are known to exist inland (WA DAHP 2012). The most notable investigation of the inland areas on the southwest side of the Olympic Peninsula is the work of Wessen (1978) in the Quinault, Queets, Hoh and Quileute River Valleys. He compiled a list of village sites reported in both published and unpublished manuscripts as well as those reported by local informants. Fifteen villages were reported along the Queets River between its mouth at the Pacific Ocean and Tshletshy Creek. During survey along the Queets River he found only grooved netstones for fishing and fire-cracked rock (1978:60-68). Wessen speculates that evidence of village sites has been obscured by minimal site preservation, land clearing associated with homestead and timber harvesting, and river erosion. Only three other archaeological surveys have been conducted within the general project vicinity. Several units were surveyed near the Sams and Queets River for timber sales (Righter 1980). Two archaeological sites consisting of peeled cedar trees (OL082 and OL083) located two to five miles to the east of the project area in the upper watershed along the Sam’s River. The survey attempted to locate an historic trail but no evidence could be found and they

263

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project speculate it was obscured by logging activity. Two recent surveys of very limited extent for road repair and culvert replacement projects found no archaeological sites (Kruger and Neil 2009; Neil 2010). There are no previously recorded sites within the APE for this project. Six homesteads have been recorded just to the northwest of the project area on National Park lands near the Queets River (JE245, JE246, JE247, JE248, JE249, and JE250). The nearest recorded pre-contact archaeological sites are peeled cedar trees (OL082 and OL083). Six isolated lithic sites (JE292, JE298, JE347, JE348, JE349, and JE350) are recorded within the interior of the Olympics near the divide between the Queets and Quinault River watersheds. Ethnographic The primary ethnographic source for the Quinault is Ronald Olson’s 1936 The Quinault Indians. He used a number of informants to document the Quinault’s culture and way of life. He describes the Queets as “almost identical with the Quinault” in “language and culture” (1936:15). He states they “occupied the whole watershed of the Queets river” and “had a number of villages”. Another ethnographic source is Indians of the Quinaielt Agency, Washington Territory by C. Willoughby, 1886. Watershed analyses have been completed by the Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park, and Quinault Indian Nation for the Matheny Creek, Salmon River, and Sams River Watersheds and these also contain valuable ethnographic information. Three village sites were located on the lower reaches of Matheny Creek adjacent to the river floodplain, a travel route followed the Middle Fork of Matheny Creek to Higley Ridge and Quinault Lake, and ceremonial observation sites were located near Higley Peak and on a prominent ridge top south of Matheny Creek (Olympic National Forest 1995). Several settlements were reported to be located within the Sams River watershed as well (Olympic National Forest 1997). Four village sites are noted for the Salmon River Watershed and trails lead from these sites to resource collection locations throughout the watershed (Quinault Indian Nation 2002). Mythic and ceremonial sites are also present within the watershed. Historic Euro-American explorers came to the Pacific Northwest in the late eighteenth century. Trappers and traders then settlers soon followed the early explorers. The first settlers to the Olympic Peninsula came in the mid to late 1800s. Settlers slowly moved inland from the coast with settlement increasing in the inland areas in the 1890s (Righter 1978). Most early settlers practiced subsistence farming and later began raising cattle and crops for sale. Many found work logging or doing other jobs in support of the logging camps. The first commercial settlement venture on the Olympic Peninsula, named Evergreen on the Queets, settled in the Queets Valley starting in the 1890s (Alcorn and Alcorn 1973). Early settlers relied on the Queets to transport people and supplies upriver by canoe and eventually they became proficient with canoes themselves. An overland trail was constructed from

264

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Quinault to the colony of Evergreen and regular mail service began in 1895. A rough wagon road was constructed as far as the Kelley Ranch by 1910. At least 43 homesteads were located along the Queets River but only a few families found success and stayed. In 1940 President Roosevelt authorized the acquisition of lands along the Queets River for inclusion within the Olympic National Park and by 1953 the last of the homesteaders had moved out. In 1897 the Olympic Forest Reserve was established around the Olympic Mountains. By 1905 administration was transferred to what is now the USDA Forest Service and unclaimed land became part of the Olympic National Forest. In 1907 land was identified and set aside for construction of the Killea Ranger Station on the Queets River, northwest of the project area. A trail was completed from Quinault to Killea in 1910. In the 1930s the system of lookouts, telephone line, trails, and trail shelters was expanded utilizing the Civilian Conservation Corps for construction. For the most part this system of lookouts and trails circled the project area with a large Forest Service presence in Quinault to the southeast and the Killea Guard Station to the northwest. The 1915 map of the Olympic National Forest (Graves 1915) shows a trail from Lake Quinault to the Killea Ranger Station, located just to the northwest of the project area. The 1938 map of the Olympic National Forest (USDA-FS 1938) shows two trails that go through the APE for this project. One runs along the Salmon River and the other along Matheny Creek. It also shows a trail from Lake Quinault to Higley Peek just to the south of the project area, another trail from the highway to Killea Guard Station just to the west of the project area, and a third along the Sams River just to the north of the project area. Survey Methodology and Results Expectations A review of previous research and historic maps for the local area suggests the project vicinity may contain prehistoric temporary campsites or resource processing locations, spiritual sites, trails, and historic settlements. Most of the APE was not accessible by road until after 1960 so expectations for historic cultural resources are low for most of the project area. Sites associated with historic settlement may be present in the northwest portion of the project area bordering National Park lands. Historic trails noted on the 1938 map of the Olympic National Forest run through the project area near the Salmon River and Matheny Creek. The probability for the location of prehistoric cultural resources is also low based on the distance to water and steep slopes in most of the units. Lower elevation units along the Queets River, Matheny Creek, and Salmon River are most likely to contain archaeological sites. Methodology The survey strategy was guided by the Draft Inventory Strategy for the Olympic National Forest (Daniels and Neil 2010). All areas with a high probability based on the inventory strategy or a high risk factor based on the predictive model in WISAARD (WA DAHP 2012) were surveyed. Some units with a moderate probability were also chosen for survey. Survey was conducted by

265

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Archaeological Technician, Matthew Mawhirter, in May and June of 2012 and in March of 2013. A total of 1520 acres of pedestrian survey was conducted with pedestrian transects spaced approximately 25 meters apart. No shovel probes were placed in any of the units because the ground was either steep or wet. Cut banks and tree tips were examined. Results The terrain was steep throughout most of the APE. Erosion has significantly altered the terrain and many areas that may have been high probability for pre-historic remains have been eroded or covered with materials washed down from above. The units in the northwest portion of the APE near the Queets River were considered higher probability, however, these areas were found to be extremely wet. Standing pools of water are common with braided streams covering large areas. Survey was also hampered by steep slopes, poor ground visibility and significant blow down in some areas. Cut banks and slumps in the project area revealed very shallow soils above glacial till. No eligible historic properties were found within the APE for this project. Historic trails shown on the 1938 map of the Olympic National Forest could not be relocated. Any evidence of these trails was likely destroyed by previous logging and growth of vegetation. Evidence of previous logging in the form of roads, landings, logging cable, shake cutting sites, isolated cans and pieces of metal equipment was found throughout the APE but none of these features or isolated artifacts were considered as eligible historic properties. The area was likely used during prehistoric time periods for hunting, gathering, and spiritual use, but no discernible evidence of this use could be found. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during project implementation work should be halted and the Forest Archaeologist should be contacted in order to assess the discovery and evaluate the significance. In the event that skeletal material or features of burial/interment are encountered, all work must be stopped immediately and contact must be established with local law enforcement, the SHPO and the affected Indian Tribes. 3.6.2 Environmental Effects No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no effect on any known or as yet undiscovered historic properties. If no action is taken then there would be no ground disturbance to impact known or as yet undiscovered historic properties. There would be no added impact to cultural resources over past, current, and foreseeable activities. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects from this alternative. Action Alternatives The alternatives include timber thinning for commercial sale by ground-based, helicopter and cable extraction. These activities would result in direct disturbances to the ground through removal of trees and construction of temporary roads. Indirect disturbances would include soil

266

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project erosion caused by removal of vegetation. These disturbances would have the potential to directly affect cultural properties by eroding cultural materials and, thus destroying provenence information. However, since there are no eligible historic properties identified within the area of potential effect there would be no direct or indirect effects to historic properties. If historic properties are found during project implementation, operations would cease until a qualified archaeologist determines the appropriate mitigation measures or if any are necessary. Since no historic properties were identified within the project area, there would also be no added impact to historic properties over past, current, and foreseeable activities, and therefore, no cumulative effects for historic properties from any of the alternatives. 3.7 Recreation The Recreation Resource Analysis focused on the current recreation use in the Queets Vegetation Management Project Planning Area and shows that the project proposal will generally not have any adverse effects on current patterns of use, public access, and future recreation opportunities. Overview of Issues Addressed Public access to National Forest System lands provides the initial focus for a range of recreation opportunities in the Queets Planning Area. In this analysis the management of the existing road system, which also includes temporary and decommissioned roads, is key to accessing recreation settings. Visual quality objectives are described in the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the ONF Land and Resource Management Plan, pages IV-94 to IV-100. Of the the acres proposed for active treatment 100 percent are within the Management Prescription (MP) E1- Timber Management, which has a VQO of either Modification or Maximum Modification. For areas with these VQO, management activities may dominate the natural landscape. 3.7.1 Affected Environment Existing Condition Historical recreation use included elk hunting and fishing and those pursuits have continued to the present day. Old roadbeds are still utilized for hunting and fishing access. Dispersed camping, which is often associated with hunting, occurs along the Roads and in several gravel pits. Currently no campgrounds, or otherwise developed recreation sites exist within the Queets planning area.The Higley Peak Trailhead falls along the southern boundary of the Queets Planning area. Desired Condition The desired future condition would maintain a natural appearing environment that would offer a variety of recreation opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized recreation. The current road system would be maintained in its present configuration, at the same maintenance levels. This allows the public the option to access the Queets drainage by

267

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project passenger car or high clearance vehicle and continue to offer desirable recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, kayaking, bicycling, and mountain climbing. It is anticipated that no new recreation sites or facilities would be developed. 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences Methodology Several site visits were made to the Queets Planning Area with the objective of reviewing the current access conditions on the existing roads and visually inventorying sites that showed evidence of dispersed recreation use. No comprehensive survey of dispersed recreation sites has been done since the early 1980s and monitoring has been infrequent due to lack of budget and low staffing levels. Alternative A – No Action Effects Due to no action and hence no change to the existing access, there will be no direct or indirect effects of this alternative. Public access to the area would remain the same. Visual Quality Objectives would continue to be met. Because there would be no project activities, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B – Proposed Action Access to the area for hunting or gathering forest products (e.g., mushrooms) and dispersed sites in or adjacent to treatment units could be affected during implementation of the proposed action. Potential effects include restricted access during logging operations, and increased activity and noise during operations within the affected units. All of these effects would be temporary, occurring only during actual project operations. Thinning is compatible with the VQOs of the area. Because this project would only have temporary direct and indirect effects on recreation resources in the planning area, no cumulative effects to recreation or visual quality are anticipated from implementation of the proposed action. Over the long term, new ML-1 roads would offer additional access for recreational opportunities such as hunting and gathering forest products. Alternative C – Minimize Soil Disturbance and Preserve Water Quality and Temperature Effects of Alternative C would be similar to those of Alternative B, however fewer miles of road would be developed. Alternative D – Maximizing Economic Viability Effects of Alternative D would be similar to those of Alternative B, but to a lesser degree as fewer miles of road would be developed, due to fewer acres treated.

268

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.8 Fire and Fuels 3.8.1 Affected Environment As indicated in the Silvicultural Report and elsewhere within this EA, the area proposed for treatments includes a maximum of approximately 5,005 acres out of 44,000 acres within the greater Matheny Creek, Sam’s River, and Salmon River watersheds. The areas proposed for commercial thinning are between 35 and 62 years of age and are predominantly made up of Douglas-fir and Western Hemlock, with Western Red cedar, Pacific Silver fir, Red Alder, and Sitka spruce present in smaller quantities. Average tree diameters are approximately 14 inches DBH varying by site and stand conditions, with canopy cover averaging approximately 90% for all the stands, and there is very little understory vegetation throughout the proposed treatment areas.

Fuels conditions for the proposed treatment areas were determined using a combination of Brown’s transects (Brown, 1974), and the Photo Series (Maxwell & Ward, 1980). The field data was compiled in FEAT FIREMON INTEGRATED (FFI) (Fuels Report for QVMP). On average, 23.05 tons per acre of woody debris was found with the majority of that coming from the 1000HR (3+ inches in diameter) fuel classes. Duff and Litter loadings averaged 21.16 tons per acre and 3.80 tons per acre respectively.

The majority of the area under consideration for thinning is a Western hemlock vegetation type with various understory vegetation associations. The fire regime on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula in a Western hemlock forest of this type is classified as a type 5, defined as a 200+ year frequency incorporating 75% or greater stand replacing characteristics (Hann & Bunnell, 2001). There is evidence of large scale fires on the western side of the peninsula roughly A.D. 1230, 1330, and between 1480 – 1530, with an average fire rotation of between 400 and 900 years (Agee, 1993). This is supported by the dominance of Douglas-fir in this forest type prior to initial harvesting, as it is an early seral species adapted to colonizing freshly disturbed sites, and less likely to establish underneath an existing canopy.

Unaltered stand conditions would consist of a multistory, multiage canopy, dominated by large diameter (30+ inch DBH) Douglas-fir in the over-story, and smaller diameter Western Hemlock, Pacific Silver fir, Western Red cedar etc. making up the understory (Agee, 1993). The stands under consideration for treatment are made up of single story, even age cohorts with little to no understory, representing a moderate departure from the natural condition, which results in a Fire Regime Condition Class II (FRCC-II) (Hann & Bunnell, 2001).

Fire History and Climate Readily accessible weather station information exists on the west side dating back to 1969 for the Humptulips RAWS and since 1970 from the Forks RAWS. This data was used in Fire Family Plus 4.1 to determine typical fire weather for the project area. 90th percentile weather conditions (defined as weather conditions that are met or exceeded for only 10% of the recorded days) served as a baseline for modeling, representing extreme fire weather conditions

269

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project for that specific location. For the Humptulips RAWS, a 90th percentile fire weather day is represented with an Energy Release Component (ERC) of 30 (Appendices B,C, and D) over the period of 2003-2013. The ERC is a measure of the potential energy that can be released through combustion in a given unit area, and incorporates both live and dead fuel moistures. For the entire 44 years of weather records the 90th percentile ERC is a 29, and there has been a steady increase in ERC by decade from an ERC of 20 in the period from 1973-1983.

The Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) is another measure of fire potential and is a relative measure of the moisture content in the duff and soil. The value of KBDI is determined by the amount of water it would take to return a section of soil and duff to a saturated state. Unlike ERC, KBDI has defined classifications and a maximum value that cannot be exceeded. For example, a value between 0-200 indicates high soil moistures where ground fuels would contribute little to the active flaming front. For the west side of the Olympics, the 90th percentile KBDI between 1969 and 2013 is a 66, meaning that soil moistures are generally high enough to not aid fire spread. The maximum recorded KBDI during this period was a 162 recorded in September, and the highest monthly average also occurs in September. Fuel moisture estimates can also be obtained from RAWS station data.

Despite relatively low ERCs and KBDIs, fire has historically been a regular part of west side ecosystems. Between 1940 and 2003 there have been 1211 fires on the Olympic National Forest, burning a total of 26177 acres (Olympic National Forest, 2008). On average, that comes to 22.8 fires per year and 493 acres per year burned. The majority of these fires are very small, burning less than 1 acre, with the occasional fire burning large areas over a very short time frame, typically during an east wind (Agee, 1993). In addition to the fires recorded since 1940, the Olympic N.F. has seen many large fire seasons including the 1864 Ludlow-Quilcene fire, 1885 Neilton Burn (2000 acres near Lake Quinault), 1890&91 in the Sol Duc and around Sequim, 1902 Elma-Humptulips fire, 1907 Great Sol Duc Fire (12,800 acres), 1916-1920 numerous fires (≈17,000 acres), 1924-25 (≈35,000 acres), and several other big fire years. Many of these fires were human caused, and like the 1951 Forks fire (≈33,000 acres), burned into large areas of recent logging activity. Partially as a result of increased emphasis on prevention and suppression, the Olympic has not had large fires with this frequency or extent in the last 40 years. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects Because there would be no project activities, there would be no cumulative effects with other past, present, or foreseeable future management activities in the planning area. Under the No Action alternative, no thinning or related project activities would take place and there would be no activity-generated slash. There would be no change in fire potential in the planning area from current conditions and therefore, no direct or indirect effects of taking no action.

270

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Alternative B – Proposed Action Any timber harvest will create a decrease in canopy coverage, and those activity generated fuels, if left untreated, will significantly increase the surface fuel loadings within cutting area boundaries. Activity fuels created following harvest includes not just the new slash created, but also includes an increase in the availability for burning of the existing fuels. This is the result of increased solar radiation to the forest floor, which will dry existing woody debris as well as the litter and duff faster than if the canopy had not been altered. The most invasive alternatives call for a mixture of light to heavy thinning from below, leaving the large diameter trees in place. For slash, areas of light thinning can be approximated by the SB1 fuel model, in which small diameter (1-3inch) fuels dominate the surface fuel component. These small diameter fuels account for about 20 tons per acre of the total fuel loading for the model. For areas of heavier thinning, or where current fuel loads are heavier, fuel model SB2 is an appropriate substitute. In FM SB2, the fine fuel load is lower, but the amount of heavier fuels in the 1000Hr class is greater than FM SB1 (Scott & Burgan, 2005). For the purposes of modeling fire behavior, canopy coverages within the generalized harvest boundaries for the post-harvest modeling scenario were all reduced by 20%. In addition, fuel models within the harvest boundaries were altered to account for the accumulation of slash. Fuel models TL5 were converted to SB2, and models TU5 and TU2 were converted to SB1. All other conditions were left unchanged and the models were run to demonstrate the fire behavior changes that this activity would affect. Models were also run incorporating only the reduction in canopy coverage. In effect this situation is modeling harvesting with all activity slash removed. While the purpose of the proposed project is to accelerate previously clear-cut stands to a more natural, multi-story, multi-age stand with a robust understory, forest conditions will still take a long time to reach that potential goal. This leaves the immediate post-harvest in a FRCC II, or a moderate departure from the natural condition, which is no change from the current condition class. However, due to the increased fire risk that is a result of opening the canopy and the additional fuels added to the surface, the condition class in the short term approaches a FRCC III. Over time, as activity fuels deteriorate and the forest develops towards the desired future condition, it is reasonable to assume that units will return to FRCC I (normal conditions), and the fire risk will return to the normal range. The time frame for this return to a normal fire state is uncertain at best, and therefore fire conditions must be mitigated to accommodate this. Fire Behavior, Smoke Management, and Suppression Response Based on the 90th percentile days above, fire behavior given the existing stand conditions is expected to be relatively light. Fire behavior was modeled using the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS) which is a web based program incorporating multiple fire and fuels modeling programs, and it is designed to provide analysis on a spatial scale as opposed to single points like BEHAVE, and FOFEM. Unfortunately, due to the spatial nature of this software, it is difficult to statistically analyze some model runs. Utilizing this

271

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project software, flame lengths vary between smoldering with no visible flame lengths and a maximum of 32ft flame lengths. The majority of the area modeled under these conditions would burn at flame lengths of less than 4ft (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2 below). Spread rates across the project area under the current stand conditions are also low, with the vast majority exhibiting a spread rate of less than 5 chains per hour. Figure 3-1. Flame Length on a 90th percentile day in the current un-altered stand condition.

Post-harvest modeling with no slash treatment indicates a variety of flame length and rate of spread (ROS) changes, including a reduction in both for some areas. The majority of the treated areas however, show a significant increase in fire behavior as a result (See Figure 3-3 below). In addition, while there are some areas that exhibit a decrease in ROS, the majority have increased by 2-10 chains per hour, where 1 chain is equal to 66ft (See Figure 3-4 below.) Model runs in which the only change is the reduction in canopy cover also show an increase in flame lengths and ROS, but by a much smaller margin (See Figures 3-5 and 3-6).

272

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Figure 3-2. Flame lengths in the current stand conditions classified as Low (0-4ft), Medium (4- 8ft), High (8-10ft), and Very High (10ft+).

Figure 3-3. Flame length change in harvested areas.

273

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Figure 3-4. ROS change in harvested areas.

Figure 3-5. Flame length change with only a 20% reduction in canopy coverage.

274

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Figure 3-6. ROS change with only a 20% reduction in canopy coverage.

Due to the remote location of the project area fire response will not be rapid, as responding units will have to come from either Hoodsport or Quilcene. Including the drive time to the area, and time spent locating a fire, it can be expected that any new start will be burning for at least 4 hours if resources are coming from Hoodsport and at least 5 hours if they are coming from Quilcene, assuming it is reported shortly after its ignition. Despite the long response times, the probability of a fire in the project area is still low. Historical weather patterns show that the window for a large fire on the west side is limited to the uncommon weather patterns of prolonged periods of below average precipitation along with hot and dry east winds. These conditions typically only align in the last few weeks of August through the month of September, and they do not occur every year. Though the probability is low, the consequences of fire occurring during these conditions with abnormally large amounts of fuel are severe. In addition to the direct effects of a fire, wildfires generate large amounts of emissions that are uncontrollable. While CO (Carbon Monoxide) and CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions cannot be changed through alternative treatments, burning or other treatments under controlled conditions can reduce particulates of all sizes through combustion efficiency, and air shed impacts can also be reduced by timing burns to coincide with good air quality days and by controlling the amount of material burning during any one time.

275

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Alternatives C and D Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of alternatives C and D are similar to alternative B. Because both alternatives C and D treat fewer acres, less slash will be available to burn. Slash that remains on the ground within the thinning units may increase fuel loading in the short term, but this would decrease within one to two years as fine fuels and needles decay. This action, combined with other reasonably foreseeable future actions will not result in any cumulative effects to fuels. Project Design Criteria to minimize effects Due to the long response times, the elevated fire potential in harvested areas, and the propensity for human caused ignitions on the ONF, it is recommended that all activity fuels be treated along any road corridors that will remain open to the public after harvesting (see Project Design Criteria in Chapter 2). The minimum spread rate over level ground with no wind is roughly 1 chain per hour as determined with BEHAVE (Fuels Report, Appendices G and H). 3.9 Economic Viability 3.9.1 Background and Methodology Because the primary purpose of this project is ecological, the generation of revenue is not a priority. Still, economic viability and fiscal responsibility are important considerations. The only certain means of accomplishing the projects purpose is through the sale of wood products that would be removed as part of the thinning treatment. Therefore, the project needs to be commercially viable in order to accomplish its stated objectives. The issues that drove the development of the alternatives to the proposed action also affect the relative commercial viability of the project, and are ultimately expressed in the benefit-to-cost ratios of the alternatives. Use of existing roads and temporary road construction/reconstruction that enables the use of conventional harvest systems is the greatest single factor affecting the viability of this project. Without adequate access through the use of roads the use of helicopters for a harvest system is dictated. The cost of this system dwarfs the road construction costs and use of more conventional methods. Method of analysis The Forest Service’s Region 6 TEA.ECON (version 5.3) economic analysis tool was used to evaluate the economic viability of the action alternatives. This tool was developed to evaluate timber sale economics at the planning or sale layout level, and takes into account factors such as estimated timber volume, the market value of wood products, planning, and implementation costs. The analysis was conducted in January of 2014, using the values current at that time. The estimated value of wood products is based on regional market values and the revenues that local Forests are receiving from actual timber sales. The values take into account tree species, tree size, and wood quality. The estimated implementation cost is also based on regional and

276

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project local logging costs, including the type of yarding system to be used (ground-based, cable, helicopter). Estimated revenue can fluctuate over time as market conditions change. If a timber sale is bid higher than its appraised value, then there would be more revenue return to the US Treasury, part of which would be available for qualifying restoration or improvement projects such as those described in Chapter 2, Additional Restoration and Improvement Activities. This analysis considers only identifiable and quantifiable economic benefits and costs, and does not reflect non-quantifiable economic considerations such as wildlife habitat, water quality, and other ecosystem services. Those considerations are assessed in other sections of this chapter. The socio-economic environment affected by activities within the Olympic National Forest is discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan. Table 3-42 displays the timber output, benefit-to-cost ratio, net present value (NPV), and expected timber sale bid value for each of the alternatives. The main influence behind the economic differences between the three alternatives is the type of logging system proposed, the miles of road reconstruction needed for access, and the amount of acres treated. Helicopter yarding is considerably more expensive than either ground-based or cable yarding, and cable yarding is more expensive than ground-based yarding. A benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1.00 indicates that revenues would exceed costs, and the project would produce additional revenue above and beyond the anticipated costs that were analyzed. While an overall project may be viable, a benefit-to-cost ratio less than 1.00 indicates that project costs would exceed revenues, and either the costs would have to be reduced, or supplemental funding would be required to fully implement the project.

Table 3-42. Expected timber sale volumes and bid rates for all alternatives.

Timber volume output (MBF) A B C D Total volume output 0 72,640 26,288 49,188 Timber values

Total timber value at predicted $0 $1,681,492 $131,440 high bid rate $2,810,127 Total net present value (NPV) $0 $111,054 -$324,609 $1,353,308 Benefit-to-cost ratio na 1.09 0.24 2.70 Total discounted NPV per acre $0 $23 -$185 $413 Sale appears viable na Yes No Yes Project is above/below cost na Above Below Above

277

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.9.2 Economic Effects Alternative A-No Action Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects Alternative A would provide no timber output, and would have no costs or revenues. Sale viability is irrelevant under this alternative because no timber sales would be offered. With no costs or benefits, the total net present value would be zero and there would be no benefit-to- cost ratio. Because there would be no project activities, there would be no cumulative effects from this alternative.

Action Alternatives Direct and indirect effects Alternative B Alternative B would provide approximately 72,640 MBF of timber output, the highest output among the three action alternatives. Costs per MBF are higher for Alternative B than for Alternative D because of higher costs associated with longer lengths of road reconstruction and the use of helicopter yarding, which is more expensive than cable or ground-based systems. The benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.09 is significantly lower than for Alternative D, however the projected volume is much higher than Alternative D, and is still viable and above cost. Increased volume output for Alternative B would provide a larger benefit to local economies than the other action alternatives. Alternative C Alternative C would provide approximately 26,288 MBF of timber output, the lowest output among the action alternatives. Costs per MBF are lower than Alternative B, but a helicopter logging system would still be utilized. The benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.24 is significantly lower than the other alternatives. This is due in part to the high cost of helicopter logging, along with the lower amount of volume to amortize the costs against, resulting in a project that is below cost and deficit. Additional money from the Government would be needed to make this alternative viable. Alternative C would provide the fewest benefits to local economies of all the action alternatives.

Alternative D Alternative D would provide approximately 49,188 MBF of timber output, 23,452 MBF less than Alternative B, and 22,900 MBF more than Alternative C. Costs per MBF are lowest for Alternative D because of this alternative’s use of only cable and ground yarding methods for treatment, and fewer miles of road reconstruction than Alternative B. The benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.70 is the highest among the alternatives, but it does not treat the same amount of acres or

278

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project produce as much volume as Alternative B. Alternative D would provide a lower benefit to local economies than Alternative B, and more of a benefit than Alternative C.

Cumulative effects Each of the action alternatives would contribute wood products to the local economy and support jobs. There would be no adverse cumulative economic effects associated with the action alternatives. 3.10 Climate Change Introduction A growing body of scientific evidence and long-term climate modeling indicate that climate change is occurring at a global scale, and that it is associated with increased outputs of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) resulting from human activities. Mote and Salathe (2009) used a wide range of climate models to explore possible future climate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest. All models indicate that the future climate will be warmer than the past, with rates of warming greater than those observed in the 20th century. Model projections for precipitation are much more uncertain than those for temperature, and remain within the 20th century range of annual variability (Mote 2003). There are others who believe that climate change is not occurring or that, if it is, it is not a result of human activity. They cite evidence such as a downward trend in temperature in the last decade (1998-2009) as a reason to question climate models that predict steady long-term increases in temperature. This analysis is not intended to support or refute any of the various positions on climate change. Its purpose is to fulfill the NEPA requirement to provide the public and the decision maker with relevant information about the environmental effects of a proposed action. This analysis focuses on aspects of climate change that may lead to changes in the effects, sustainability, vulnerability, and design of the proposed action and its alternatives. It recognizes the limits of our scientific ability to accurately predict climate change effects, and does not devote effort to analyzing wholly speculative effects. It follows the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1502.22 regarding acquisition and disclosure of information that is relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts and is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. This project was not specifically designed to respond to or mitigate potential climate change. This analysis will consider two types of climate change effects: the effect of climate change on the proposed action; and the effect of the proposed action on climate change. Because these are complex issues, large-scale issues, and there are no fine-scale models available to provide meaningful project-level information, this is not a quantitative analysis.

279

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Potential effects of climate change on the proposed project Much of the information presented in the following discussion is summarized from Adapting to Climate Change at ONF and Olympic National Park (Halofsky et al. 2011). Where no other references are specified, the climate-related information below should be attributed to Halofsky et al. (2011) and references therein. Some of the most important projected future changes in climate relevant to forest planning on the Olympic Peninsula are:

 Very likely increase in temperature on all seasons, particularly in summer;  Very likely increase in precipitation, probably as an increase in winter precipitation, but with a decrease in summer precipitation;  Likely increase in water balance deficit in summer;  Possible increase in winter extreme precipitation events. These changes can be loosely summarized as warmer overall, with a likely increase in droughty conditions in the summer, and a possible increase in strong storms in the winter. Climate models predict a warming rate of roughly 0.5 degrees F (0.3C) per decade in the 21st century. Projected changes in average annual precipitation are small, but the distribution of precipitation is projected to become increasingly more seasonal (wetter winters, drier summers). To increase ecosystem resilience to climate change, the ONF is focusing on maintaining, reconnecting, and reestablishing ecosystem processes and functions, considering past and current management practices, and their contributions to current and future habitat conditions. The possible climate change effects summarized above were taken into consideration during the planning phase of the proposed QVMP. Climate change modeling is done on a very coarse scale, and results are generalized over areas considerably larger than a single watershed or planning area. The scale of this analysis is the sub-watershed scale. Potential climate change effects at a scale as small and precise as a single watershed or planning area cannot be effectively modeled, and potential risks associated with climate change at such a localized scale are speculative and cannot be quantified. Watershed The implications for physical watershed processes include shifts in timing and magnitude of peak stream flows and the frequency of flooding. Increasing temperatures have led to more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, earlier spring snowmelt, and reduced spring snowpack. These changes result in higher winter and spring streamflows and lower summer streamflows in snowmelt-dominated and transient (rain and snow mixed) watersheds. The Queets 5th field watershed that contains the planning area is a transient watershed, and is likely to experience these projected changes. It is possible that an increase in extreme winter precipitation events may result in an increase in associated landslide and erosion risk.

280

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Vegetation Drier conditions associated with projected climate change may increase summer drought stress and fire frequency in the Pacific Northwest. Higher temperatures and lower summer precipitation may result in increased evapotranspiration, slower tree growth, and increased susceptibility to insects and disease. It is possible that an increase in extreme winter storm events may result in increased windthrow. Changing climatic conditions may favor the establishment of invasive plant species. Alternative A – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative, watershed and vegetation conditions in the watershed would not be altered by project-related activities. Watershed and vegetation response to projected trends in climate would not change from their current trajectory. There would be no interactions between project activities and potential effects of climate change on watershed and vegetation conditions within the watershed. Cumulative Effects Because no management activities would occur, there would be no cumulative effects with other past, present, or foreseeable future activities. Action Alternatives B, C, and D Direct and Indirect Effects Watershed The projected trend toward wetter winters and more extreme storm events may increase erosion and landslide risk in the watershed. The project design criteria and other management requirements described in chapter 2 would likely be sufficient to prevent any of the action alternatives from contributing any increased risk of sedimentation and landsliding associated by the potential effects of climate change. Improvements to road-related drainage conditions resulting from decommissioning of unstable unclassified roads as part of project activities would be likely to decrease existing landslide and sedimentation risks currently associated with these features. As an indirect effect, funds from the sale of harvested timber may be available for decommissioning roads listed in chapter 2, Additional Restoration and Improvement Activities, further reducing landslide and sedimentation risks in the watershed. Vegetation The projected trend toward drier summer conditions may increase drought stress and inter- tree competition in the watershed. In the dense, managed stands proposed for treatment, thinning would reduce competition between trees and may offset potential climate change- related drought stress for a period of time. The proposed thinning prescriptions would

281

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project temporarily result in increased sunlight reaching currently bare forest floor, potentially increasing evaporation, but the anticipated rapid post-thinning growth of understory and groundcover vegetation would decrease this effect within a few years. Also, post-thinning canopy cover would remain relatively high, ranging from 40 to 90 percent, and the canopy is expected to close again relatively quickly, minimizing any increased drying effects. Thinning prescriptions would be designed to minimize blowdown risk associated with the thinning treatments. The proposed thinning treatments are not anticipated to be directly or indirectly affected by climate change, and are not anticipated to either exacerbate or mitigate climate change effects on vegetation in the watershed. Cumulative Effects Because it is difficult to assess the effects of climate change on past management actions in the watershed, it is not feasible to assess whether there may be cumulative effects of climate change interactions with other management actions associated with this project. The project was designed to accommodate potential effects that could be associated with the climate trends presented in Halofsky et al. (2010), and to maintain and increase ecosystem resilience in the face of projected future climate scenarios. Potential effects of the proposed project on climate change Forests and forest management influence the production of GHGs and therefore influence global climate change. Forests help mitigate GHG emissions by absorbing CO2 and sequestering carbon in the form of biomass. Large-scale deforestation both releases GHGs (from burning and decomposition of slash and woody debris) and reduces the global rate of carbon sequestration until the forest regrows or the loss of sequestration potential is offset by the growth of other forests or replaced by other means. The use of petroleum-fueled equipment associated with timber harvest and the manufacture of wood-based products consumes fossil fuels and contributes CO2 to the atmosphere. Harvested timber that is converted into building products no longer actively sequesters carbon, but it does continue to serve as carbon storage for the duration of its lifetime of use as structural and non-structural components of buildings. For this assessment of the potential effects of the QVMP on climate change, the alternatives will be compared relatively on the basis of changes in carbon sequestration potential (timber output), and GHG (CO2) emissions (use of fossil fuels by harvest equipment). Alternative A – No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under the No Action alternative, there would be no timber output, and no change to current rates of carbon sequestration in the stands proposed for thinning. Tree growth in these stands is slowing as a result of overcrowding, and competitive exclusion is causing some trees to die. In the absence of disturbance, this process would continue, and the pace of carbon sequestration is likely to remain unchanged. There would be no timber harvest and associated activities, so

282

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project there would be no project-related GHG emissions. Because there would be no project activities, there would be no cumulative effects with other past, present, and foreseeable future management actions. Action Alternatives B, C, and D Although carbon sequestration and release of GHGs are local events, their effect on climate change occurs at a global scale. Because of this, it is impossible to precisely assess the potential effects of the QVMP, and even relative comparisons between the alternatives are relatively meaningless on a global scale. Direct and Indirect Effects There is probably very little difference between the alternatives when it comes to the carbon sequestration potential of the thinned stands. All three action alternatives include timber harvest. Alternative B would harvest approximately 72,640 MBF while alternatives C and D would harvest significantly less at 26, 288 MBF and 49, 188 MBF respectively. Timber harvest may result in a short-term decrease of carbon sequestration potential, but that would be fairly quickly offset by the increase in tree growth that would result from a reduction in inter-tree competition. In the case of Alternatives C and D, there would be no project-related change in the existing carbon sequestration rate on the unthinned acres that differentiate these alternatives from Alternative B. Per board-foot harvested, helicopter yarding uses considerably more petroleum-based fuel than cable or ground-based yarding. Alternative C involves the harvest of 603 acres of helicopter logging compared to Alternative C at 241 acres, and Alternative D at 0 acres of helicopter logging (see Section 2.5). With its heavier reliance on helicopter yarding, Alternative B would have the greatest GHG emission potential. In comparison, log haul does not differ appreciably between alternatives. Alternative C involves about 7 fewer haul route miles within the planning area, but the increase in helicopter use would overshadow that difference. Cumulative Effects Global climate change has been described as the ultimate cumulative effect, overlapping in space and time with countless other human actions across the earth in the past, present, and the foreseeable future. Its extent is worldwide, and it affects different geographical regions differently. On a global scale, the QVMP is likely to have a negligible cumulative effect on climate change. The ongoing demand for forest products implies that equivalent volumes of timber would be harvested elsewhere. Commercial thinning of forested land that does not convert that land to other uses but retains it in a predominantly forested condition may be preferable than other forms of forest management in terms of its contribution to current trends in global climate change.

283

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

3.11 Other Effects This section discusses those effects for which disclosure is required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, Forest Service policy or regulation, various Executive Orders, or other laws and direction covering environmental analysis and documentation. In many cases, the information found here is also located elsewhere in this document. In other cases, the effects are not necessarily connected to any particular resource area previously discussed in this EA. Clean Water Act Section 303 of the Clean Water Act mandates that Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) be developed for the parameters causing the impairment of beneficial use for all 303(d) listed waters. The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) lists Matheny Creek and Sams River on the 303d list as impaired for water temperature. Field review of the project area determined that the riparian no-cut buffers specified for this project will ensure that TMDL requirements are met. Clean Air Act As disclosed in the Fire and Fuels section of this EA, there would likely be burning of activity- generated slash. Any planned burning of this slash would be conducted in compliance with all State and Federal laws, including the Clean Air Act. Forest Plan Consistency The analysis performed by the interdisciplinary team found that the actions proposed under all this project‘s alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. The project‘s Purpose and Need are consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives, and impacts to resources as evaluated in this EA are consistent with Forest Plan direction and standards and guidelines. National Forest Management Act Compliance Compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) can be demonstrated by finding that a project is consistent with the following applicable requirements of 16 USC 1604(g)(3). (g)(3)(A): insure consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish. This EA considers the effects of implementing the alternatives on the economic and environmental aspects of the planning area. This consideration includes the forest resources of recreation (including Wilderness), watershed, wildlife, and fish. (g)(3)B: provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within

284

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan. Actions proposed under the project alternatives provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities within the project area as described in the multiple-use objectives of the Forest Plan. The effects to plant and animal communities are described in the resource sections of this chapter. (g)(3)C: insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land. Implementation monitoring and other monitoring proposed in this document would provide an evaluation of the effects of implementing any of the project alternatives. Irreversible Commitment Irreversible impacts result from the use or modification of resources that are replaceable only over a long period of time. Soil productivity: Soil productivity would be lost to some degree on temporary skid roads, skid trails, and landings due to soil displacement. Full recovery of soil productivity in these areas would not be anticipated for many decades, although efforts to reclaim these areas would mitigate this to some degree. The development of the 14.7 miles of roads as specified system roads would be an irreversible commitment of soil productivity within the developed roadbeds until the roads are decommissioned, at which point a decades-long recovery process would begin. Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irretrievable commitments are opportunities for resource uses that are foregone because of decisions that use that land in another way. Rock pit development: The construction and use of roads and landings for this project would likely require the application of road surface rock. There are several rock sources (Table A-3, Appendix A) would be the source for this material. The further development of these rock sources would forego any other use of the pit area. Adverse Effects That Cannot Be Avoided Implementation of any action alternative would result in some adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided. For example, timber harvest and temporary road construction activities would have some adverse effects on water quality and soil productivity. The magnitude of these effects relative to the entire project would be small, and would remain within prescribed standards and guidelines. The degree of these adverse effects would be minimized through the project‘s required design criteria and mitigation measures, described in chapter 2 of this EA.

285

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Relationship to Other Agencies and Jurisdictions The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act of 1972. A memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and Ecology states that Best Management Practices used by the Forest Service to control or prevent non- point sources of water pollution will meet or exceed Washington State water quality standards. The Department of Ecology is also responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act of 1972. The State‘s Smoke Implementation Plan provides guidelines for compliance which are intended to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. All burning plans for activities with the QVMP would comply with this plan. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for the protection and recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species. Because this project may affect Threatened or Endangered Species or their habitat, consultation with the USFWS has been initiated and will be finalized prior to decision. Cultural Resource Site reports for all cultural resources found within the QVMP planning area are filed with and have been approved by the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land There have been no range activities within the planning area for several decades. There are no prime farm lands or prime range lands associated with the QVMP. Effects on Energy Requirements There would be no unusual energy requirements associated with implementing any of the project‘s alternatives. Energy consumption needed to harvest timber or for recreation would not necessarily be reduced by lower levels of either activity in the QVMP planning area. Helicopter yarding operations are always evaluated due to their relatively higher level of fuel consumption, but it is likely that, if they did not occur for this project, they would take place at similar levels elsewhere on the Forest or in the region, with correspondingly similar energy requirements. The QVMP would not create unusual energy requirements. Effects on the Human Environment While the sale of National Forest timber would create or sustain jobs and provide consumer goods, no quantitative output, lack of output, or timing of output associated with implementation of any alternative would affect the civil rights, privileges, or status quos of consumers, minority groups, women, or American Indians. Several of the Forest Service roads that would be used for the project are frequently used by the public. Proper road closure and/or signing for safety would follow the Manual in Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). Special attention would be focused on any helicopter operations associated with the proposed project.

286

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

There would be no adverse effects to human health or safety associated with the implementation of any alternative for this project. Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains The planning area is not associated with floodplains. Given the mitigation measures and design requirements included in the project, there would be no adverse effects to wetlands or floodplains from the implementation of any of the action alternatives. Effects on American Indians The QVMP planning area lies within the area ceded to the United States by the Hoh, Queets, Quileute, and Quinault tribes under the 1855 Treaty of Quinault River. The Quinault Indian Nation was formally consulted regarding the project in a letter dated February 22, 2012. The Quinault Indian Nation raised some concerns regarding water quality and water temperature. These concerns were considered in the modification of alternative B and C and also in development of project design criteria to minimize project impacts to water quality. FS response to these concerns can be found in Appendix C of this document. Effects on Cultural Resources No known historic and cultural sites are located within the proposed thinning units or access roads. Given the requirement for cessation of project activities if cultural resources are discovered, followed by an evaluation by a Forest Service Archaeologist, there would be no adverse effects to cultural resources from the implementation of any of the project‘s alternatives. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be consulted regarding the findings of cultural resource surveys conducted within the planning area. Consultation is currently underway. Concurrence with the determination that the project would have no adverse effect on historic resources is anticipated. Environmental Justice Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all human populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner, by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. One goal of Executive Order 12898 is to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, the opportunity for minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, and decision-making that affects their health or environment, including identification of program needs and designs. The Executive Order makes clear its provisions apply fully to programs involving Native Americans. Analysis for the QVMP has been conducted under Departmental regulation 5600-2, December 15, 1997, including the Environmental Justice Flowchart, and CEQ‘s Environmental Justice –

287

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. The QVMP Proposed Action, purpose and need, and area of potential effect have been clearly defined. Scoping under NEPA has utilized extensive and creative ways to communicate. Consultation with Native American Tribes has taken place. The proposed action and its alternatives do not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low income populations, or on American Indian Tribes. The proposed action and alternatives do not have disproportionately high and adverse human health effects, high or adverse environmental effects, substantial environmental hazard, or effects to differential patterns of consumption of natural resources. Scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated with the principles of Environmental Justice. In some areas of the Forest, the gathering of special forest products, particularly of salal and mushrooms, is an activity where there is the potential to disproportionally affect minority populations, but this is a very minor use within the project area. All interested and affected parties would continue to be involved with the comment and decision-making process.

288

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

4.0 List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted Preparers The following individuals contributed to the preparation of this EA. Mark Ames NEPA, Writer/Editor Cheryl Bartlett Botanist/Invasive Plant Specialist Jana Carlson Timber Sale Administrator Vaughn Cork Fire/Fuels Specialist Kim Crider NEPA, Writer/Editor, IDT Leader Pete Erben Recreation Specialist Sarah Hash Soil Scientist Jon Hanson Fisheries Biologist Brian Hindman Transportation Engineer Betsy Howell Wildlife Biologist Steve McNealy Logging Systems Specialist, Economics Dean Millett Pacific District Ranger (Responsible Official) Jeff Muehleck Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Stephanie Neil Archaeologist Mark Senger Silviculturist Bill Shelmerdine Geologist/Engineer Greg Wahl NEPA, IDT Leader, Writer/Editor

Agencies and Tribes Consulted

Quinault Indian Nation Skokomish Tribal Nation Grays Harbor County Olympic National Park U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

289

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

5.0 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy AMA Adaptive Management Area ATM The ONF‘s Access and Travel Management plan BMP Best Management Practice CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHU Critical habitat unit CWD Coarse Woody Debris (on the ground) dB Decibel (a logarithmic measure of power or intensity, in this case of noise or sound) DBH Diameter at Breast Height (4.5 feet) EA Environmental Assessment EUI Ecological unit inventory (soils) FSH Forest Service Handbook GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GMU (Soils) Geomorphic Map Unit GMU (Wildlife) Game Management Unit HDS Habitat Development Study LRMP ONF Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) LSR Late-Successional Reserves LT Legacy Tree (large live tree left in place during past timber harvest activities) LWD Large Woody Debris (in stream course or river) MBF Thousand board feet (one board foot is the volumetric equivalent of a piece of lumber 1’ wide by 1’ long by one inch thick MIS Management Indicator Species ML Road maintenance level MMBF Million board feet (1,000 MBF) MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NWFP Northwest Forest Plan (common name for the April 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl) REO Regional Ecosystem Office RR Riparian Reserve SDI Stand density index SMU Soil Map Unit SNT Suitable Nest Tree (for Northern Spotted Owl or Marbled Murrelet) STUDS Siuslaw Thinning and Underplanting for Diversity Study TPA Trees per acre USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior

290

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

6.0 References Agee, J. (1993). Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Alcorn, R. L., and Alcorn, G.D. 1973. Evergreen on the Queets. Oregon Historical Quarterly 75(1):5-33. Altman, B.; Hagar, J. 2007. Rainforest birds: A land manager’s guide to breeding bird habitat in young conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations report 2006-5304. 60pp. Andrews, L.S.; Perkins, J.P.; Thrailkill J.A.; Poage, N.J.; Tappeiner II, J.C. 2005. Silvicultural approaches to develop Northern Spotted Owl Nesting Sites, Central Coast Ranges, Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20 (1):13-27.

Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Franklin, A.B.; Anderson, D.R.; Burnham, K.P.; White, G.C.; Schwarz, C.J.; Nichols, J.; Hines, J.E.; Olson, G.S.; Ackers, S.H.; Andrews, S.; Biswell, B.L.; Carlson, P.C.; Diller, L.V.; Dugger, K.M.; Fehring, K.E.; Fleming, T.L.; Gerhardt, R.P.; Gremel, S.A.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Happe, P.J.; Herter, D.R.; Higley, J.M.; Horn, R.B.; Irwin, L.L.; Loschl, P.J.; Reid, J.A.; Sovern, S.G. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Interagency Regional Monitoring Report. Portland, OR. Ares, A.; Neill, A.R.; Puettmann, K.J. 2010. Understory abundance, species diversity and functional attribute response to thinning in coniferous stands. Forest Ecology and Management 260:1104-1113. Aubry, C., D. Goheen, R. Shoal, T. Ohlson, T. Lorenz, A. Bower, C. Mehmel, R. Sniezko (2008). Whitebark Pine Restoration Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Aubry, K.B. 2010. Research Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd Ave. S.W., Olympia, WA 98512-9193. Aubry, K.B; Raley, C.M. 2002. Selection of nest and roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66(2): 392-406. Aubry, K.B; Raley, C.M. 1996. Ecology of pileated woodpeckers in managed landscapes on the Olympic Peninsula. Wildlife Ecology Team 1996 Annual Report, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia WA, pp 70-74. Bailey, J.D.; Tappeiner, J.C. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to 100- year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 108:99- 113. Beechie, T. J., G. Pess, P. Kennard, R.E. Bilby, and S. Bolton. 2000. Modeling Recovery Rates and Pathways for Woody Debris Recruitment in Northwestern Washington Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:436-452.

291

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Bender, L.C; Schirato, G.A.; Spencer, R.D.; McAllister, K.R.; Murphie, B.L. 2004. Survival, cause- specific mortality, and harvesting of male black-tailed deer in Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: 870-878. Bilby, R.E. 1985. Forest Science, Vol. 31, No.4, pp. 827-838. Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, S.H. Duncan. 1989. Forest Science, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 453-468. Black, B.A.; Shaw, D.C.; Stone, J.K. 2010. Impacts of Swiss needle cast on overstory Douglas-fir forests of the western Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology and Management 259:1673- 1680. Bloxton, T. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern goshawks in western Washington. MS thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Boland, J.L.; Hayes, J.P.; Smith, W.P.; Huso, M.M. 2009. Selection of roosts by Keen’s myotis at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Mammalogy. 90: 222-234. Boyd, J.; Coe, P.; Cook, J.; Cook, R.; Johnson, B.; Naylor, B.; Nielson, R.; Rowland, M.; Wisdom, M.. 2011, in draft. User guidelines for application, summary, and interpretation of Westside elk nutrition and habitat use models, Draft Version 1.0, March 2011. Unpublished manuscript. Brandeis, T.J.; Newton,M.; Cole, E. 2001. Underplanted conifer seedling survival and growth in thinned Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(2):302-312. Braun, D.M.; Runcheng, B.; Shaw, D.C.; VanScoy, M. 2002. Folivory of vine maple in old-growth Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock forest. Northwest Science. 76: 315-321. Brown, J. K. (1974). Handbook for Inventoring Downed Woody Fuel USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-16. General Technical Report, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Bull, E.L.; Blumton, A.K. 1999. Effect of fuels reduction on American martens and their prey. Research Note PNW-RN-539, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Norwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 9 pp. Bull, E.L.; Heater, T.W. 1995. Intraspecific predation on American marten. Northwestern Naturalist. 76: 132-134. Bull, E.L.; Heater, T.W. 2001. Survival, causes of mortality, and reproduction in the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 82: 1-6. Burke, T.E.; Applegarth, J.S.; Weasma, T.R. 1999. Management recommendations for survey and manage terrestrial mollusks, Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

292

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Bury, R.B.; Loafman, P.; Rofkar, D.; Mike K.I. 2001. Clutch sizes and nests of tailed frogs from the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Northwest Science. 75:.419-422. Buskirk, L.J.; Ruggiero, L.F.. 1994. Chapter 2 – American marten. Pgs 7-37 In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyor, and W.J. Zielinski. (Technical editors). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. General technical report RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 184 p. Carey, A. B.; Johnson, M. L. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. Ecological Applications, 5:336-352. Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological Applications. 10: 248-257. Carey, A.B. 2002. Response of northern flying squirrels to supplementary dens. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30: 547-556. Carey, A.B.; Colgan III W.; Trappe, J.M.; Molina, R. 2002. Effects of forest management on truffle abundance and squirrel diets. Northwest Science. 76: 148-157. Carey, A.B.; Curtis, R.O. 1996. Conservation of biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1996, 24(4):610-620. Carey, A.B.; Wilson, S.M. 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: responses of small mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4):1014-1027. Carey, A.B.; Wilson, T.M.; Maguire, C.C.; Biswell, B.L. 1997. Dens of flying squirrels in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61: 684-699. Cederholm, C.J., and L. C. Lastelle. 1974. Observations on the Effects of Landslide Siltation on Salmon and Trout Resources of the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington, 1972- 73. Final Report: Part 1.FRI-UW-7404. Fisheries Resource Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. 89p. Cederholm, C.J., and L. Reid. 1987. Impact of Forest Management on Coho Salmon Populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: A Project Summary. In E.O. Salo, and T. W. Cundy (eds.). Proceedings of the symposium Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contribution No. 57. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. Chamberlin, T. W., R.D. Harr, F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes. In W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Md.

293

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Chan, S.S.; Larson, D.J.; Maas-Hebner, K.G.; Emminghan, W.H.; Johnston, S.R.; Mikowski, D.A. 2006. Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:2696-2711. Comfort, E.J.; Roberts, S.D.; Harrington, C.A. 2010. Midcanopy growth following thinning in young-growth conifer forests on the Olympic Peninsula western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 259:1606-1614. Conca, David J. 2000.Archeological Invetigations at Site 45-CA-432: Reevaluating Mid-Holocene Land Use on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham. Cook, J.G.; Johnson, B.K.; Cook, R.C.; Riggs, R.A.; Del Curto, T.; Bryant, L.D.; Irwin, L.L.. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monograph No. 155. Cooperative Elk Management Group (CEMG). 1999. Elk management on the Olympic Peninsula: State-Tribal technical management document. June 1999. 54 pp. Corkran, C.C.; Thoms, C. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA. 175 pp. Courtney, S.P.; Blakesley, J.A.; Bigley, R.E.; Cody, M.L.; Dumbacher, J.P.; Fleischer, R.C.; Franklin, A.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Marzluff, J.M.; Sztukowski, L. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl (“The Status Review”). Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. Curtis, R.O.; Marshall, D.D.; Bell, J.F. 1997. LOGS—a pioneering example of silvicultural research in coast Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry 95(7):19-25. Daniels, Phoebe, and Stephanie Neil. 2010. Draft Inventory Design for the Olympic National Forest. On file at the Olympic National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Olympia, Washington. Davis, R.J.; Dugger, K.M.; Mohoric, S.; Evers, L.; Aney, W.C. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 years (1994—2008): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-850. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 147 p. DeBell, D.S.; Curtis, R.O.; Harrington, C.A.; Tappeiner, J.C. 1997. Shaping stand development through silvicultural practices. in K.A. Kohm, K.A.; Franklin, J.F., eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC:141-149 DeCillis, Phil. 2013. Tacoma Creek-Queets River Sub-watershed: A Report on the Effect of Past Land Management Activities on National Forest Lands and Their Potential Impact on the Aquatic Environment. Unpublished Report.

294

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

DeGroot, J.D., S.G. Hinch, J.S. Richardson. 2007. Effects of Logging Second Growth Forests on Headwater Populations of Coastal Cutthroat Trout: A 6 Year, Multistream, Before and After Field Experiment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136:211. Desimone, S.M.; Hays, D.W. 2004. Northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Drew, T. J.; Flewelling, J.W. 1979. Stand density management: An alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science 25(3):518-532. Duncan, N.; Burke, T.; Dowlan, S.; Hohenlohe, P. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan—Version 3.0. Duncan, S. H., R. E. Bilby, J. W. Ward, and J. T. Heffner. 1987. Transport of road-surface sediment through ephemeral streams channels. Water Resource Bulletin 23:113-119. Ehrlich, P.R.; Dobkin, D.S.; Wheye, D. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Falxa, G. 2011. Coordinator, Northwest Forest Plan Marbled Murrelet Effectiveness Monitoring. Personal Communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Rd., Arcata, CA 95521. Finn, S.P.; Marzluff, J.M.; Varland, D.E.. 2002. Effects of landscape and local habitat attributes on northern goshawk site occupancy in Western Washington. Forest Science. 48: 427-436. Flewelling, J.W., Wiley, K.N. and Drew, T.J., 1980. Stand density management in western hemlock. Forestry Research Technical Report No. 042-1417/80/32, Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Western Forestry Research Centre, Centralia, WA. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculturs; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. Forsman, E.D.; Giese, A.R. 1997. Nests of Northern spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Wilson Bulletin. 109(1): 28-41. Forsman, E.D.; Kaminski, T.J.; Lewis, J.C.; Maurice, K.J.; Sovern, S.G.. 2005. Home range and habitat use of northern spotted owls on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Raptor Research. 39: 365-377. Forsman, E.D.; Otto, I.A.; Sovern, S.G.; Taylor, M.; Hays, D.W.; Allen, H.; Roberts, S.L.; Seaman, D.E. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research. 35: 141-150.

295

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Fox, Martin and S. Bolton 2007. A Regional and Geomorphic Reference for Quantities and Volumes of Instream Wood in Unmanaged Forested Basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:342-359. Gallison, James D. 1994. Slab Camp: An Early to Middle Holocene Olcott Complex in the Eastern Olympic Mountains of Washington. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Garman, S.L.; Cissel, J.H.; Mayo, J.H. 2003. Accelerating development of late-successional conditions in you managed Douglas-fir stands: A simulation study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- GTR-557. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station. 113 p. Goheen, E.M.; Willhite, E.A. 2006. Field guide to common diseases and insect pests of Oregon and Washington conifers. R6-NR-FID-PR-01-06. Portland, OR: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, PNW Region. 327p. Graves, Henry S. 1915.Olympic National Forest, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Grindal, S.D. 1998. Habitat use by bats in second- and old-growth stands in the Nimpkish Valley, Vancouver Island. Northwest Science. 72: 116-118. Grubb, T.G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in western Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 87 pp. Gustafson, Carl E., Gilbow, Delbert and Daugherty, Richard. 1979. The Masin Mastodon Site: Early Man on the Olympic Peninsula. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:157-164. Gutierrez, R.J.; Cody, M.; Courtney, S.; Franklin, A.B. 2007. The invasion of barred owls and its potential effect on the spotted owl: a conservation conundrum. Biological Invasions. 9: 181- 196. Hagar, J.C.; Howlin, S. 2001. Songbird community response to thinning of young Douglas-fir stands in the Oregon Cascades – Third year post-treatment results for the Willamette National Forest, young stand thinning and diversity study. Hagar, J.C.; McComb, W.C.; Emmingham, W.H. 1996. Bird communities in commercially thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24: 353-366. Hajda, Yvonne. 1990. Southwestern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 503-517. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hallock, L.A.; McAllister, K.R. 2005a. Coastal Tailed Frog. In Washington Herp Atlas. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service.

296

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Hallock, L.A.; McAllister, K.R. 2005b. Western Toad. In Washington Herp Atlas. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; O‘Halloran, K.A.; Hoffman, C.H., (eds.). 2011. Adapting to climate change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. Hamer, T.E.; Nelson, S.K. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. In Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet (C.J. Ralph. G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds.). U.S. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. Hann, W. J., & Bunnell, D. L. (2001). Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation Across Multiple Scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire(10), 389-403. Happe, P.J.; Beirne, K.F.; Cantway, C.E.; Manson, D.J.; Smith, D.W. 2005. Olympic Hargis, C.D.; Bissonette, J.A; Turner, D.L. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology. 36: 157-172. Harrington, C. A.; Roberts, S.D.; Brodie, L.C. 2005. Tree and understory responses to variable density thinning in Western Washington. In: Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Proceedings of a conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, PNW Research Station: 97-106 Harrington, C.A. 2003. The 1930s survey of forest resources in Washington and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-584. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 p. [plus CD-ROM]. Harris, A.S. 1999. Wind in the forests of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing damage. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-244. Hartwig, C.L.; Eastman, D.S.; Harestad, A.S. 2004. Characteristics of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 187: 225-234. Haveri, B.A.; Carey, A.B. 2000. Forest management strategy, spatial heterogeneity, and winter birds in Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28: 643-652. Hayes, J.P. 2001. Bird response to thinning. Pages 19-22 in Cooperative Forest Ecosystem (CFER) Annual Report 2001. Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R.; tech. eds. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan— the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. Rep.

297

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr651/. Hays, D.W.; Milner, R. 2004. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Pages 11-1 to 11-4 in Larsen, E.M.;.Azerrad, J.M.; Nordstrom, N. (Eds.). Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA. He, F.; Barclay, H.J. 2000. Long-term response of understory plant species to thinning and fertilization in a Douglas-fir plantation on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30(4): 566-572. Henderson, J.A.; Peter, D.H.; Lesher, R.D.; Shaw, D.C. 1989. Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 502 p. Huff, M.H.; Brown, M. 1998. Four years of point count monitoring in late-successional conifer forests and riparian areas from the Pacific Northwest National Forests, interim results. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, OR. Huff, Mark H.; Raley, C.M. 1991. Regional patterns of diurnal breeding birds communities in Oregon and Washington. Pp. 177-205. In. Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Carey, A.B.; Huff. M.H.; tech. coords. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA, Forest Service, PNW Research Station, PNW-GTR-285, Portland, OR. Hutchins, N.R. 2006. Diet, nutrition, and reproductive condition of Roosevelt elk in managed forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Jones, L.L.C.; Raphael, M.G. 1991. Ecology and management of marten in fragmented habitats of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, Progress Report: Fiscal year 1991. Olympia, WA. 26 pp. Kellner, A.M.E; Harestad, A.S. 2005. Diets of bats in coastal rainforests on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist. 86: 45-48. Knowles, D. 1996a. Memo to Regional Interagency Executive Committee (REIC), Re: Criteria to exempt specific silvicultural activities in Late-Successional Reserves and Managed Late- Successional Areas from Regional Ecosystem Office review. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. 7p. Knowles, D. 1996b. Memo to Regional Interagency Executive Committee (REIC), Re: Amendment to “Criteria to exempt specific silvicultural activities in Late-Successional Reserves and Managed Late-Successional Areas from Regional Ecosystem Office review” of July 9, 1996. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. 1p.

298

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Krueger, Martha, and Neil, Stephanie. 2009. Quinault Area Road Projects. Olympic National Forest, Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report, 09-OLY-07. On file at the Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington. Lakel, W.A., W.M. Aust, M.C. Bolding, C.A. Dolloff, P. Keyser, and R. Feldt. 2010. Sediment trapping by streamside management zones of various widths after forest harvest and site preparation. Society of American Foresters 56(6): 541-551. Latham, P.; Tappeiner Jr., J. 2002. Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in stand density in western Oregon forests. Tree Physiology. 22: 137–146 Leonard, W.P.; Brown, H.A.; Jones, L.L.C.; McAllister, K.R.; Storm, R.M. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, The Trailside Series, Seattle, Washington. Lewis, J.C. and Hayes, G.E.. 2004. Feasibility assessment for reintroducing fishers to Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 70 pp. Lewis, J.C.; Happe, P.J.; Jenkins, K.J.; Manson, D.J. 2010. Olympic Fisher Reintroduction Project: 2009 Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Lewis, J.C.; Kraege, D. 1999. Harlequin duck. Pages 5-1 to 5-4 in Larsen, E.M.;.Azerrad, J.M.; Nordstrom, N. (Eds.). 2004. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Link, W.A.; Sauer, J.R. 1997. Estimation of population trajectories from count data. Biometrics. 53: 63-72. Linzey, A.V.; Hammerson, G. 2008. Marmota olympus. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. . Downloaded on 08 January 2010. Litschert, S.E., and L.H. MacDonald. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management 259 (2009) 143-150. Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle 61:23- 27. Marshall, D.B.; Hunter, M.G.; Contreras, A.L. Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR 768 pp. Martin, S.K. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. In Buskirk, S.W.; Harestad, A.S.: Raphael, M.G., comps., eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 297-315.

299

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest from the coast to the high cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 406 pp. Maxwell, W. G., & Ward, F. R. (1980). Photo Series For Quantifying Natural Forest Residues in Common Vegetation Types of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service. McCorquodale, S.M.; Wiseman, R.; Marcum, C.L. 2003. Survival and vulnerability of elk in the Cascade range of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67: 248-257. McCoy, R.; Gallie, J. 2005. Final report for black-tailed deer research, Administration for Native Americans, 90NR0180. Makah tribe, Neah Bay, WA. McShane, C.; Hamer, T.; Carter, H.; Swartzman, G.; Friesen, V.; Ainley, D.; Tressler, R.; Nelson, K.; Burger, A.; Spear, L.; Mohagen, T.; Martin, R.; Henkel, L.; Prindle, K.; Strong, C.; Keany, J. 2004. Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Unpublished report. EDAW, Inc. Seattle, Washington. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. Meehan, William R. (editor). 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Md. Mellen, T.K.; Marcot, B.G.; Ohmann, J.L.; Waddell, K.; Livingston, S.A.; Willhite, E.A.; Hostetler, B.B.; Ogden, C.; Dreisbach, T. 2006. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf. Mellen, T.K.; Meslow, E.C.; Mannan, R.W. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56: 96-103. Mellen-McLean, K.; Kittrell, J.; Markus, A.; Livingston, S. 2009b. A guide to the interpretation and use of the DecAID advisor. For use with DecAID version 2.10. An advisory tool for managing snags and down wood in forests of Washington and Oregon. [Available online]: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid-guide/index.shtml#_tolerance-levels [April 2010]. Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30: 1601. Muir, P.S.; Mattingly, R.L.; Tappeiner, J.C.; Bailey, J.D.; Elliot, W.E.; Hagar, J.C.; Miller, J.C.; Peterson, E.B.; Starkey, E.E. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of Western Oregon. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD-2002-0006, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 76 p.

300

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Muths, E.; Corn, P.S.; Pessier, A.P.; Green, D.E. 2003. Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado. Biological Conservation 110:357-365. National Park Forest Carnivore Inventory, Report Series: NPS/PWR-NCCN/INV-2005- NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Naylor, L.M.; Wisdom, M.J.; Anthony, R.G. 2009. Behavioral responses of North American elk to recreational activity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(3):328-338. Neil, Stephanie. 2010. Olympic National Forest Road Repair and Culvert Replacement Projects for 2010, Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report 10-OLY-09. On file at the Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington. Nelson, J.; Cottam, D.; Holman, E.W.; Lancaster, D.J; McCorquodale, S.; Person, D.K. 2008. Habitat guidelines for black-tailed deer: Coastal Rainforest Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Newton, M.; Cole, E.C. 1987. A sustained-yield scheme for old-growth Douglas-fir. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2:22-25. Nordstrom, N.; Milner R. 1997. Dunn’s salamander (Plethodon dunni) and Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei). Pages 2-1 to 2-17 in Larsen, E.M. (Ed.), Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume III: Amphibians and reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Ohmann, J.L.; May, H.; Gregory, M.J. 2010. GNN Accuracy Assessment Report: Washington Coast and Cascades (Modeling Region 221), Model Type: Basal-Area by Species-Size Combinations. [Available online]: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=common&id=mr&model_region=221&r ef=nwfp [April 2010]. Oliver, C. D.; Larson, B. C. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 467 p. Olsen, G.S.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Ackers, S.H.; Loschl, P.J.; Reid, J.A.; Dugger, K.; Glenn, E.M. 2005. Modeling of site occupancy dynamics for northern spotted owls, with emphasis on the effects of barred owls. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 918-932. Olsen, D.H., P.D. Anderson, C.A. Frisell, H.H. Welsh Jr., D.F. Bradford. 2007. Biodiversity Management Approaches for Stream-Riparian Areas: Perspectives for Pacific Northwest Headwater Forests, Microclimates, and Amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management 246 (2007) 81-107.

301

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Olson, Ronald L. 1936.The Quinault Indians. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 6:1-190. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office and USDI. Methodology for estimating the number of northern spotted owls affected by proposed federal actions. Version 2.0. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Panjabi, A.O.; Dunn, E.H.; Blancher, P.J.; Hunter, W.C.; Altman, B.; Bart, J.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; Butcher, G.S.; Davis, S.K.; Demarest, D.W.; Dettmers, R.; Easton, W.; Gomez de Silva Garza, H.; Iñigo-Elias, E.E.; Pashley, D.N.; Ralph, C.J.; Rich, T.D.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Rustay, C.M.; Ruth, J.M.; Wendt, J.S.; Will, T.. 2005. Partners in Flight. 2005. Handbook on species assessment. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf. Perlmeter, S.I. 1995. Bats and bridges: a field study of the thermal conditions and social organization of night roosts in the Willamette National Forest. MS Thesis, Graduate Programme in Biology, York University, North York, Ontario. Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, T. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of Cumulative Effects on Salmonid Habitat: Some Suggested Parameters and Target Conditions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Poage, N.J.; Anderson, P.D. 2007. Large-scale silvicultural experiments of western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-713. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station 44p. Pyle, R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 420 pp. Quinault Indian Nation. 2002. Salmon River Watershed Analysis. Quinault Indian Nation. Taholah, Wa. 446p. Raley, C.M.; Aubry, K.B. 2006. Foraging ecology of pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(5): 1266-1275. Raphael, M.G.; Jones, L.L.C. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American martens in central Oregon and western Washington. pp.146-165 in G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, eds., Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 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 (JAWRA) 42(5): 1307-1327.

302

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Reid, L. M., T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production From Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resources Research, Vol. 20. p. 1753-1761. 1984 Reinecke, L. H. 1933. Perfecting a Stand-Density Index for Even-Aged Forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46(7):627-638. Righter, Elizabeth. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview of the Olympic National Forest, Washington. Prepared by Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc, Washington, D.C. for the Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington. Righter, Elizabeth. 1980.Cultural Resources Survey of Six Areas Proposed for Land Exchanges and Timber Sales within the Olympic National Forest, Washington. On file at the Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington. Roberts, S.D.; Harrington, C.A. 2008. Individual tree growth response to variable-density thinning in coastal Pacific Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 255:2771- 2781. Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B; Buskirk, S.W.; Lyon, J.L.; Zielinski, J.W. Eds. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the western United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-254, Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp. Salo, E.O. and T. W. Cundy (eds.). 1987. Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contribution No. 57. University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Scherer, R.D.; Muths, E.; Noon, B.R.; Corn, P.S. 2005. An evaluation of weather and disease as causes of decline in two populations of boreal toads. Ecological Applications 15(6):2150- 2160. Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Shaw, D. C.; Oester, P.T.; Filip, G.M. 2009. Managing Insects and Diseases of Oregon Conifers. Oregon State University Extension Service Pub EM 8980. Corvallis, OR. 98p. Sheets, T.J. 1993. Washington state pine marten distribution. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.

303

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Sherburne, S.S.; Bissonette, J.A. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: response to subnivean prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(3): 400-405. Shirley, S.M.; Smith, J.N.M. 2005. Bird community structure across riparian buffer strips of varying width in a coastal temperate forest. Biological Conservation. 125: 475-489. Stalmaster, M.V. 2010. Raptor researcher. Mark V. Stalmaster, Ph.d., LLC, 8305 Evergreen Drive N.E., Olympia, WA 98506. Steinberg, E.K. 1995. A study of genetic differentiation and variation in the Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama) with emphasis on Fort Lewis populations. Final report submitted to Fort Lewis and The Nature Conservancy. 46 pp + appendices. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Program Report 94-5. Steinberg, E.K.; Heller, D. 1997. Using DNA and rocks to interpret the taxonomy and patchy distribution of pocket gophers in western Washington prairies. Pp. 43–51 in South Puget Sound Prairie Landscapes (P. Dunn and K. Ewing, eds.). The Nature Conservancy of Washington, Seattle. 289 pp. Stinson, D.W.; Watson, J.W.; McAllister, K.R. 2007. Washington State Status Report for the Bald Eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 86 + viii pp. Storlie, J.T. 2006. Movements and habitat use of female Roosevelt elk in relation to human disturbance on the Hoko and Dickey Game Management Units, Washington. M.S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Suzuki, N.; Hayes, J. P. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67: 352-371. Taber, R.D.; Raedeke, K.J. 1980a. Status report, Roosevelt elk of the Olympic National Forest. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. Seattle, WA. Taber, R.D.; Raedeke, K.J. 1980b. Black-tailed deer of the Olympic National Forest. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. Seattle, WA. Tappeiner, J.C. II; Maguire, D.A.; Harrington, T.B. 2007. Silviculture and ecology of western U.S. forests. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 440p. Tappeiner, J.C. II; Huffman, D.; Marshall, D.; Spies, T.A.; Bailey, J.D. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 27:638-648. Tappeiner, J.C.; Zasada, J.C. 1993. Establishment of salmonberry, salal, vine maple, and bigleaf maple seedlings in the coastal forests of Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23(9):1775-1780.

304

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests – the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Handbook No. 533. Washington, D.C.:U.S.Dep. Agric. 512 pp. Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B.; Meslow, E.C.; Noon, B.R.; Verner, J. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI National Park Service. Portland, OR. Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Gunderson, A.G.; Holthausen, R.S.; Marcot, B.G.; Reeves, G.H.; Sedell, J.R.; Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 523 p. USDA Forest Service (USDA-FS). 1938. Olympic National Forest, Washington. USDA-FS, Compiled at Regional Office, Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service (USDA-FS).1936. Map of Quinault Ranger District. On file at Olympic National Forest, Pacific Ranger District, Quinault, Washington. USDA Forest Service (USDA-FS).1990. Olympic National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. FSEIS on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. 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 for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service and Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. Memorandum of agreement between the USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and the Washington State Department of Ecology for meeting the responsibilities under federal and state water quality laws. Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA. (USDA 2003 MOA) USDA Forest Service. 1996. Quinault North (RW102) and Quinault South (RW103) Late Successional Reserve Assessment. Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, ONF Land and Resource Management Plan. Olympia, Washington. USDA Forest Service. 1990b. Land and Resource Management Plan. Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.

305

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

USDA Forest Service. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. GTR RM-254, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Stream Inventory handbook. Version 9.7. Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 1999. East/West Humptulips Watershed Analysis. Olympic National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Olympic National Forest Strategic Plan: Integrating Aquatics, Wildlife, and Silviculture. Olympic National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2004b. The ONF Access and Travel Management Plan. Olympia, Washington. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest (Region 6). USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Pacific Northwest Region Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest (Region 6). USDA Forest Service. 2007. Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Cowlitz Thin Timber Sale Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service. 2008. ONF FEIS and ROD – Beyond Prevention: Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment. Olympia, Washington. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. U.S. Forest Service, Regional Office, 333 SW 1st Ave, Portland, Oregon, 97208. USDA Forest Service, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), Invasive Plant Inventory. Database accessed April, 2012 – October, 2013. USDA Forest Service, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), Rare Plant Inventory. Database accessed April, 2012 – October, 2013. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Sam’s River Watershed Analysis. Olympic National Forest. Olympia, Washington. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Matheny Creek Watershed Analysis. Olympic National Forest. Olympia, Washington. USDA Mt. Hood National Forest. 1994. Fish Creek Watershed Analysis. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2008. Methodology for estimating the number of northern spotted owls affected by proposed

306

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

federal actions. Version 2.0. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1978. Determination of Certain Bald Eagle Populations as Endangered or Threatened; Final Rule. Federal Register, February 14, 1978, 43(31):6230- 6233. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1990. Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register, June 26, 1990, 55(123):26114-26194. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992a. Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Federal Register, January 15, 1992, 57(10):1796-1838. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992b. Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet; Final Rule. Federal Register, October 1, 1992, 57(191):45328-45337. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1996. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register, May 24, 1996, 61(102):26256-26320. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. USDI Fish and Wildife Service, Portland, OR. September 1997. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1999. Final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. Federal Register, August 25, 1999, 64(164):46542-46558. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence for Effects to Bald Eagles, Marbled Murrelets, Northern Spotted owls, Bull Trout, and Designated Critical Habitat for Marbled Murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls from Olympic National Forest Program of Activities for August August 5, 2003 to December 31, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. Revised 2004, 2010. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2004 (May). Draft recovery plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Volume II (of II) Olympic Peninsula management unit. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2007a. Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule. Federal Register, July 9, 2007, 72(130):37346-37372. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2007b. Fisher Reintroduction Plan Environmental Assessment, September 2007. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA.

307

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2008. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Federal Register, August 13, 2008, 73(157):47326-47522. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2010. Post-delisting monitoring plan for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the contiguous 48 states. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and Migratory Birds and State Programs, Midwest Regional Office, Twin Cities, MN. 75 pp. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2010. Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012a. Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register, December 4, 2012, 77(233):71876-72068. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012b. Report on Marbled Murrelet Recovery Implementation Team Meeting and Stakeholder Workshop. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503- 1273. USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. . 2009. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 5-Year Review. Lacy, WA. Wahl, T.R.; Tweit, B.; Mlodinow, S. G. Eds. 2005. Birds of Washington: status and distribution. Corvallis, OR, U.S.A Oregon State Univ. Press. 436 pp. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2005. Washington State Elk Herd Plan: Olympic elk herd. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Western Washington Treaty Tribes (WWTT). 2002. 2002 Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Johnson’s (mistletoe) hairstreak – Mitoura johnsoni. Pp 7-1 to 7-5 in EM Larsen, E Rodrick, and R Milner, editors. 1995. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume I: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. 2009 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. 2010 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Washington Forest Practices Board. 1995. Standard Methodology For Conducting Watershed Analysis. Version 3.0. Olympia, WA.

308

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Washington Forest Practices Board. 1996. Standard Methodology For Conducting Watershed Analysis. Riparian Module D. Version 3.1. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (WA DAHP). 2012. Washington Information System of Architectural and Archaeological Records Data. Electronic document, https://secureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/, accessed November 2012. Weir, R.D.; Harestad, A.S. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in south-central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67: 73-82. Wender, B. W.; Harrington, C. A.; Tappeiner, J.C. 2004. Flower and fruit production of understory shrubs in Western Washington and Oregon. Northwest Science 78(2):124-140. Wessen, Gary. 1978. Archaeological Reconnaissance of River Valleys on the Western Olympic Peninsula, WA. On file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Wessen, Gary. 1996. Archaeological Survey Report. In Tacoma Public Utilities Cushman Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Addendum Report on the Wildlife Enhancement and Mitigation Areas for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Preferred Alternative. Report prepared for Tacoma Public Utilities by Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. Whittaker, K.; Engelman, C. 2001. Neotropical migratory bird survey report 2001. Unpublished report, Olympic National Forest, Quilcene, WA. Wiens, J.D.; Noon, B.R.; Reynolds, R.T. 2006. Post-fledgling survival of northern goshawks: The importance of prey abundance, weather, and dispersal. Ecological Applications. 16: 406- 418. Wilke, T. 2004. Genetic and analytical analyses of the jumping-slugs. Report prepared by T. Wilke, George Washington University, Washington DC for USDA Forest Service, Olympia, under contract 43-05G2-1-10086. Williamson, R.L. 1966. Thinning response in 110-year-old Douglas-fir. USDA Forest Service Res. Note PNW-36 Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. Williamson, R.L. 1982. Response to commercial thinning in a 110-year-old Douglas-fir stand. Research Paper No. PNW-296. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. Willoughby, Charles C. Indians of the Quinaielt Agency, Washington Territory. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

309

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Wilson, T.M.; Carey, A.B.; Haveri, B.A. 2004. Chapter 9: Spring bird survey and social perceptions. Pages 80-93 in RO Curtis (ed.). Silvicultural options for young-growth Douglas- fir forests: the Capitol Forest Study – establishment and first results. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-598. Wilson, T.M.; Forsman, E.D. 2013. Thinning effects on spotted owl prey and other forest- dwelling small mammals. In : Anderson, Paul D.; Ronnenberg, Kathryn L., eds. Density management for the 21st century: west side story. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-880. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 79- 90. Wisdom, M.J.; Holthausen, R.S.; Wales, B.C.; Hargin, C.D.; Saab, V.A.; Lee, D.C.; Hann, W.J.; Rich, T.D.; Rowland, M.M.; Murphy, W.J.; Eames, M.R. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/. Wimple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic Integrations of Forest Roads with Stream Networks in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Witmer, G.W.; deCalesta, D.S. 1985. Effects of forest roads on habitat use by Roosevelt elk. Northwest Science. 59: 122-125. Wonn, H.T.; and K.L. O’Hara. 2001. Height: Diameter ratios and stability relationships for four northern Rocky Mountain tree species. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16(2):87-93. Woodruff, K.; Ferguson, H. 2005. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Pages 1- 13 in J Azerrad (ed), Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species: Volume V – Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Wunder, L.; Carey, A.B. 1996. Use of the forest canopy by bats. Northwest Science. 70: 79-85. Yerkes, V.P. 1960. Growth after thinning in 110-year-old Douglas-fir. Research. Note No. 189. Portland, OR:USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 3 p. Zahn, M. 2009. Big game wildlife biologist. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563. Ziegltrum, J. 2006. Forest Ecologist and Botanist. Olympic National Forest, 1835 Black Lake Blvd. Suite A, Olympia, WA 98512-5623. Zielinski, W.J.; Slauson, K.M.; Carroll, C.R.; Kent, C.J.; Kudrna, D.G. 2001. Status of American martens in coastal forest of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy. 82(2): 478-490.

310

Environmental Assessment Queets Vegetation Management Project

Zielinski, W.J.; Truex, R.L.; Schmidt, G.S.; Schlexer, F.V.; Schmidt, K.N.; Barrett, R.H. 2004. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: 475- 492.

311