United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Fisheries Report Colville National Forest Plan Revision Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared by: Ken MacDonald, Contract Fisheries Biologist Kate Day, Hydrologist, Colville National Forest Karen Honeycutt, Fisheries Biologist, Colville National Forest

October 19, 2015

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Revision Issues Addressed in this Analysis ...... 1 Old Forest Management and Timber Production ...... 1 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access ...... 2 Recommended Wilderness Areas ...... 2 Wildlife ...... 3 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management ...... 3 Relevant Laws, Regulations and Policy that Apply ...... 5 Affected Environment ...... 5 Overview ...... 5 Species Status, Watershed Condition and Foundation for Effects Assessment ...... 10 Need for Change ...... 46 Old Forest Management and Timber Production ...... 46 Motorized Recreation Trails ...... 46 Access ...... 47 Recommended Wilderness Areas ...... 47 Wildlife ...... 47 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management ...... 47 Environmental Consequences ...... 48 Methodology ...... 48 Assumptions ...... 49 Methods of analysis ...... 49 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 58 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis ...... 58 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 59 Summary of Effects Common to All Alternatives ...... 63 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 66 Summary of Effects ...... 68 Effects ...... 73 Cumulative Effects ...... 77 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 78 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 78 Summary of Effects ...... 80 Effects ...... 83 Cumulative Effects ...... 92 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 93 Alternative R ...... 93 Summary of Effects ...... 94 Effects ...... 97 Cumulative Effects ...... 102 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 103 Alternative P ...... 103 Summary of Effects ...... 104 Effects ...... 106 Cumulative Effects ...... 107 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 108 Alternative B ...... 108 Summary of Effects ...... 109

i Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Effects ...... 111 Cumulative Effects ...... 112 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 113 Alternative O ...... 113 Summary of Effects ...... 114 Effects ...... 116 Cumulative Effects ...... 117 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 118 Summary of the Effects of the Alternatives on Aquatic Resources ...... 118 Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted ...... 119 Acronyms ...... 120 References ...... 121 Appendices ...... 127 Appendix 1. Aquatic Direction Comparison Table for the Colville NF ...... 127 Appendix 2 Objectives and Projected Improvements in Key Watersheds – Priorities for Active Restoration ...... 169 Appendix 3 South End OHV Monitoring Plan ...... 172 1. Adaptive Management and Monitoring ...... 172 Engineering / Design ...... 175 Education ...... 179 Enforcement ...... 180 2. Designation of Mixed Use Roads ...... 180 3. OHV Trails ...... 187 4. Trailheads ...... 188 5. Dispersed Camping ...... 189 6. Phillips Lake Adaptive Management Area ...... 191 7. Practices that Apply to the Proposed Action ...... 192 8. Required Mitigation for TES and Other Wildlife Species ...... 195 10. Route Designation Process ...... 196

List of Tables

Table 1. Lakes and Reservoirs occupied by Invasive Aquatic Species ...... 9 Table 2. Major Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), and Size ...... 11 Table 3. Summary of TE, SOC, and SOI...... 22 Table 4. Habitat associations (spawning and rearing) for species-at-risk. Yellow highlighted species are CNF selected MIS/focal species...... 23 Table 5. Road Attributes Categories ...... 30 Table 6. Erosion Risk Categories ...... 31 Table 7. Erosion Risk Categories ...... 31 Table 8. Erosion and Sedimentation Risks Categories ...... 31 Table 9. Total Possible Score by Attribute ...... 33 Table 10. Final Aquatic habitat Condition Rating ...... 34 Table 11. Kettle Interior Redband Subbasin AEC Scores ...... 38 Table 12. Kettle Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores ...... 38 Table 13. Sanpoil Subbasin WSCT AEC scores ...... 39 Table 14. Sanpoil Subbasin Interior Redband AEC Scores ...... 39 Table 15. Pend Oreille Subbasin Bull Trout AEC Scores ...... 40 Table 16. Pend Oreille Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores ...... 41 Table 17. Colville Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores ...... 42

ii Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Table 18. Colville Subbasin Interior Redband AEC Scores ...... 43 Table 19. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Interior Redband AEC Scores ...... 43 Table 20. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores ...... 44 Table 21. Issues and Key indicators for the Aquatic Habitat and Species Environmental Consequences ...... 48 Table 22. MIS/focal species Viability Scores (WSCT=westslope cutthroat, IRT=interior redband, BT=bull trout) ...... 65 Table 23. Management Areas that share the same direction across all action alternatives ...... 66 Table 24. No Action Management Areas by Subbasin ...... 67 Table 25. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width ...... 70 Table 26. Forest Service Contribution to Viability. (The higher the score the greater the Forest Service Contribution) (WSCT=westslope cutthroat trout, IRT-interior redband trout, BT=bull trout) ...... 72 Table 27. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width ...... 75 Table 28. INFISH Priority and Alternative B Key Watersheds (WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior Redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat ...... 76 Table 29. Proposed Action Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion ...... 79 Table 30. Riparian widths for the Proposed Action, R, P, and O Alternatives ...... 86 Table 31. Proposed Action Key Watersheds (WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat ...... 87 Table 32. Alternative R Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion 93 Table 33. Key Watersheds for Alternatives R, P, O (WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat ...... 99 Table 34. Alternative P Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion ...... 103 Table 35. Alternative B Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion ...... 108 Table 36. Alternative O Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion ...... 113 Table 37. Suitable uses for Riparian Management Area ...... 168 Table 38. Proposed Action— Objectives and projected improvements in Key watersheds that are active priorities for restoration ...... 169 Table 39. Alternatives R,P,O - Objectives and projected improvements in Key watersheds that are active priorities for restoration ...... 170

List of Figures

Figure 1. Interim INFISH Management Objectives ...... 8 Figure 2. A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic and riparian resources...... 12 Figure 3. Diagram of the MIS/focal species component of the HUC 12 AEC model. All attributes and/or topics (shaded) were equally weighted and all attributes and/or topics (not shaded) were aggregated in the 9_22_14 spreadsheet...... 28 Figure 4. Diagram of elements and weights used to assess habitat condition in the HUC12 AEC model ...... 29 Figure 5. Distribution of InFish Priority Watersheds ...... 71 Figure 6. Key watershed network under the proposed action...... 82 Figure 7. Key watershed network under alternatives R, P, and O...... 96

iii Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Figure 8. Alternative B INFISH Priority Watersheds ...... 110 Figure 9. Key watershed network under alternatives R, P, and O...... 114

iv Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1 Introduction 2 The purpose of the Fisheries Report is to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental consequences 3 to fish and aquatic habitat on the Colville National Forest (CNF or Forest) through implementation of a 4 revised land and resource management plan (LRMP). Six alternatives are analyzed: the No Action - 5 current forest plan (December 29, 1989) as amended including the Inland Native Fish Strategy 6 Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (INFISH) (USDA 7 Forest Service 1995) and subsequent biological opinion (USFWS 1995); the Proposed Action, and four 8 additional alternatives. This report is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service 9 Manual 2670 and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50-402.12. The entire project description for 10 the proposed action and the alternatives can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 11 (DEIS). The decisions that result through the EIS process and development of the forest plan are broad 12 scale and programmatic in nature. The forest plan will provide guidance for the selection and design of 13 future land management activities on the Forest but potential effects of specific actions are not assessed in 14 the programmatic DEIS or this report.

15 Revision Issues Addressed in this Analysis

16 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 17 The Issue - Some members of the public are concerned that the proposed action does not protect old 18 forests and wildlife habitat as well as the current plan. Other members of the public are concerned that 19 the proposed action does not allow enough timber production, which hurts the economy. Some are also 20 concerned that the proposed action limits the Forest Service’s ability to defend forests from insects, 21 disease, and fire.

22 Evaluation Criteria 23 Vegetation management for timber production as a fuel treatment (e.g. thinning, prescribed fire) to reduce 24 the potential for uncharacteristically severe wildfires or to provide late forest structure can adversely 25 affect watershed processes, aquatic and riparian habitat (see Spence et al. 1996, Mehan 1991; and in the 26 watershed section of Chapter 3 in the DEIS and in Day 2014). Vegetation management in areas with a 27 timber production emphasis are expected to be more intense, with a greater need for roads, thus posing 28 more risk to watershed processes and fish habitat than vegetation management in areas with an emphasis 29 on creating late forest structure. Managing vegetation to provide a vegetation composition and structure 30 that is more characteristic of the natural fire regime may result in terrestrial ecosystems that are more 31 resilient to disturbance from fires or insects and disease; and is a component of managing for natural 32 watershed function.

33 Vegetation management activities within Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) is controlled by the 34 direction for those lands and so will be indirectly assessed under the Riparian and Aquatic Resource 35 Management issue. Alternatives will be evaluated based upon the area allocated to old forest management 36 and timber production.

37

38 The Key indicators for Old Forest Management and Timber Production are:

39 • The number of acres that have a focused restoration, general restoration or timber production 40 emphasis.

1 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

41 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 42 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access are two separate issues as described in Chapter I of the DEIS. 43 However for the fisheries analysis the two issues will be discussed together.

44 The Issue, Motorized Trails - Public comments reflect the desires for more motorized recreation 45 opportunities, particularly the distribution and quantity of motorized trails. They think that the 46 distribution and quantity affect tourism and the local economy. Other stakeholders want fewer miles of 47 motorized trails. They don’t like the resource damage, noise, and conflict associated with them.

48 The Issue, Access - The public is concerned that proposed action does not provide enough roads for 49 recreation, grazing, fire suppression, timber harvest, and firewood collection. They are also concerned 50 that lack of access will have negative impact on economic well-being. Other stakeholders are concerned 51 that the Forest Service does not have the capacity to maintain the current road network. They believe that 52 unmaintained roads damage wildlife, water and fish.

53 Evaluation Criteria 54 Roads can have numerous adverse effects on fish and fish habitat including: chronic and long-term 55 sediment delivery to aquatic habitat; changing the stream channel morphology if the roads confine 56 streams and prevent access to the floodplain; extending the drainage network into previously unchanneled 57 portions of the hillslope; and the removal of vegetation that provide shade and large wood to streams 58 (Gucinski et al 2001). 59 60 OHV trails that are not designed or maintained properly, including the drainage system, can be sources of 61 chronic and long-term sediment delivery to streams. Additional discussion regarding the effects of roads 62 and motorized trials on watershed processes and aquatic habitat is contained in the effects portion of this 63 report and in the watershed section of Chapter 3 of the DEIS and in Day (2014). 64 65 Roads also can influence fish populations. Lee et al. (1997) found strong fish populations in the interior 66 Columbia Basin were more frequently found in areas of low road density than high road density. 67 Similarly, Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010) found reference watersheds generally provided higher quality 68 physical stream habitat than managed watersheds with higher road densities. Culverts installed where 69 roads cross streams can create passage barriers isolating fish populations. Road density is an indicator of 70 overall potential management effects on aquatic habitat and fish (Lee et al. 1997). 71 72 The Key Indicators for the Motorized Recreation Trails and Access issues are:

73 • Desired Conditions for road densities. 74 • Acres allocated to motorized access.

75 Recommended Wilderness Areas 76 The Issue - While forest plans may make a preliminary recommendation for additional wilderness, only 77 Congress can designate wilderness. Stakeholders are concerned that the proposed action recommends too 78 much additional wilderness. They think that more wilderness areas hurt the economy by limiting timber 79 harvest, grazing, mountain biking, and motorized recreation. The public also raised concerns about the 80 increased cost of managing additional wilderness.

81 Other Stakeholders think that the proposed action does not include enough additional wilderness areas, 82 they want more. They want to make sure that wilderness provides habitat connections for wildlife.

2 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

83 Additionally, some members of the public are concerned about protecting the uniqueness of these areas. 84 They also believe that additional wilderness improves the local economy

85 Evaluation Criteria 86 As discussed above under the Motorized Trails and Access issues, lands with a light management 87 footprint, such as the recommended wilderness areas, are more generally provide conditions that can 88 support strong fish populations.

89 The Key Indicator for the Recommended Wilderness Area issue is the total acres in Recommended 90 wilderness in the Recommended Wilderness (RW) management area.

91 Wildlife 92 The Issue - The public is concerned that the proposed action does not adequately protect wildlife. They 93 want more protection for federally listed species such as grizzly bear, lynx, caribou, and other wildlife of 94 concern such as wolverine and northern goshawk. To protect these species, stakeholders want connected 95 habitats, habitats that are not disturbed by roads and trails, as well as more large trees and snags. Other 96 stakeholders are concerned that increasing wildlife protection decreases opportunities for recreation, 97 timber production and livelihoods.

98 Management for wildlife is not expected to impact aquatic resources other than the potential positive 99 effects of managing for late forest structure which is discussed under the Old Forest and Timber 100 Production issue. Therefore the Wildlife Issue will not be carried forward in this analysis and therefore 101 will not be discussed further.

102 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 103 The Issue - Some members of the public think that the proposed action does not adequately protect 104 riparian areas such as streams, lakes, wetlands, and rivers. They want the Forest Service to limit the 105 negative effects of roads, grazing, and off-highway vehicles in these areas. Other members of the public 106 are concerned that the protection of these aquatic resources limits timber production, grazing, and 107 recreation.

108 Evaluation Criteria 109 The protection of riparian ecosystems is central to all salmonid conservation efforts (FEMAT 1993, 110 Spence et al. 1996, and Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Watersheds prioritized for protection and 111 restoration are an important component of species conservation strategies (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) 112 and may be important to allow aquatic species to adapt to changing climatic conditions (ISAB 2007).

113 Each alternative will have an aquatic conservation strategy (ACS). The ACS will include the 114 identification of Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), management direction for the RMAs; 115 identification of Key Watersheds for the conservation and recovery of focal species and to provide high 116 quality water; desired conditions applicable to all watersheds across the CNF as well as desired conditions 117 for RMAs and Key Watersheds; and watershed/aquatic habitat restoration objectives.

118 The plan components, RMAs, management direction for RMAs, desired conditions, restoration objectives 119 and key watersheds, included in each alternative will be assessed for the potential effectiveness in 120 contributing to and enhancing the viability of focal fish species and to provide for good water quality. 121

3 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

122 Key Indicators 123 • ACS direction, RMA delineation and RMA management direction. 124 • Acres of Key Watersheds, management direction for Key Watersheds ,focal species within Key 125 Watersheds, critical habitat within Key Watersheds and Key Watershed objectives for Key 126 Watersheds and watershed restoration. 127 • Change in distribution of aquatic invasive species. Invasive species are a threat to aquatic and 128 terrestrial ecosystems. Aquatic invasive species include invasive plants, invertebrates, pathogens, 129 and non-native fish.1 Invasive species may disrupt the food web, compete with native species for 130 food and space, may be predators on native fish, or introduce diseases.

131 • Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments. The potential effects of 132 livestock grazing on fish habitat have been well documented (e.g. Platts 1991, Spence et al. 133 1996). The alternatives do not change grazing allotments so the management direction for grazing 134 within RMAs will be discussed. 135 136 137

1 Non-native fish introduced by state agencies in the past as sport fish are not considered invasive although it may now be understood that they can be a threat to native species and management actions may be implemented to reduce their numbers.

4 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

138 Relevant Laws, Regulations and Policy that Apply 139 Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) – Establishes the basic structure for regulating 140 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates quality standards for surface 141 waters.

142 Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA] (16 U.S.C 1531-1536, 1538-1540) – Provides for the 143 conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their 144 range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend.

145 36 CFR 219.19. The 1982 Planning Rule direction to managed fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable 146 populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area and direction 147 for Management Indicator Species.

148 The Interior Columbia Strategy, A Strategy For Applying The Knowledge Gained By The Interior 149 Columbia Ecosystem Management Project To The Revision Of Forest and Resource Management 150 Plans And Project Implementation (2003) and, A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and 151 Riparian Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan 152 Revisions, August 21, 2008. The two memos were issued by the Interior Columbia Deputy Team2.

153 National Environmental Policy Act

154 National Forest Management Act of 1976

155 The Rangewide Conservation Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Interior Redband 156 Trout. March 2014.

157 Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designation (75 FR 63898).

158 Inland native fish strategy environmental assessment decision notice and finding of no 159 significant impact: interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon 160 and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH) 1995.

161 Affected Environment

162 Overview 163 The 1.1 million acre CNF Forest accounts for approximately 2.6 percent of the total land area in 164 Washington State. The Forest is divided into four ranger districts comprising about one-third of the total 165 area of Ferry, Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties. Located in the northeast corner of Washington, the 166 CNF is bordered by British Columbia on the north; the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to the west; 167 the Idaho Panhandle National Forest to the east; and to the south by a portion of the Confederated Tribes 168 of the Colville Reservation. 169

2The Interior Columbia Deputy Team includes the Assistant Regional Director for the USFWS, the EPA Deputy Regional Administrator, the Deputy Regional Foresters for FS Regions 1, 4, 6, the BLM Idaho Deputy State Director for Resource Services, the BLM Oregon/Washington Deputy State Director for Resource Planning, Use and Protection, the NMFS Assistant Regional Administrator, the PNW and RMRS Deputy Station Director.

5

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

170 The Forest is divided by the 130-mile long Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area and a portion of the 171 Columbia River reservoir created by Grand Coulee Dam. The CNF is dominated by two north-south 172 mountain ranges; the 7,000 foot Selkirk Range that includes the Salmo-Priest Wilderness and the Kettle 173 River Range. The CNF is comprised of three zones with a unique climate, topography, and vegetation. 174 Dry forests of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominate the rolling landscape of the Okanogan Highlands 175 west of the Kettle Crest. The crest, a high ridge of subalpine fir, separates the western portion of the 176 Forest from the valleys and forested mountains to the east. To the east, within the Salmo-Priest 177 Wilderness in the Selkirk Range, the cedar and hemlock forest are comparable to those on the west side of 178 the Cascade Range. A more detailed description of the physiography, climate, geomorphology, and land 179 use history is included in the watershed section in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and in Day (2015). 180 181 The multiple uses of the forest landscape can affect the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics 182 and functions of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Principal Forest resources are timber, wildlife, fish, 183 water, forage, and recreation. The CNF annual timber harvest has averaged 41 million board feet 184 (MMBF) over the last 10 years. The average grazing program has included 29,500 animal unit months.

185 186 The CNF is popular with recreationists with over a half million recreation visitor days per year. Popular 187 activities include rustic camping, forest product gathering, off-highway vehicle use, four-season trail use, 188 driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, backcountry non-motorized travel, hunting and fishing, and wildlife 189 viewing. Fishing license sale revenue for the tri-county area (Pend Oreille, Ferry and Stevens counties), 190 where the Colville National Forest lies, averaged $292,987 per year for the period from 2007 through 191 2009. Approximately 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads provide access to recreation areas and 192 areas to collect renewable forest products such as firewood, berries, rocks, mushrooms, and Christmas 193 trees. The Colville National Forest manages 32 campgrounds, 2 candidate wild and scenic rivers, the 194 Salmo-Priest wilderness, a ski area (49 Degrees North), and administers 15 recreation residences. These 195 management activities and uses of the Forest can impact the quality and function of riparian and aquatic 196 habitat. The following describes the current conditions on the CNF and the process used to determine the 197 conditions.

198 Riparian Habitat 199 Riparian zones are found adjacent to streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands, providing a transitional zone 200 between terrestrial and aquatic components of the landscape (Gregory et al. 1991). Although riparian 201 zones occupy a small part of the overall CNF land base; they support a diverse vegetation community not 202 found in the upland areas. Riparian zones provide important foraging, cover, travel corridors, and nesting 203 habitat for birds, small and large mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Healthy riparian zones with an 204 abundance of trees and other native woody species and forbs provide for channel and floodplain stability 205 and integrity. Healthy riparian vegetation adjacent to streams and on floodplains slow flood waters and 206 reduce the likelihood of downstream flooding. 207 208 Riparian zones improve water quality by filtering runoff, sediment, and nutrients from adjacent upland 209 slopes. Riparian zones provide stream cover and shade which helps keep the summer water temperatures 210 cool for salmonids and other aquatic species, and are a source of large woody debris to stream channels. 211 Riparian zones also contribute to the aquatic food base as a source of terrestrial insects that fall into 212 channels and by providing detritus input which is used by myriad of macroinvertebrate species, which in 213 turn are forage for fish and certain bird species such as the American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). 214 Healthy, functioning riparian zones are vital for providing good water quality and diverse aquatic habitat 215 (Naiman et al. 1992, FEMAT 1993). 216

6

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

217 Riparian conditions on the CNF are highly variable. Overall, some riparian zones on the forest are 218 functioning at or near their potential or are considered to be improving. However, there are many areas 219 where they are functioning below their potential. Degraded riparian conditions have primarily resulted 220 from livestock grazing, mining, timber harvest, fire management, road development, and water 221 diversions. Livestock grazing has been the most important factor leading to bank damage, conversion of 222 riparian vegetation species to upland species or non-native species, and sedimentation. On forested 223 landscapes, silviculture, road building, and fire suppression have altered riparian conditions by changing 224 the riparian vegetation composition and structure; reducing the amount of large trees that provide large 225 woody debris and shade; and altering channel morphology. To a lesser degree, disturbances associated 226 with developed and dispersed recreation have impacted riparian habitat. Additional information regarding 227 the current condition of riparian habitat is contained in the watershed section of DEIS Chapter 3 and in 228 Day (2015) and later in this report.

229 Stream Channel Conditions 230 There are a variety of aquatic and riparian ecosystems on the CNF: streams, rivers, ponds, reservoirs, 231 wetlands, and riparian areas. These ecosystems support complex communities of vertebrate and 232 invertebrate aquatic life along with an assortment of riparian and aquatic plants. The CNF includes 233 approximately 6,670 miles of stream including approximately 2,480 miles of perennial stream and 4,190 234 miles of intermittent stream.3 Approximately 500 stream miles are fish bearing. All streams within the 235 CNF eventually flow into the Columbia River. There are no anadromous fish (i.e. salmon and steelhead) 236 on the CNF as passage onto the Forest was blocked with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam. 237 238 Stream channel morphology responds to the flow of water and soil and vegetative inputs from adjacent 239 land forms creating distinctive patterns such as pools, riffles, glides and side channels. Different channel 240 characteristics during varying flows provide a diverse range of aquatic habitats. Several fish habitat 241 features have been used as objectives in the current forest plan as amended by INFISH and are displayed 242 in Figure 1 below (figure 1 was obtained from USDA Forest Service 1995).

3 As defined in the hydrology report these streams have intermittent flow—either seasonally or spatially (may go subsurface through a portion of their length). The intermittent category for purposes of this analysis also includes ephemeral channels, which flow for a short period following precipitation or snowmelt. Ephemeral streams generally do not have the surface groundwater interaction to support riparian or wetland vegetation and do not show evidence of yearly scour

7

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

243 244 Figure 1. Interim INFISH Management Objectives

245 In 1989, the CNF began to use stream surveys as the dominant inventory/monitoring tool to assess stream 246 function and condition. By the end of 2012, greater than 95% of fish-bearing streams have been 247 inventoried on the CNF. Many streams have been inventoried twice. The results of the surveys show that 248 many of the reaches surveyed are not meeting the Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) as defined 249 by INFISH. 250 251 A limiting factor for understanding the individual potential of most streams on the CNF has been the lack 252 of reference conditions from similar stream reaches in unmanaged or lightly managed watersheds. 253 However, many stream reaches are not meeting the RMOs and the aquatic habitat is judged to be 254 functioning at risk or not properly functioning as described in the following Species Status, Watershed 255 Condition and Foundation for Effects Assessment discussion. Based on the existing stream inventory data, 256 common deficiencies in stream habitat conditions on the CNF include: 257 • Pools per mile are limited and large pools (greater than 3 feet in depth) even more so, thus 258 limiting overwintering, spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.

8

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

259 • Large woody debris per mile is limited along many reaches. Large wood can be an important 260 channel structural component that helps create pools and provide cover for fish. 261 • Watersheds in the eastern half of the forest, particularly in the south half of the Pend Oreille River 262 subbasin are composed of predominately sensitive, decomposed granitic land types making them 263 at greater risk for increased erosion from land management activities. 264 • Watersheds with active livestock grazing and heavy dispersed recreation use are more likely to 265 have some reaches with excessive bank disturbance resulting in reduced stream bank cover and 266 widening stream channels due to localized bank erosion and sediment deposits. Increases in 267 channel width result in decreased stream depths and more surface area exposed to solar radiation 268 making the streams more susceptible to increased water temperatures. 269 • Watersheds with high road densities and with roads located within riparian areas are more likely 270 to have some reaches displaying stream bank alteration with reduced stream bank cover and 271 accelerated sediment delivery to the channels from road surfaces. 272 273 Stream channel and watershed conditions will be further discussed later in this report.

274 Lakes 275 There are 102 lakes, ponds and reservoirs on the CNF, the largest of which is Sullivan Lake. Most lakes 276 are low elevation. There are very few high elevation lakes on the CNF. The lakes range from 0.6 acres to 277 large reservoirs. A majority of the lakes and reservoirs are stocked with salmonids for sport fishing. The 278 riparian habitat around many of the lakes has been affected by both dispersed and developed recreational 279 use. Activities such as dispersed recreational camping and fishing result in limited, isolated damage, 280 particularly along near-shore areas. Fluctuating reservoir levels due to hydropower energy production 281 affects near-shore aquatic and wetland plant and animal communities, and the success of near-shore fish 282 spawning. The impacts due to hydropower are or will be addressed during hydropower project 283 relicensing and will be highlighted later in this report. 284 285 Some shallow-water lakes and large reservoirs are presently being affected by the spread of invasive 286 aquatic plants such as Eurasian water-milfoil (EWM), Yellow Flag Iris (YFI), and curly pondweed (CP). 287

288 Table 1. Lakes and Reservoirs occupied by Invasive Aquatic Species Lake/Reservoir Name Invasive Aquatic Species Boundary Reservoir EWM,CP Box Canyon Reservoir EWM,CP Sherry Lake EWM Gillette Lake EWM Thomas Lake EWM Heritage Lake EWM Nile Lake EWM Bead Lake EWM Marshall Lake EWM Pierre Lake YFI

289 Water Quality 290 Streams and lakes on the CNF generally have good quality. Where water quality is impaired, as defined 291 by Clean Water Act standards, the primary pollutants are fecal coliform high stream temperature, 292 dissolved oxygen and pH. Approximately three miles of stream are listed as water quality impaired for

9 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

293 fecal coliform, 15 miles for temperature, 15 miles for pH and 22 miles for dissolved oxygen. A more 294 complete discussion of the current water quality on the Forest and actions to improve water quality is 295 included in the watershed section of Chapter 3 in the DEIS and in Day (2015).

296 Species Status, Watershed Condition and Foundation for Effects Assessment

297 Background 298 The 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) requires the USDA Forest Service to set up a 299 process for the development and revision of land and resource management plans (LRMP) for Forests and 300 Grasslands throughout the United States. The first planning rule, adopted in 1979 and amended in 1982 301 and 1983, known as the 1982 planning rule, has guided the development, amendment and revision of the 302 majority of current land management plans in effect throughout the National Forest System (NFS) lands. 303 The 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.19) requires National Forests to manage habitat in order “to 304 maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 305 area”, and further defines a viable population as “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution 306 of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area”.

307 The USDA has attempted to revise the planning rule provisions several times since the original planning 308 rule was implemented in 1982. Between 2000 and 2008, three new planning rules were proposed, 309 challenged, and ultimately remanded back to the USDA by the US District Court. Direction for 310 management of species differs between the 2000/2005/2008 and 1982 planning rules in regards to 311 viability and sustainability of species. Under the 2000, 2005, and 2008 Planning Rules, National Forests 312 were required to assess “the contribution of National Forest System (NFS) lands to the sustainability of 313 ecosystems and species” as opposed to “maintaining viable population of species”.

314 After the 2008 planning rule was remanded back to the USFS, the CNF was again revising the LRMP 315 with the 1982 planning rule. Although a new planning rule was released in 2012, the CNF, which started 316 plan revision under the 2000 planning rule, decided to complete their plan revision under the 1982 317 planning rule. The plan will be revised under the transition provisions of the 2012 Planning rule (36 CFR 318 219), which state that the responsible official may complete and approve the plan revision in conformance 319 with the provisions of the prior planning regulation, including the transition provisions of the reinstated 320 2000 rule (36 CFR part 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). The 321 transition provisions allow the use of the 1982 planning procedures (See CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised 322 as of July 1, 2000). Given that the 1982 planning rule is again in place, the objective of this evaluation 323 (starting in 2010) was to refine the current “ecological sustainability” model where appropriate to ensure 324 the evaluation approach addresses “species viability” criteria of the 1982 planning, while meeting the 325 intent of the 2012 planning rule. The remainder of this section will describe the status of aquatic species 326 on the CNF and the condition of watersheds on the CNF.

327 Watershed hierarchy is a key concept to understand. Watersheds are natural divisions of the landscape and 328 the basic functioning unit of hydrologic systems and processes. Watersheds can be described or analyzed 329 in a variety of scales ranging from large river basins to individual streams.

330 Watersheds are hierarchical (smaller ones are nested within larger ones) making them an appropriate 331 context for considering many ecological processes. Physical processes such as rainfall, runoff, erosion, 332 and sedimentation interact within the watershed boundaries to shape the landscape. Biological processes 333 also occur within watershed boundaries. Environmental changes commonly culminate and appear at the 334 watershed scale. Changes in soil, vegetation, topography, and chemicals change the quantity and quality 335 of water, sediment, and organic material that flow through a watershed influencing the characteristics of

10 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

336 stream channels and aquatic habitat. The different watershed scales are identified through a numbering 337 system called the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). The hydrologic unit system is a standardized watershed 338 classification developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). Hydrologic units are watershed boundaries 339 organized in a nested hierarchy by size. They range in size from regions to smaller units.4 For this 340 analysis three scales of watershed will be discussed in order of decreasing hierarchy (see Figure 2): 341 subbasin (HUC 8), watershed (HUC10), and subwatershed (HUC 12). Additional information and 342 explanation of the watershed hierarchy is contained in the watershed section of DEIS Chapter 3 and in 343 Day (2014). 344 345 The CNF includes five subbasins that provide the framework for describing the fish species status and 346 subsequently assessing the effects of different alternatives. (Table 2).5

347 Table 2. Major Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), and Size Subbasin Name (8th HUC Total Subbasin Size CNF Acres level HUC*) (Acres)

Sanpoil River 17020004 627,732 105,291

Kettle River 17020002 659,201 321,743

Upper Columbia 17020001 1,327,733 212,863 River-Lake Roosevelt

Colville River 17020003 650,712 145,579

Pend Oreille River 17010216 698,349 557,449

348

349

4 See http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. 5 The Forest includes a small portion of the Upper Spokane subbasin but there are no fish-bearing streams within the subbasin on Forest so the Upper Spokane subbasin is not discussed.

11 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Figure 2. A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic and riparian resources. 350 12

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

351 In order to meet the sustainability requirements of the 2000 planning rule, the CNF (with the Okanogan- 352 Wenatchee National Forest and Blue Mountain National Forests), participated in a Region 6 pilot effort to 353 develop a process to address the contribution of National Forest System (NFS) lands to the “sustainability 354 of aquatic species”. The result of the regional pilot process is a paper titled, Process for Evaluating the 355 Contribution of National Forest System Lands to Aquatic Ecological Sustainability (Reiss et al. 2008). 356 Reiss et al. (2008) developed the Aquatic Ecological Condition (AEC) model to evaluate the status of 357 local populations of focal species and their habitat at the HUC12 or sub-watershed scale. The results are 358 then aggregated to produce an ecological sustainability or viability outcome for each focal species at the 359 subbasin (HUC 8) scale.

360 The following describes process used for assessing the current status of aquatic species, watershed and 361 habitat condition. More detail, including the complete scientific basis for the AEC, is provided in Reiss et 362 al. (2008).

363 Aquatic Species Assessment and Current Status 364 The process developed by Reiss et al. (2008) relies on the use of “focal species” to assess current aquatic 365 species status and later to assess the potential effects of alternatives on species viability. There are many 366 aquatic native and non-native species that inhabit streams and rivers on the CNF. It is not possible to 367 analyze viability for all the aquatic species present in subbasins within CNF lands. The focal species serve 368 as surrogates for other aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species.

369 There are limitations to the focal species approach. The assumption that the condition and needs of one 370 species will overlap completely with other species, even those with the same habitat association, is 371 inherently problematic. The intent is that by analyzing and assessing the viability of focal species that 372 utilize a variety of habitats at different temporal and spatial scales, and designing conservation strategies 373 that address the results of the analysis, other aquatic species will benefit. Species that should not be 374 selected as focal species include those about which very little is known and those that are dependent 375 exclusively or primarily on habitat that is not substantially affected by management of National Forest 376 System lands (FSH 1909.14 Chapter 43.22d, as cited in Reiss et al. 2008).

377 The process to determine focal species includes four steps (Reiss et al. 2008):

378 Step 1(a) - Create a list of all known fish species and other aquatic species found on lands managed by the 379 Forest and adjacent to the Forest.

380 Step 1(b) - Determine Species-at-risk

381 Step 2 - Identify Applicable Spawning and Rearing Habitat Associations for Each Species

382 Step 3 - Categorize the Species-at-risk Identified Above into Habitat Associations

383 Step 4 - Choose Species From Each Association as Focal to Serve as Indicators of Other Species 384 Occupying the Same Habitat.

385 Colville National Forest Focal Species 386 Step 1(a) - Create a list of all known fish species and other aquatic species found on lands managed by 387 the Forest and adjacent to the Forest.

388

13 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

389 The following species and associated narratives are from Reiss et al. (2008) unless otherwise cited.

390 Family ACIPENSERIDAE

391 White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) occur predominantly in the mainstem Columbia River and are 392 identified in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin plan as present, though all records are below the Forest 393 boundary. The white sturgeon is a long lived, large bodied species that inhabit deep water, using fast 394 moving tributaries for spawning. The only known spawning site in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin is near 395 the confluence of the Pend Oreille and Columbia Rivers.

396 Family SALMONIDAE

397 Westslope cutthroat trout (WSCT) (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). WSCT are the native cutthroat trout 398 within the CNF (see Behnke 2002). WSCT are estimated to currently occupy approximately 59% of the 399 species’ total historic range and 58% of the historic range in Washington state (May 2009). WSCT are 400 presently found in all five subbasins on the Forest, however distribution of this species is extremely 401 limited. Historically, fluvial or adfluvial populations existed within the Kettle River, Sanpoil, Pend Oreille 402 and Colville subbasins. 6 The native adfluvial and fluvial life history is nearly extirpated with most 403 remaining native populations exhibiting a resident life history form. WSCT is a Forest Service Region 6 404 sensitive species.

405 With the exception of annually stocked lowland lakes, WSCT are generally found in headwater streams 406 where stream temperatures are cold and human impact is limited. The conversion of riverine habitat on 407 the Pend Oreille and Columbia Rivers into reservoirs without providing fish passage as well as dams and 408 dikes on major tributaries have possibly eliminated the migratory life-history forms of WSCT .

409 Historic land management practices including logging, grazing, and road construction has impacted 410 WSCT habitat. Additionally, the introduction of the coastal rainbow (O. mykiss irredius) Yellowstone 411 cutthroat (O.clarki bouvieri) have led to hybridization of WSCT populations. The WSCT historic 412 distribution on the CNF may have been reduced through the introduction of non-native brook trout 413 (Salvelinus fontinalis), as brook trout have been found to displace cutthroat trout (Benjamin and Baxter 414 2010, Peterson et al. 2004). Most genetically pure WSCT populations are located behind either dams or 415 natural falls or are found in high gradient headwaters.

416 Trotter et al. (2001) conducted a genetic analysis from nineteen stream trout populations on the CNF. The 417 populations were ranked from A to F depending upon the level of genetic introgression. A population 418 received an A ranking – Pure stock if all individuals carried genetic markers of the species or subspecies 419 of interest, and there was no history of stocking the water with hatchery fish of the same species or 420 subspecies. A population received a B ranking if one to nine percent of the individuals sampled carried 421 evidence of genetic influence from another species or subspecies, but appearance-wise are all “good” 422 representatives of the species or subspecies of interest. The B ranking also applied to populations with no 423 detectable hybridization, but there was a history of stocking the water with hatchery fish of the same 424 species or subspecies. Trotter et al. (2001) concluded that the WSCT populations in the South Fork 425 Sanpoil, Rocky Creek, Silver Creek and East Fork Smalle Creek merited an A-rating. Additionally, the 426 populations in Fourth of July Creek, Harvey Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek, Upper Sullivan Creek, 427 Slate Creek and Cedar Creek and East Branch Le Clerc Creek were given B ratings.

6 In general terms a fluvial life history refers to a species that exhibits a migratory life history where spawning and early rearing occur in tributary streams and then juvenile fish migrate to larger streams to rear and mature before returning to the natal stream to spawn. An adfluvial life history is similar to fluvial but the juvenile fish migrate to a lake to rear and mature before returning to the natal stream to spawn. A resident life history refers to fish that spawn and rear in the same stream although they may move throughout the stream during their life cycle.

14

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

428 The re-licensing terms for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project include the construction and operation of a 429 hatchery to produce native salmonids to outplant into tributaries draining into Boundary Reservoir. 430 Initially the priority species would be WSCT but could include bull trout or other native salmonids. The 431 terms of the re-licensing also include establishing population goals to establish self-sustaining populations 432 of the native fish. Seattle City Light is to monitoring the success of the outplanting program until the 433 population goals are met.

434 Interior redband trout (O. mykiss gairdneri) are a form of rainbow trout native to the east side of the 435 Cascade Mountain crest (Behnke 2002). Redband trout are distributed within the Kettle, Sanpoil, Upper 436 Columbia, and Colville subbasins. This species is identified as a SOI due to its status as a Forest Service 437 Region 6 sensitive species. Naturally occurring pure WSCT and interior redband usually do not inhabit 438 the same streams on the Forest.

439 Coastal rainbow trout have been stocked in lakes and streams on the CNF for over 80 years by county and 440 state fish and game agencies. The past stocking has led to introgression between the two subspecies in 14 441 sub-watersheds. All local populations appear exhibit only the resident in life history form although 442 historically migratory life history forms were likely present. May et al. 2012 (see their Tables 3 and 4) 443 estimate that within the subbasins included on the CNF (including all ownerships), redband trout 444 currently occupy 1,655 kilometers (23%) of the historically occupied 7,174 kilometers of stream. Trotter 445 et al. (2001) found pure redband trout in Lone Ranch and Canyon Creeks. The Kettle subbasin has the 446 pure redband trout populations in Deadman Creek and tributaries, Trout Creek and tributaries, Little 447 Boulder Creek, South Fork Saint Peters Creek, Tonata Creek and tributaries, Lone Ranch, and Pierre 448 Creek. The Upper Columbia subbasin has populations in Canyon Creek, Lane Creek, Hall Creek, Nancy 449 Creek, and Barnaby Creek. South Fork Obrien Creek has the only population in the Sanpoil subbasin. 450 The Colville subbasin has two small population in the South Fork of Chewelah Creek and Strauss Creek. 451 There are no known populations in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Competition with the introduced brook 452 trout may be limiting redband trout populations as well.

453 Like the WSCT, interior redband trout tributary habitat has also been degraded by historic management 454 practices such as logging, road building and grazing resulting in accelerated sediment delivery to streams, 455 and degraded riparian vegetation and fish habitat.

456 On March 3, 2013 the Regional Forester for USDA Forest Service Region 6 signed the Rangewide 457 Conservation Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Interior Redband Trout. The 458 agreement outlines a process of cooperation, coordination, and data sharing among the entities with either 459 management responsibility or interest for the conservation of interior redband trout. The intent of the 460 agreement is to enhance the cooperation and coordination of interior redband trout conservation efforts. 461 Other signatories include the Regional Foresters of Forest Service Regions 1, 4, and 5; the states of 462 California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, the USDI Bureau of Land Management, the USDI 463 Fish and Wildlife Service; five Indian Tribes and Trout Unlimited.

464 Coastal rainbow trout (O. m. irredius) are not native to the CNF but have been planted widely across the 465 state as a game fish. Pure populations that have not inter-bred with native rainbow have been identified 466 via genetic testing in three of five subbasins on the forest: Colville, Pend Oreille and Lake Roosevelt. 467 Coastal rainbow trout commonly hybridize with interior redband trout or WSCT.

468 Kokanee (O. nerka kennerlyi). Kokanee salmon, a landlocked form of sockeye salmon are a very 469 desirable sport fish. Historically, anadromous sockeye salmon were found in northeast Washington and 470 southern British Columbia. The anadromous sockeye life history ended with the construction of Grand 471 Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. The presence of kokanee on the CNF appears to have originated

15

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

472 through stocking programs. Kokanee are annually stocked by WDFW in Lake Roosevelt. Kokanee 473 spawn in Sullivan and Pierre Lakes on the Forest.

474 Kokanee from Lake Roosevelt attempt to spawn in the Sanpoil River tributaries on the Forest although 475 success has not been documented. With the exception of the Lake Roosevelt adfluvial population, 476 kokanee are generally found in oligotrophic lakes, where water temperatures are cold. The species 477 provides an important subsistence fishery for the Colville Tribe and a sport fishery for local communities.

478 Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) Sullivan and Bead Lakes are two of only nine lakes in Washington 479 State thought to support remnant pygmy whitefish populations. In 2004 the species was also found in 480 Mill Pond Reservoir which is downstream of Sullivan Lake. Pygmy whitefish sometimes use tributary 481 streams to spawn but can also spawn in shallow lakebed habitat. The main threats that have been 482 identified for pygmy whitefish are introduced predatory species, silting of spawning streams and lake 483 euthrophication.

484 Mountain whitefish (P. williamsoni) are found in two subbasins on the forest, the Kettle and Pend Oreille. 485 Whitefish display seasonal movements from streams for spawning and feeding to deep, slow water for 486 over-wintering habitat. Spawning occurs in late fall as females broadcast adhesive eggs over a gravel 487 substrate. Mountain whitefish are not found in the small streams on the CNF but in the larger systems that 488 primarily do not flow through the CNF.

489 Brown trout (Salmo trutta) are an introduced fish originating in northern Europe. Reproducing, self- 490 sustaining populations exist in four subbasins on the Forest. In the Pend Oreille subbasin brown trout are 491 abundant in tributaries to Boundary and Box Canyon Reservoirs. Substantial populations exist in 492 Sullivan, Le Clerc, Cee Cee Ah, Skookum and Indian Creeks. Brown trout are also found in the Colville 493 River subbasin, primarily in Chewelah Creek. In the Kettle River subbasin, brown trout are annually 494 stocked in Renner Lake for recreational fishing. Large adult brown trout have been found in the main 495 Sanpoil River, however no spawning activity has been observed on National Forest lands. With the 496 exception of a population in Renner Lake, all other populations appear exhibit adfluvial or fluvial life 497 histories.

498 Brown trout tend to be an effective predator in lakes, rivers and streams. Brown trout are abundant in the 499 large rivers and reservoirs. The bull trout draft recovery plans for north central Washington recommend 500 removal of brown trout and other non-native fish as a strategy for recovery.

501 Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are a native char species in the interior Columbia Basin. Bull trout 502 exhibit a variety of life history strategies in the inland Columbia Basin: fluvial, adfluvial and resident and 503 all three life history strategies may be found within the same population (USFWS 2014). Bull trout have 504 the most specific habitat requirements of the native salmonids: requiring colder water temperatures 505 compared to other salmonids; the cleanest substrates; complex stream habitat including deep pools, 506 overhanging banks and large woody debris; and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and 507 downstream foraging, migration , and overwintering habitats (USFWS 2014).

508 Bull trout were listed as a Threatened Species under the ESA in 1998 (63 FR 31647). Bull trout were once 509 widely distributed in four of the five subbasins that overlay the CNF but are currently considered to be 510 extirpated in the Sanpoil, and Kettle River subbasins (USFWS 2014). They are found in very small 511 numbers in the Pend Oreille subbasin, and although considered extirpated in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin 512 (USFWS 2014), bull trout have recently been observed in Sheep Creek. Native Americans historically 513 fished for bull trout in the Sanpoil River, and Le Clerc Creek.

16

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

514 The CNF lies within the Pend Oreille Core Area (USFWS 2014). A core area represents the closest 515 approximation of a biologically functioning unit consisting of habitat that could supply all the necessary 516 elements for every life stage (e.g. spawning, rearing, migratory and adult) and include one or more groups 517 of bull trout (USFWS 2014). While overall the bull trout populations in the Pend Oreille Core area are 518 considered stable with a moderate, but not imminent risk of extinction in the last status review (USFWS 519 2008),local bull trout population numbers on the CNF appear to be very low putting the populations at 520 high risk of extirpation (see Rieman and McIntyre 1993). There have been few recent observations of bull 521 trout on the CNF. The most recent observations include:

522 1. Cedar Creek (Stevens County) - the watershed is primarily in the U.S. but the lower reaches are in 523 B.C. Two juvenile bull trout were found in the lower portion of Cedar Creek in Canada by British 524 Columbia biologists in 1996. There are numerous road crossings with the potential to block fish 525 passage in the lower part of the drainage. Day snorkeling the East Fork Cedar Creek on NFS lands in 526 1996 did not find bull trout presence.

527 2. South Fork Salmo River - over 90% of the larger Salmo River watershed is in B.C. The Salmo River 528 has a relatively healthy population of bull trout. Juvenile bull trout were observed while snorkeling 529 in the Canadian portion of the South Fork in 1998. Juvenile and adult bull trout were captured as 530 early as 1975 and as late as 1995 in the portion of the watershed within the U.S. This portion is 531 within the Salmo-Priest Wilderness. Most of the Salmo River bull trout habitat is in Canada so the 532 Salmo River system was not included within the core area.

533 3. Slate Creek - Five individual bull trout were caught in the mouth of this creek between 1994 and 534 1997. One individual was caught twice. All were adult except for one juvenile.

535 4. Sullivan Creek - one adult bull trout was found poached in lower Sullivan Creek in 1994 below Mill 536 Pond Dam, an impassable blockage to fish approximately 3.25 miles from the mouth.

537 5. Cedar Creek (Ione Creek) (Pend Oreille County) - one adult bull trout observed while snorkeling in 538 1995 above the old municipal dam for Ione. The dam was removed in 2005.

539 6. Le Clerc Creek - three juvenile bull trout were found while electrofishing in the East and West 540 Branches in 1993. Two juvenile bull trout were observed during snorkeling in the East Branch in 541 1995. One juvenile bull trout was observed while snorkeling in the East Branch in 1998. According 542 to USFWS (2012) there has been no recent documentation of bull trout juveniles or spawning since 543 2001 when a bull trout was observed on a redd and the population likely no longer exists.

544 7. Mill Creek (Pend Oreille County) - One adult bull trout was observed during snorkeling within the 545 lowest mile of the creek in 1995.

546 8. Indian Creek - one bull trout was observed while snorkeling on the lowest mile of this creek on 547 private lands in 1997.

548 Bull trout are threatened by historical and current land use activities. The construction and operation of 549 Albeni Falls, Box Canyon, and Boundary Dams on the Pend Oreille River have fragmented habitat, and 550 impeded bull trout migration. The construction of other dams and diversions without fish passage in Pend 551 Oreille River tributaries have further fragmented habitat and reduced connectivity. Habitat has been also 552 degraded by past timber harvest and livestock grazing. The introduction of non-native species continues 553 to impact bull trout populations through competition, predation, and hybridization (USFWS 2002, 554 USFWS 2014).

17

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

555 The presence of brook trout, which are widespread on the CNF, pose a particular threat to bull trout. Bull 556 trout and brook trout would hybridize resulting in hybrid offspring that are often, but not always sterile. 557 Where hybridization occurs declines in the bull trout population or even local extirpations have occurred 558 (see USFWS 2014). Brook trout may have a competitive advantage over bull trout and displace bull trout 559 displacing bull trout into higher elevation streams, especially at warmer water temperatures (Rieman et al. 560 2006, McMahon et al. 2007, Rodtka and Volpe 2007).

561 The re-licensing terms for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project include programs to improve conditions 562 for bull trout and aid recovery of the population. The programs identified include improving passage for 563 fish both upstream and downstream of the dam; riparian and stream channel habitat improvement; 564 improving road conditions; and non-native trout suppression and eradication programs (USFWS 2012). 565 However, the USFWS (2012, page 160) acknowledges that it may take 14 years before benefits of the 566 programs result in slow but steady increases in bull trout numbers.

567 The USFWS (2002) states that for recovery bull trout local populations need to be re-established in Cedar 568 Creek (Pend Oreille County), Indian Creek, Mill Creek, Sullivan Creek (including Sullivan Lake and 569 tributaries) Slate Creek, Calispell Creek, Tacoma Creek, Ruby Creek, and the Le Clerc Creek complex 570 (including the East and West Fork of Le Clerc Creek and Fourth of July Creek).

571 Bull trout critical habitat on the CNF has been designated in Cedar Creek, Slate Creek, Sullivan Creek, Le 572 Clerc Creek, Mill Creek and Indian Creek, Ruby, Tacoma, Smalle, and Winchester Creeks (75 FR 573 63898).

574 Brook trout (S. fontinalis) are an introduced char species from the eastern U.S. that have been planted 575 widely across the state as a game fish for the last 80 to 90 years becoming widely distributed in all five 576 subbasins that overlay the Forest. The species is abundant in most subwatersheds within the subbasins.

577 Brook trout seem to be limited by natural or unnatural barriers and very high gradients found in most 578 headwaters on the forest. Most populations exhibit only a resident in life history. Presently, brook trout 579 are only stocked on the Forest in lakes without inlets or outlets. The brook trout is a desirable sport fish. 580 Brook trout have been found to inter-breed with and out-compete native bull trout. Brook trout are also 581 known to have negative impacts on native WSCT populations through inter-specific competition and 582 predation. Though there is little research on the effect of brook trout stocking on native rainbow 583 populations, habitat overlap would likely create competition between these species as well. Under the 584 terms of the FERC re-licensing for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project, Seattle City Light will be 585 sponsoring non-native trout, particularly brook trout, suppression and eradication projects.

586 Lake trout (S. namaycush) are an introduced species found only in Bead Lake on the Forest. Lake trout 587 are a popular sport fish. The species is occasionally caught in Lake Roosevelt, and Box Canyon and 588 Boundary Reservoirs when the fish become entrained out of Priest or Pend Oreille Lake. Lake trout live 589 in lakes and have a piscivorous diet. Lake trout compete with bull trout and are considered one of the 590 biggest threats to bull trout populations in the Lake Pend Oreille Core Area. Efforts to control the lake 591 trout population in Lake Pend Oreille including angler incentive programs, and trap and gill netting 592 programs (see USFW 2012 page 113). Spawning takes place in the fall in shoals, but no redds are created.

593 Family CYPRINIDAE

594 Tench (Tinca tinca) are an introduced species that is found on the Forest in the Pend Oreille and Colville 595 subbasins. They inhabit the Little Pend Oreille Lakes, Parker, and Sullivan Lakes on the Forest. Tench 596 inhabit the shallow areas of lakes and ponds in dense vegetation. Spawning occurs from late May through 597 late June.

18 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

598 Chiselmouth (Arcocheilus alutaceus) inhabit lakes and slow streams east of the Cascade Range and are 599 considered “common to abundant” in the upper Columbia River. The species is found in waters adjacent 600 to the Forest in the Pend Oreille, Lake Roosevelt and San Poil subbasins. This species is also present on 601 the Forest in Cusick creek, a tributary to Box Canyon reservoir in the Pend Oreille subbasin.

602 Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus) is found on the Forest only in Bead Lake in the Pend Oreille subbasin. 603 The species is also found in Lake Roosevelt and Box Canyon and Boundary Reservoirs adjacent to the 604 forest. Peamouth primarily inhabit lakes and reservoirs. They occupy the deeper habitat during the day 605 and move to shallows at night. Spawning occurs from late May through early June in streams and among 606 lake shores on a gravel or rubble bottom.

607 Northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) are a native species that have increased in numbers on 608 the mainstem Columbia and Pend Oreille Rivers as dams have created large, slow-water systems. Most 609 pikeminnow are found adjacent to the Forest in Lake Roosevelt, Box Canyon and Boundary Reservoirs 610 and the lower San Poil River. Presence on the CNF has been documented in one body of water, Bead 611 Lake. Pikeminnow inhabit lakes and slow water areas of streams. As juveniles they consume aquatic 612 insects, but in adult form are highly piscivorous.

613 Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are a common stream species that are found in the Lake 614 Roosevelt and Pend Oreille subbasins adjacent to the forest. They mainly inhabit fast water portions of 615 cool streams, though they may move to slower water refuges during the winter months.

616 Speckled dace (R. osculus) presence has only been documented on the forest in Sullivan Lake in the Pend 617 Oreille subbasin but the species also occurs in the Colville River subbasin adjacent to the forest. This 618 species is a generalist and inhabits streams and lakes.

619 Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) are found in lakes and slow-water habitat. The species is found 620 in the San Poil River, Cottonwood Creek and Sullivan Lake in the Colville, Pend Oreille and San Poil 621 subbasins, respectively on the forest. Shiners have the potential to compete with juvenile trout and 622 kokanee for food resources where habitat overlaps and are also important as a forage fish for larger trout.

623 Umatilla dace (R. umatilla) Umatilla dace are found in the Columbia River Basin east of the Cascade 624 Mountains from Umatilla, OR to British Columbia, Canada. In Washington State, Umatilla dace 625 specimens have been reported from the Columbia, Yakima, Okanogan, Similkameen, Kettle and Colville 626 Rivers. It is not known if Umatilla dace inhabit waters within the CNF boundary.

627 Family CATOSTOMIDAE

628 Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) are found on the Forest only in the Pend Oreille subbasin in 629 both Bead and Sullivan Lakes. This species is also found in Lake Roosevelt and Box Canyon and 630 Boundary Reservoirs adjacent to the forest. Primary habitat is coldwater lakes and streams, with early 631 spring spawning and only short migrations recorded.

632 Bridgelip sucker (C. columbianus) lives in pools and backwaters of larger rivers, primarily on the east 633 side of the Cascade Range. This species is present in the Lake Roosevelt and San Poil subbasins adjacent 634 to or downriver from the forest.

635 Largescale sucker (C. macrocheilus) are found throughout waters adjacent to the Forest but have only 636 been documented on the Forest in the Pend Oreille subbasin. These are the most common of all sucker 637 species inhabiting both lakes and streams. Larger, slow moving systems are favored.

638 Family GADIDAE

19

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

639 Burbot (Lota lota) is the only freshwater species of cod found in North America. Burbot are found in 640 Sullivan and Bead Lakes in the Pend Oreille subbasin on the forest. This species is also found in Lake 641 Roosevelt adjacent to the forest. Burbot feed on other lake fish species, foraging more actively in the 642 summer. Spawning takes place in late winter. It is presently unclear whether burbot was native to the 643 CNF or introduced.

644 Family CENTRARCHIDAE

645 Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is an introduced species from the eastern U.S. The species is 646 found in Pierre, Ellen and Pepoon Lakes on the Forest, in the Lake Roosevelt and Kettle subbasins. 647 Largemouth bass is tolerant of warm water and does best in shallow weedy lakes and the backwaters of 648 rivers.

649 Smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui) is an introduced species from the eastern and midwestern U.S. The 650 species is found in Boundary and Box Canyon Reservoirs in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Smallmouth bass 651 is tolerant of warm water but usually inhabits cool, clear streams or lakes with some current.

652 Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) is also an introduced species from the eastern U.S. The species 653 is found in Pierre Lake, Kettle subbasin, on the Forest. Black crappie is generally found in the clear 654 waters of large streams or in reservoirs and medium-sized lakes.

655 Family COTTIDAE

656 Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) is found in riffles in stream systems. It is found in 13 subwatersheds in 657 the subbasins of the Sanpoil, the Colville (Chewelah Creek, Mill Creek), the Kettle River (Deadman 658 Creek), and the Pend Oreille (Big and Little Muddy Creeks, Jim Creek, Lost Creek, Sullivan Creek, 659 Smalle Creek, Ruby Creek, Skookum Creek, and Winchester Creek).

660 Aquatic Invertebrates:

661 California Floater (Anodonta californiensis) is a native mussel that is found from Mexico to southern 662 British Columbia. It is known to occur near the mouth of the Kettle River and in Curlew Lake in the 663 Kettle subbasin, near the mouth of the Colville River in the Colville subbasin and in Cusick Creek in the 664 Pend Oreille subbasin. The California floater requires clean fresh water. In the larval stage, the mussel is 665 parasitic to specific minnow hosts in the Gila genus. Maintaining healthy native populations is important 666 to ensure suitable hosts are available. Juvenile clams fall from fish where they attach to gravel or rocks in 667 clean, well-aerated waters. After growing for some time, young clams are washed downstream where 668 they settle in sandy or soft muddy bottoms in the slower waters of lakes or large rivers where they mature. 669 This species is considered a SOI due to state candidate listing.

670 There are numerous aquatic insects for which we have no inventory or population information. Due to the 671 lack of information these species cannot be discussed.

672 Step 1 (b) - Determine species-at-risk.

673 Establishing a list of species-at-risk is an important element in the process of selecting focal species. 674 Species listed as threatened or endangered (TES), species-of-concern (SOC), and species-of-interest 675 (SOI) are identified using planning rule definitions (FSH 1909.12:43.22). All ESA listed TES , SOC and 676 SOI form a suite of species (hereafter referred to as species-at-risk) recognized as potentially sensitive to 677 management actions from which focal species are chosen to serve as surrogates for assessing current 678 conditions and potential effects of alternatives to other aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species, and

20

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

679 other species-at-risk. The following criteria, established in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 43.22, determine how 680 species–at-risk are sorted.

681 Listed species (TE) - Listed species are those listed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 682 Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 683 Service as threatened or endangered under the ESA (FSH 1909.12, 43.22a).

684 Species-of-concern (SOC) - Species-of-concern are species for which the responsible official determines 685 if management actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the ESA. Identified species-of-concern 686 may include entities such as distinct population segments or evolutionarily significant units that may be 687 listed under the ESA. Species that meet one or more of the criteria below are considered SOC (FSH 688 1909.12, 43.22b):

689 Species has a rank of G-1 through G-3 on the NatureServe ranking system (NatureServe 2006 690 http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm).7

691 • Species has been identified as candidate and proposed species under the ESA.

692 • Infra-specific (sub-specific) taxa have a rank of T-1 through T-3 on the NatureServe ranking 693 system (NatureServe 2006).

694 • Species was petitioned for Federal listing and a positive “90-day finding” was made.

695 • Species was recently delisted (delisted in the past five years and regulatory agency 696 monitoring is still considered necessary).

697 Species-of-interest (SOI) - Species-of-interest are species for which the responsible official determines 698 that management actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological or other multiple-use 699 objectives (FSH 1909.12, 43.22c). The responsible official may review the following for potential 700 species-of-interest:

701 •Species with a rank of S-1 (critically imperiled) and S-2 (imperiled) on the NatureServe ranking 702 system (NatureServe 2006).

703 •State-listed threatened and endangered species that do not meet the criteria as species-of 704 concern.

705 •Additional species that valid, existing information indicates are of regional or local conservation 706 concern due to factors that may include significant threats to populations or habitat, declining 707 trends in populations or habitat, rarity, or restricted ranges (e.g., narrow endemics, disjunct 708 populations, or species at the edge of their range).

709 •Additional species that need plan components established for them, such as species of public 710 interest including hunted, fished, and other species identified cooperatively with state fish and 711 wildlife agencies consistent with the Sikes Act.

712 The species-at-risk are listed in Table 3.

713

7 The 2006 Natureserve database was used for determining potential focal species

21

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

714 Table 3. Summary of TE, SOC, and SOI. Species Present on Status CNF?

Bull Trout Yes ESA Threatened

Westslope Yes SOI (state candidate, Forest Service Region 6 Cutthroat sensitive)

Redband/rainbow Yes SOI; (Forest Service Region 6 sensitive)

Kokanee Yes SOI (tribal and sportfishing importance)

Pygmy Whitefish Yes SOI; (state and Forest Service Region 6 sensitive)

California Floater No SOC (state candidate)

Umatilla dace Unknown Forest Service Region 6 sensitive

715

716 Management Indicator Species (MIS) –The 36 CFR 219.19 (1982 planning rule) directs forests to 717 establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of MIS’ habitat (see further MIS discussion 718 below). Species are selected as MIS because their population changes may indicate the effects of land 719 management activities (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)). There is only one aquatic MIS in the Colville National 720 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; “Trouts”, with no specific species or subspecies indicated. 721 “Trouts” were selected to represent species utilizing lacustrine, riverine and riparian habitat.

722 Strategic Species - In Region 6, strategic species are designated in order to place emphasis on filling 723 information gaps (such as distribution), which will better support management’s understanding about 724 conservation status. Strategic species may not be considered “sensitive” under Forest Service Manual 725 (FSM) 2670 and therefore the effects of proposed actions and alternatives may not be analyzed for them. 726 The following aquatic vertebrates are designated as a strategic species for the CNF:

727 • Native Trout Group: Westslope Cutthroat Trout

728 • Redband Trout

729 Step 2. Identify Applicable Spawning and Rearing Habitat Associations for Each Species - Habitat 730 associations are defined as the type of habitat that a particular species primarily uses for spawning and 731 rearing. By choosing to focus on spawning and rearing habitat, we identify a potential limiting factor for 732 the species’ survival. Though foraging areas and migratory corridors are important, without access to 733 suitable spawning and rearing habitat, the species will not survive (Reiss et al. 2008).

734 Habitat associations are categorized as: headwaters, minor tributaries, major tributaries, main-stem rivers, 735 and lakes and reservoirs. From a hydrologic standpoint, these categories may be general and potentially 736 difficult to define. For the purposes of this assessment general stream habitat associations are headwaters 737 (1st and 2nd order fish bearing streams), minor tributaries (3rd order), major tributaries (4th order), main- 738 stem rivers (5th order and higher), and lakes and reservoirs (Reiss et al. 2008).

739 Step 3 – Categorize the Species-at-Risk into Habitat Associations and Step 4 Choose Species from each 740 Association as Focal Species to serve as indicators of other species occupying the same habitat type.

22 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

741 Table 4, below, provides the results from both Steps 3 and 4 in a one-reference table (Reiss et al. 2008).

742 Table 4. Habitat associations (spawning and rearing) for species-at-risk. Yellow highlighted species are CNF 743 selected MIS/focal species. • Headwaters • Minor tributaries • Major tributaries • Mainstem • Lakes and Rivers Reservoirs

• Bull Trout • Bull Trout • Bull Trout • Bull Trout • Bull Trout

• Westslope • Westslope • Westslope • Westslope • Westslope Cutthroat Cutthroat Cutthroat Cutthroat Cutthroat

• Interior • Interior Redband • Interior Redband • California • Pygmy Whitefish Redband Floater • Kokanee • Umatilla dace

744

745 The CNF selected focal species are: bull trout, WSCT and interior redband trout. These species were 746 given priority as focal species because:

747 1) Bull trout are federally listed under the ESA, and WSCT and interior redband trout are a Regional 748 Forester’s sensitive species and CNF strategic species. All three species fall under the MIS category of 749 Trouts.

750 2) There is available information and data for these species through various subbasin plans, draft recovery 751 plan (USFWS 2014), CNF monitoring, FERC re-licensing, etc.

752 3) The life history strategies of these species, their presence in a wide range of watersheds across the 753 forest, and the multiple habitat types these species are associated with.

754 4) These species are dependent on habitat that is substantially affected by management of NFS lands 755 (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 43.22d).

756 The California floater was not selected as it is known to occur in only one stream on the CNF. The 757 Umatilla dace was not considered as a focal species as it is not known or suspected to be found on the 758 Forest. Pygmy whitefish were not selected as they are found in only two lakes and are not suspected to be 759 substantially affected by management on the CNF. CNF management activities designed to meet the 760 needs of the focal species are expected to provide for the necessary habitat quality for these species.

761 Kokanee salmon, brown trout and brook trout fall under the MIS “Trouts” category. However while 762 popular sport fish, they are not native to the CNF. Management designed to meet the needs of the focal 763 species is expected to provide habitat conditions for any desired non-native species. In fact the non-native 764 fish are not necessarily good focal species as the re-licensing for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project 765 includes terms for non-native fish suppression and eradication programs.

766 Colville Forest Plan Revision Management Indicator Species. 767 The 1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.19) directs forests to establish objectives for maintenance and 768 improvement of habitat for MIS. Species are selected as MIS because their population changes may 769 indicate the effects of land management activities (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)). Each forest plan alternative is

23

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

770 to establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for the MIS. The MIS are to be 771 used to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations. Alternatives are to be 772 evaluated in terms of both the amount and quality of habitat and of the population trends for the MIS. 773 The selection of MIS are to represent, where appropriate (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)):

774 • Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and federal lists for the 775 planning area.

776 • Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management 777 programs.

778 • Species commonly hunted, fished or trapped.

779 • Non-game species of special interest.

780 • Additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to 781 indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological 782 communities or on water quality.

783 There is only one aquatic MIS identified for the current Colville National Forest Land and Resource 784 Management Plan; “Trouts”, with no specific species or subspecies indicated. “Trouts” were selected to 785 represent species utilizing lacustrine, riverine and riparian habitat. In the case of the CNF the “Trouts” 786 may include native bull trout, WSCT, and interior redband trout; as well as non-native trouts; brook trout, 787 coastal rainbow trout, brown trout, lake trout, and kokanee salmon that have been introduced for sport 788 fishing. Without identifying any particular species “Trouts” could also include the mountain whitefish and 789 pygmy whitefish which are in the same family (Salmonidae) as the aforementioned “Trouts”.

790 When the current Colville Forest Plan was written no fish species were listed as Threatened or 791 Endangered under the ESA. Since then one species, the bull trout, has been listed as a Threatened Species 792 with critical habitat designated on the Forest. WSCT, interior redband, pygmy whitefish and Umatilla 793 dace are Forest Service, Region 6 sensitive species.

794 The focal species were chosen to assess current aquatic species status and to assess the potential effects of 795 alternatives on species viability (see chapter 4 of this DEIS). In a sense the focal species, bull trout, 796 WSCT and interior redband trout, are used in a similar manner as the MIS under 1982 planning rule in the 797 development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and subsequent forest plan.

798 The three focal species will be carried forward as both focal and MIS (hereafter referred to as (MIS/focal 799 species) because the bull trout are a threatened species, the three species have special habitat needs that 800 may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; the interior redband and WSCT are 801 species of concern and game fish; and because population changes could be indicators of the effects of 802 management activities on other species, biological communities, or on water quality.

803 The native mountain whitefish and pigmy whitefish were not selected as focal species or considered to be 804 identified as MIS. The mountain whitefish are not generally found in the small streams on the CNF but in 805 the larger systems that primarily do not flow through the Forest. Pygmy whitefish are only found in two 806 lakes on the CNF. The main threats that have been identified for pygmy whitefish are introduced 807 predatory species, silting of spawning streams and lake euthrophication. The Umatilla dace is not known 808 to occur on the Forest. Providing for the habitat needs of the MIS/focal species through the plan 809 components (Desired Conditions, Objectives, Key Watersheds, Riparian Management Areas, and 810 Standards and Guidelines) (see DEIS Chapter 4) is expected to reduce the potential for adverse amounts 811 of sediment or silt being deposited in spawning streams and reduce the potential for CNF management

24 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

812 programs contributing to lake eutrophication. In addition, the CNF would collaborate with the State of 813 Washington, Tribes, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on projects to decrease predators impacting 814 mountain pygmy whitefish on the Forest.

815 The non-native brook trout, brown trout, lake trout, kokanee salmon and coastal rainbow trout were not 816 considered as MIS. Although these species are popular sport fish they are also threats to the native 817 MIS/focal species through competition for food and habitat, predation on the focal species, and 818 hybridization with the focal species. Lake trout compete with bull trout and are considered one of the 819 biggest threats to bull trout populations in the Lake Pend Oreille core area. Efforts to control the lake 820 trout population in Lake Pend Oreille including angler incentive programs, and trapping and gill netting 821 programs. The terms for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project re-licensing include implementing non- 822 native fish population suppression and eradication efforts in streams tributary to the Boundary Reservoir. 823 It would not make sense to select a non-native fish species as a MIS when some populations may be 824 actively suppressed or eradicated.

825 Land management activities such as timber harvest, the transportation system (both roads and trails), 826 grazing, and recreation can adversely impact the habitat for native salmonid species (see DEIS Chapter 827 4). The three focal/MIS species were selected based upon the rationale presented in the selection of focal 828 species discussion. The habitat requirements for the ESA Threatened bull trout including: requirements 829 for cold water temperatures, clean substrates; complex stream habitat including deep pools, overhanging 830 banks and large woody debris; and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and downstream 831 foraging, migration, and overwintering habitats, make the species the potentially the most susceptible of 832 the focal species to impacts from the management programs identified in the forest plan. Monitoring the 833 status of bull trout habitat may therefore be expected to be a good indicator of the status of habitat for 834 other aquatic species on the Forest.

835 The historic range of WSCT and interior redband trout has been greatly reduced due to degraded habitat 836 and stocking non-native species, especially non-native forms of cutthroat trout, coastal rainbow trout, and 837 brook trout. However there are sub-watersheds that still support genetically pure WSCT or interior 838 redband trout populations. While neither bull trout, WSCT, nor interior redband populations are widely 839 distributed across the Forest, between the three species their habitat and populations are found across the 840 range physical and biological watershed conditions on the Forest.

841 The Forest Service contribution to the three species’ population viability will be assessed for each 842 alternative. Additionally the habitat conditions for the three species will be assessed through the aquatics 843 and watershed forest plan monitoring program. The monitoring program, discussed in Chapter 4 of the 844 DEIS, has been incorporated into all alternatives to determine if land management actions implemented in 845 accordance with the plan components are improving watershed conditions, riparian and stream habitats 846 towards the desired conditions. PacFish/InFish Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO) (discussed later in 847 this document), is expected to continue to provide information regarding the trends in aquatic habitat 848 condition. 8 The CNF annually conducts stream habitat surveys on approximately 17 miles stream using a 849 standard Region 6 stream survey protocol. The surveys also collect information of fish distribution at the

8 See Appendix1 page 15 in the April 18, 2014 letter from the Deputy Regional Directors to FS Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Research Station Director, NOAA Fisheries Branch Chiefs (West Coast Region), BLM District/Field Managers (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana), FWS Field Supervisors (Pacific Region), EPA Office of Water Directors (Regions 8, 9, and 10), EPA Operations Office Directors (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington),EPA Region Forest/Range Manager (Region 10) Updated Interior Columbia Basin Strategy: A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation

25 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

850 time of the survey although the surveys are not designed to provide a population estimate. Monitoring 851 information that is described in the Watershed portion of the DEIS will provide valuable information 852 regarding the status of aquatic habitat. The watershed monitoring includes periodically updating the WCF 853 and a Regional Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring program.

854 Programs implemented by other agencies are expected to provide information regarding fish population 855 trends especially in the Pend Oreille subbasin. For example the terms for re-licensing the Boundary 856 Hydroelectric Project include a conservation hatchery program to re-build the populations of native fish. 857 The terms for the hatchery program include establishing population goals for self-sustaining populations 858 of the native fish. Seattle City Light is to monitor the success of the out-planting program until the 859 population goals are met.

860 Aquatic Species Viability Evaluation/ Aquatic Ecological Condition (AEC) Model 861 The 2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR 219.19(a)(7)(ii)(A-B & D), states; “Evaluations of species diversity 862 must include, as appropriate, assessments of the risks to species viability and the identification of 863 ecological conditions needed to maintain species viability over time based on the following: The viability 864 of each species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened, endangered, candidate, and 865 proposed species must be assessed. Individual species assessments must be used for these species… For 866 all other species, including other species-at-risk and those species for which there is little information, a 867 variety of approaches may be used, including individual species assessments and assessments of 868 MIS/focal species or other indicators used as surrogates in the evaluation of ecological conditions needed 869 to maintain species viability. In analyzing viability, the extent of information available about species, their 870 habitats, the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the ecological conditions needed to support them must be 871 identified. Species assessments may rely on general conservation principles and expert opinion. When 872 detailed information on species habitat relationships, demographics, genetics, and risk factors is available, 873 that information should be considered.”

874 To meet the above direction, the Aquatic Ecological Condition (AEC) model was developed to assess the 875 current condition of aquatic habitat and MIS/focal species population status and to inform the species 876 viability assessment. Reiss et al. (2008) utilized a decision-support model in order to formalize the 877 assessment procedures, assumptions and factors that would contribute to healthy, ecologically sustainable 878 aquatic species populations and their habitat. The decision-support model (DSM) is a computer-based 879 model (Netweaver) that applies a consistent evaluation process across time and space9. This type of 880 model was chosen because it uses an explicit process for assessing condition and documents the data and 881 relations between attributes assumed in the assessment. Decision Support Models use data to evaluate a 882 conclusion. For the AEC model, the conclusion being analyzed is; SubWatersheds (HUC12) on the CNF 883 provide Aquatic Ecological Conditions that are properly functioning and support viable populations of 884 aquatic MIS/focal species. Data used in the assessment lend varying levels of support to this conclusion, 885 ranging from full support (+1) to no support (-1). The HUC12 AEC assessment depends on two topics; 886 MIS/focal species local population condition and habitat condition within each sub-watershed on the 887 Forest. Both of these topics are dependency networks composed of aggregated evaluation scores from 888 other attributes (shown below). These scores may be interpreted as strength of evidence, where +1 889 indicates strong evidence of the conclusion and -1 indicates no evidence of the conclusion. A score of 0 is 890 assigned by the model when the strength of evidence lies midway between the +1 and -1 scores and/or 891 does not provide evidence for or against the conclusion. Scores from -1 to -0.34 were considered NOT 892 PROPERLY FUNCTIONING for a model attribute or total AEC; scores from -0.33 to +0.33 are

9 Documentation including the scientific rationale used to develop the AEC model can be found in Reiss et al. (2008)

26 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

893 considered FUNCTIONING AT RISK for viability; scores from +0.33 to +1.0 are considered 894 FUNCTIONING APPROPRIATELY for viability. The AEC model was originally run for the CNF in 895 2008. The CNF decided to not use the 2008 AEC model results due to a variety of factors including:

896 • Subwatershed boundaries have changed since the original assessment

897 • Documentation of the 2008 AEC modeling process for the Forest is not clear and the 898 personnel who developed and ran the model have moved to other agencies or retired; thus 899 it is difficult to analyze the model results without better understanding of the model 900 inputs. This concern was further highlighted as the model results seem to over-estimate 901 the number of watersheds in a “poor” condition given the more recent 2010 watershed 902 condition framework (WCF) effort.10

903 • Existing information on in-stream habitat was not utilized in the 2008 model. Updating 904 the 2008 analysis allowed the CNF to integrate the available stream habitat information 905 and the WCF exercise to provide a more complete assessment of the current AEC across 906 the Forest.

907 • Current fish distribution and status information is more robust than what was available in 908 2008.

909 A second exercise to assess the AEC was undertaken in 2014. For the 2014 AEC modeling the CNF 910 followed the basic procedures outlined in Reiss et al. (2008) but the information and analysis described 911 below utilized EXCEL spreadsheets instead of the DSM.11

912 HUC12’s (sub-watersheds averaging 10,000-40,000 acres) were chosen to evaluate viability due to the 913 configuration of the HUC12 boundaries being considered the best surrogate for local populations of 914 MIS/focal species in the interior Columbia Basin (Reiss et al. 2008). MIS/focal species local population 915 condition (see Figure 4, below) was evaluated using data on fish distribution, population status and 916 abundance, habitat and genetic connectivity, and impact of non-native species. These attributes were 917 selected to evaluate the health, diversity, resilience and distribution of populations of MIS/focal aquatic 918 species within the planning area.

919

10 A description of the WCF effort and results are included in the Chapter 3 Hydrology section of the DEIS and in Day 2014. 11 Kate_Aqautic_Function_9_22-14 and KeyWatershedSpreadsheet_9-29-2014-Excel

27

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

HUC6 Aquatic ecological condition (AEC)

Focal species local Habitat condition population condition

Distribution Status Assessment Connectivity Nonnative effects

Status Habitat barriers

Abundance Genetic connectivity

920 921 Figure 3. Diagram of the MIS/focal species component of the HUC 12 AEC model. All attributes and/or 922 topics (shaded) were equally weighted and all attributes and/or topics (not shaded) were aggregated in the 923 9_22_14 spreadsheet.

924 925 Distribution - The distribution of MIS/focal species was primarily evaluated using “expert opinion” 926 derived from biologists (and/or hydrologists) familiar with local conditions and studies.

927 The status assessment includes two attributes: status and abundance. Local spawning populations were 928 characterized as strong or depressed based on current vs. historic abundance, full expression of life 929 history traits, and population trends. When information was not sufficient to apply the criteria, “unknown 930 status” was assigned. Some HUC12s were identified as exclusively non-spawning/rearing areas (i.e., 931 migratory corridor, over-wintering, or foraging). We included an additional attribute: “genetically pure 932 population”. This attribute was evaluated based on assumptions about populations, and information from 933 genetic studies.

934 The abundance attribute of the HUC12 MIS/focal species assessment describes local population status by 935 addressing the average number of adults spawning annually. In many cases abundance was unknown so a 936 score of 0 was applied.

937 Connectivity also includes two attributes; habitat barriers and genetic connectivity. Habitat barriers 938 evaluates the degree to which access to habitat is limited by barriers to upstream and downstream fish 939 movement within the HUC12. Only human-made barriers within the boundary of the HUC12 are 940 considered in this attribute, though natural barriers may limit access as well. Barriers that protect resident 941 fish populations from an invasive species are scored as beneficial.

942 Genetic connectivity describes the degree of connectivity between local populations within the HUC8 and 943 thus the potential for a functioning meta-population. Although data for this attribute were determined at 944 the HUC8 scale, the impact of isolation was assessed for each local population. Connectivity was 945 primarily evaluated through expert opinion.

946 Non-native effects assesses the effects of non-native species on MIS/focal species. We focused on threats 947 via introgression and not competition because the effects of introgression are more direct and thus 948 quantifiable. However we did consider competition where it appears non-native fish may have displaced a 949 MIS/focal species population.

28

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

950 HUC 12-Scale Model: Habitat Condition 951 The habitat condition component of the HUC12 AEC model (Figure 4) was designed to assess ecological 952 processes and watershed function, rather than evaluate the specific habitat needs of any particular species 953 (see Reiss et al. 2008 for scientific rationale used to develop the model). Aquatic and riparian resources, 954 water quality and species viability are dependent on the protection of naturally occurring processes. 955 Processes such as, wildfire, flooding, sediment delivery to streams, natural flow regimes and retention of 956 riparian vegetation (provides shade, moderates stream temperatures, provides recruitment of downed 957 trees, etc.) are essential to the proper functioning of the stream channel and habitat that provides for the 958 viability of aquatic species. Attributes were selected to serve as indicators of the routing of water, 959 sediment, wood, and nutrients through the watershed—the processes that create and maintain the habitat 960 conditions necessary to sustain healthy populations of aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. Channel 961 shape and function, and the large woody debris attributes are included as indicators of current stream 962 channel and overall aquatic habitat condition.

963 The CNF followed a process similar to and consistent with Reiss et al. (2008). The following model and 964 attributes and attribute weights were developed by the CNF based on Reiss et al. (2008), and with input 965 from Forest Service Region 6 Regional Office fish biologist, hydrologist and planning staff.

966 967 Figure 4. Diagram of elements and weights used to assess habitat condition in the HUC12 AEC model

968 The road density attribute is used in the habitat condition model not only as an indicator of the potential 969 risks roads present to aquatic habitat and watershed processes but as an indicator of the intensity of 970 anthropogenic disturbances in a watershed, not just those risks due directly to effects of the roads 971 themselves. Roads have been shown to affect the routing of water, sediment, wood, and nutrients to 972 stream channels resulting in accelerated erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels; altered channel 973 structure and lateral migration of the channel in the flood plain; reduced large wood recruitment into the 974 stream channel and shorter residence times of wood in the stream; and altered flow paths leading to 975 diversion or extension of channels onto un-channeled portions of the landscape.

29

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

976 Roads are also associated with activities, past and present, that create negative effects on watershed and 977 aquatic conditions beyond those solely attributable to the road, such as fishing, fish stocking (particularly 978 non-native species), disease introduction, beaver removal, timber harvest, splash-damming, permanent 979 dams for water storage and power production, recreation (particularly dispersed recreation camping next 980 to streams), livestock grazing, irrigation withdrawals, fire suppression and ignition, and mining.

981 The road density (miles/sq. mile) attribute was calculated by subwatershed by dividing the total miles of 982 road under all jurisdictions within the CNF proclaimed boundary by the area of the proclaimed CNF 983 boundary.

984 Roads in proximity to water attribute is similar to the channel constriction attribute described in Reiss et 985 al. (2008), recognizing that roads near aquatic habitat can have additional effects to the habitat. 986 Streamside roads can reduce stream shade and increase water temperatures, simplify channel form (cut 987 off side channels, straighten streams through confinement), and create impediments to the movement of 988 aquatic species. The rationale given in Reiss et al. (2008) is further supported by recent work specific to 989 the interior Columbia Basin. Meredith et al. (2014) found the presence of roads adjacent to streams 990 resulted in significant reductions of in-channel wood. The proximity to water attribute by subwatershed 991 was calculated by dividing total road miles of all roads under all jurisdictions in the Riparian Habitat 992 Conservation Areas designated by INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) by the square mile of RCAs.

993 The road attributes were categorized or “scored” consistent with the WCF, where a score of 1 is 994 considered to be “good” condition, a score of 2 representing “fair” and a score of 3 is considered “poor” 995 condition. Table 5 displays how the road density and proximity to water attributes were categorized.

996 Table 5. Road Attributes Categories Road Road Riparian Density Density Road Risk Density (mile per category category square mile?)

<1 1 1

1-2.4 2 2

>2.4 3 3

997

998 The roads attributes were further evaluated for erosion and sedimentation risk. High road densities in 999 sensitive HUC12s can more severely disrupt watershed processes and potentially have more serious 1000 impacts to water quality, aquatic habitat, and the species themselves than the same densities in less 1001 sensitive HUC12s. The weight that the road density evaluation score receives in the model varies 1002 according to a HUC12’s sensitivity to soil disturbance.

1003 The roads in landtype associations (LTA) with high erosion and sedimentation potential attribute is similar 1004 to the road density by sensitive soils attribute in Reiss et al. (2008). LTAs are ecological land units 1005 delineated based on similarities in landform pattern, geomorphic processes, regolith and bedrock features 1006 and their influence on physical and biological processes, climate, and potential vegetation (Davis et al.

30

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1007 2004). 12 Both the hydrology and soils reports in DEIS Chapter 3 include additional discussion of LTAs. 1008 The LTAs were rated based on erosion risk using the following factors:

1009 • Sediment delivery efficiency

1010 • Surface runoff from snowpack

1011 • Surface runoff from summer storms

1012 • Deep-seeded landslide risk

1013 • Shallow, rapid landslide risk

1014 • Soil erosion

1015 Each of the erosion risk factors were put into three categories that were weighted equally. 1016

1017 Table 6. Erosion Risk Categories Category Points Low 1 Moderate 2 High or Flashy 3 1018 1019 The points for the six factors were summed to determine the “final” erosion risk score. Therefore the 1020 highest total score is 18, the lowest six. 1021

1022 Table 7. Erosion Risk Categories Total Points Final Erosion Risk 6-8 Low 9-12 Moderate 12-18 High 1023 1024 Table 8 displays how subwatersheds with roads in LTAs with high erosion and sedimentation risk were 1025 categorized. 1026

1027 Table 8. Erosion and Sedimentation Risks Categories Miles of Road in LTAs with Road Erosion and high erosion and sedimentation Sedimentation Risk risk Category 0-8 1 8.1-15 2 >15 3 1028 1029

12 Landtype Associations are defined for the CNF in Davis (2004)

31

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1030 Two upslope vegetation attributes were included in the AEC model: fire condition class, and insects and 1031 disease. The definitions, rating and scoring for the two attributes was obtained from the WCF database. 1032 These two attributes were chosen to help describe the health of forest vegetation as a component of a 1033 healthy watershed and to assess the potential risk of historically uncharacteristic wildfire, and insect and 1034 disease outbreaks.

1035 The fire regime condition class (FRCC) measures the degree vegetation conditions have departed from a 1036 reference condition expected with natural fire frequency intervals. The departure from reference 1037 conditions may result in changes to key ecosystem components, such as vegetation characteristics 1038 (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; 1039 fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances, such as insect and disease 1040 mortality, grazing, and drought. The degree of departure may be due to (but are not limited to) fire 1041 suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, 1042 and introduced insects and disease. The FRCC is a measure of ecological trend and the potential for 1043 uncharacteristic disturbance to the ecosystem from fire. There are three fire regime condition classes 1044 described below:

1045 • FRCC 1 represents ecosystems with low (<33 percent) departure and that are still within the 1046 estimated historical range of variability during a specifically defined reference period.

1047 • FRCC 2 indicates ecosystems with moderate (33 to 66 percent) departure.

1048 • FRCC 3 indicates ecosystems with high (>66 percent) departure from reference conditions.

1049 Insects and disease along with fire are important regulators of forest change. Insects and disease can 1050 negatively affect resource values and ecosystem functions including reducing the ability of forest 1051 canopies to intercept snow and prevent excessive runoff. Recent increases in forest area affected by insect 1052 outbreaks and possible links to fire suppression have created a resurgence of interest in their possible 1053 effects to water quantity, quality, and risks.

1054 The riparian wetland vegetation attribute addresses riparian vegetation condition. Important functions of 1055 riparian vegetation include (FEMAT 1993, Gregory et al 1991):

1056 a. The input of fine organic matter and nutrients to aquatic habitat

1057 b. Providing for bank stability

1058 c. Filtering sediment due to surface erosion thus controlling the amount reaching the aquatic 1059 system

1060 d. A source of large woody debris

1061 e. Shading the aquatic habitat thus helping to control water temperature

1062 f. Controlling the microclimate within the riparian zone and adjacent to the aquatic habitat

1063 The riparian wetland vegetation attribute scores were obtained from the WCF database.

1064 Reiss et al. (2008) recognized the importance of including in-stream attributes as indicators of aquatic 1065 habitat condition, however did not due to lack of data on non-federal lands. Reiss et al. (2008) did 1066 recognize the value of including stream channel attributes if available. Since the CNF had recently 1067 assessed all subwatersheds within the CNF administrative boundary with a consistent framework through 1068 the WCF exercise, the decision was made to include attributes that would help describe the current

32

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1069 condition of stream habitat. The previously discussed attributes assess factors that influence aquatic 1070 habitat but do not specifically describe current aquatic habitat condition for the MIS/focal species. 1071 Therefore the CNF decided to include attributes to describe aquatic habitat conditions which when 1072 combined with the upslope and riparian attributes, and MIS/focal species status scores, were felt to 1073 provide a more complete picture of the AEC.

1074 Two in-channel attributes were chosen to describe in-stream habitat conditions:

1075 • Channel shape and function

1076 • Large woody debris

1077 Stream channels are formed and shaped in response to the timing and quantity of flow and sediment 1078 delivery over time. Short-term changes in water or sediment delivery due to a disturbance such as a fire 1079 or flood may cause a channel response resulting in a changed condition. However if the channel forming 1080 processes are intact and allowed to recover, the stream channels and aquatic habitat are usually resilient 1081 (see Montgomery and Buffington 1998, Leopold 1994, Rosgen 1996).

1082 Allowing stream channels to interact with floodplains and preserving the lateral, longitudinal, and 1083 temporal variability between stream channels, floodplains and riparian habitats are paramount to maintain 1084 natural heterogeneity and complexity of aquatic habitat (Naiman et al. 1992). In-stream large woody 1085 debris, where it is a natural part of the aquatic system, is an important feature that creates complex 1086 channel structure and fish habitat by collecting sediment, forming riffles and pools, providing cover, and 1087 facilitating biological productivity (Naiman et al. 1992). Complex habitats that are resilient to 1088 disturbance are important for the survival and productivity of aquatic species populations (Reeves et al. 1089 1995)

1090 The scores for the habitat portion of the AEC were obtained by multiplying the score for each attribute by 1091 its weight and summing the scores for each subwatershed. The properly functioning, functioning at risk, 1092 and not properly functioning scores were then converted to a +1 to -1 scale and combined with the 1093 MIS/Focal Species Status to obtain the AEC score for a subwatershed.

1094 Table 9. Total Possible Score by Attribute Attribute Total Score Possible

Large Woody Debris .3

Channel Shape and Function .3

Riparian Wetland Veg Condition .3

Road Density .45

Proximity to Water 1.2

Roads in LTAs with high erosion .15 and sedimentation potential

Fire Condition Class .15

33

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Insects and Disease .15

Total 3

1095

1096 Table 10. Final Aquatic habitat Condition Rating Final Aquatic Final Score Habitat Condition Habitat Included in Rating Score the AEC Model

Properly Functioning 1.0-1.4 +0.33 to +1.0

Functioning at Risk 1.5-2.4 -0.33 to +0.33

Not Properly 2.5-3 -1 to -0.34 Functioning

1097

1098 AEC Results – Current Watershed Condition and Species Status on the CNF 1099 Tables 11-20 display the HUC12 AEC model results by MIS/focal species, by subbasin.13

1100 Kettle Interior Redband.

1101 The total AEC scores for interior redband in the Kettle subbasin range from a high of 0.4 (functional) in 1102 the Sand Creek-Kettle River subwatershed to -0.6 (not properly functioning) in the West Deer Creek 1103 subwatershed. The MIS/focal species scores are within the properly functioning range in eight 1104 subwatersheds; in five subwatersheds the population is rated functioning at risk; and the local population 1105 score is not properly functioning in two subwatersheds. The low local population scores are generally due 1106 to unknown redband abundance, abundant brook trout and a past history of stocking non-native rainbow 1107 trout. The habitat scores are considered not properly functioning in 10 of the 15 subwatersheds occupied 1108 by interior redband. No subwatershed habitat scores fall within the properly functioning range. A lack of 1109 large woody debris in the stream channels, high road densities and riparian road densities are commonly 1110 driving the low habitat scores. In all subwatersheds the channel shape and function attribute is rated 1111 functioning at risk. The fire regime indicator is rated functioning at risk in many of the subwatersheds and 1112 the riparian vegetation indicator is rated as not properly functioning in the Trout Creek, Tonata Creek, 1113 Saint Peter Creek, Little Boulder Creek and West Deer Creek subwatersheds.

1114 Kettle WSCT

1115 Westslope cutthroat trout inhabit six subwatersheds within the Kettle River subbasin. Only the Sand 1116 Creek-Kettle River has a properly functioning AEC score, the remaining five subwatersheds are rated 1117 functioning at risk. The MIS/focal species population is rated not properly functioning in the East Deer 1118 Creek-Kettle River, functioning at risk in four subwatersheds, and within the properly functioning range

13Kate_Aquatic_ Function_9_22-14-Excel and KeyWatershedSpreadsheet_9-29-2014-Excel.

34

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1119 in Sand Creek-Kettle River. The low population scores are driven by low or unknown abundance, barriers 1120 and presence of non-native fish including possible presence of introduced non-native cutthroat trout. The 1121 functioning at risk watershed condition scores are due to ratings for channel function and shape, low 1122 amounts of woody debris, road and riparian road densities. The riparian vegetation attribute is functioning 1123 at risk in the South Fork Boulder Creek subwatershed. The fire regime indicator is functioning at risk in 1124 the North Fork Boulder-Boulder creek and South Fork Boulder Creek subwatersheds.

1125 Sanpoil WSCT

1126 Within the CNF only the North Fork Sanpoil River-Sanpoil subwatershed is inhabited by WSCT. The 1127 local population is functioning at risk due to unknown abundance and a lack of connectivity with other 1128 WSCT populations. The watershed condition within the North Fork Sanpoil River-Sanpoil subwatershed 1129 is functioning at risk due to poor riparian vegetation conditions and high riparian road densities. Channel 1130 shape and function, fire regime, insects and disease and road densities are all rated functioning at risk. 1131 Only the large wood attribute and sediment risk from roads on sensitive soils are considered properly 1132 functioning.

1133 Sanpoil Interior Redband

1134 Interior redband trout are found in four subwatersheds within the Sanpoil subbasin. Two subwatersheds 1135 have a total AEC within the functioning at risk category and two are rated not properly functioning. All 1136 local populations are rated not properly functioning except O’Brien Creek which is functioning at risk. 1137 Brook trout predominate and interior redband trout may no longer be present in all but the O’Brien Creek 1138 subwatershed. The O’Brien Creek population is at risk due to unknown abundance, reduced range, and 1139 lack of connectivity with other redband populations. Habitat is functioning at risk in O’Brien and 1140 Thirteenmile-Sanpoil River subwatersheds and rated as not properly functioning in the Scatter Creek and 1141 Ninemile Creek subwatersheds. Only the insect and disease and road on sensitive soils attributes are rated 1142 as properly functioning in O’Brien Creek, riparian road densities are not properly functioning. 1143 Thirteenmile Creek-Sanpoil River subwatershed is functioning at risk due to impaired channel shape and 1144 function, road densities and high riparian road densities. High road and riparian road densities, and a lack 1145 of large woody debris primarily drive the low watershed condition rating for Scatter Creek-Sanpoil River 1146 subwatershed. The Ninemile Creek watershed condition is degraded due to high road and riparian road 1147 densities combined with all other indicators except the road on sensitive soils indicator are rated 1148 functioning at risk.

1149 Pend Oreille Bull Trout

1150 Bull trout local population status and overall AEC scores are generally rated as not properly functioning. 1151 Only the Headwaters South Salmo River received a positive population score, although population status 1152 is functioning at risk. The local populations in North Fork Sullivan Creek,-Sullivan Creek, Slate Creek, 1153 West Branch Le Clerc Creek and East Branch Le Clerc Creeks were rated at risk. The low population 1154 scores are due to low or unknown abundance, competition with non-native trout, and barriers.

1155 As with the population status ratings, the watershed condition scores are also generally not properly 1156 functioning. Watershed condition is rated as properly functioning only in the Headwaters South Salmo 1157 River subwatershed, North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek, and Slate Creek subwatersheds. The 1158 functioning at risk and not properly functioning ratings are due to at risk or not properly functioning 1159 ratings for large woody debris (16 subwatersheds), channel shape and function (17 subwatersheds), 1160 riparian vegetation condition (18 subwatersheds), insects and disease (four subwatersheds), road densities 1161 (19 subwatersheds) riparian road densities (19 subwatersheds) and roads on sensitive soils (eight 1162 subwatersheds). Additionally all subwatersheds were rated functioning at risk for the fire regime attribute.

35

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1163 Pend Oreille WSCT

1164 Of the 24 Pend Oreille subwatersheds rated for WSCT, only the Headwaters South Salmo River received 1165 a functional AEC. The AEC for the Winchester Creek, North Fork Calispell Creek, Skookum Creek, 1166 Cusick Creek-Pend Oreille River and Maitlen Creek-Pend Oreille River is rated as not properly 1167 functioning. All other subwatersheds received a functioning at risk score. Local species population status 1168 is rated as properly functioning in the Headwaters South Salmo River, West Branch Le Clerc Creek, East 1169 Branch Le Clerc Creek, and Harvey Creek. Twelve local populations are rated as functioning at risk and 1170 eight local populations are rated as not properly functioning. The functioning at risk and not properly 1171 functioning scores are due to a combination of unknown or low abundance, competition with non-native 1172 trout and lack of connectivity with other WSCT populations due to barriers.

1173 The watershed condition is rated as properly functioning in Headwaters South Salmo River, North Fork 1174 Sullivan Creek-Sullivan, and Slate Creek. The watershed condition is rated as functioning at risk in seven 1175 subwatersheds and not properly functioning in 14 subwatersheds. Factors contributing to the at risk and 1176 not properly functioning ratings include; diminished amounts of large woody debris (17 subwatersheds), 1177 impaired channel shape and function (20 subwatersheds), riparian vegetation condition (17 1178 subwatersheds), insects and disease (nine subwatersheds), high road densities and riparian road densities 1179 (21 subwatersheds) and roads on soils sensitive to erosion (nine subwatersheds). Additionally all 1180 subwatersheds are rated functioning at risk for the fire regime indicator.

1181 Colville WSCT

1182 The subwatersheds with WSCT in the Colville subbasin, include the Little Pend Oreille Lakes, 1183 Cottonwood Creek, and South Fork Mill Creek. Cottonwood Creek received an overall AEC score in the 1184 functioning at risk range while the Little Pend Oreille lakes and South Fork Mill Creek subwatersheds are 1185 rated as not properly functioning. The local population scores are all in the functioning at risk range due 1186 to low abundance, a predominance of brook trout, and isolation due to man-made barriers preventing 1187 connectivity with other populations. The Cottonwood Creek subwatershed condition is functioning at risk 1188 while both Little Pend Oreille Lakes and South Fork Mill Creek are rated as not properly functioning. The 1189 Cottonwood rating is due to large woody debris amounts scored as not properly functioning. The channel 1190 shape and function, road densities and riparian road density attributes are functioning at risk. The not 1191 properly functioning watershed condition ratings for Little Pend Oreille Lakes and South Fork Mill Creek 1192 subwatersheds are due to functioning at risk or not properly functioning scores for all the watershed 1193 condition attributes except insects and disease and for roads on soils sensitive to erosion.

1194 Colville Interior Redband Trout

1195 The Colville subbasin includes four subwatersheds with interior redband trout. The total AECs for the 1196 South Fork Chewelah Creek-Chewelah Creek and North Fork Mill Creek are rated functioning at risk 1197 while the AEC for the South Fork Mill Creek and North Fork Chewelah Creek is rated as not properly 1198 functioning. The local populations are considered to be functioning at risk due to low abundance, isolation 1199 by barriers, high numbers of brook trout or hybridization with non-native trout. The watershed condition 1200 is considered not properly functioning in all four subwatersheds due to at risk or not properly functioning 1201 scores for all watershed condition attributes except insects and disease, roads on soils sensitive to erosion, 1202 and the fire regime attribute in the North Fork Mill Creek and North Fork Chewelah Creek watersheds.

1203 Lake Roosevelt Interior Redband

1204 Interior redband trout populations are found in nine subwatersheds. No subwatersheds received a properly 1205 functioning AEC score, four are rated as functioning at risk and five received a not properly functioning

36

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1206 rating. Six local populations are functioning at risk and three are not properly functioning. Factors 1207 contributing to the low scores include limited distribution, low population numbers, isolation due to 1208 barriers, competition with non-native brook trout, and hybridization with non-native trout. Isolation above 1209 barriers are protecting small populations of interior redband from hybridization with non-native rainbow 1210 trout in the South Fork Sherman Creek, Upper Sherman Creek, and Lower Sherman Creek 1211 subwatersheds.

1212 No subwatersheds received a properly functioning watershed condition score. Five received a functioning 1213 at risk rating and the remaining four are rated as not properly functioning. All subwatersheds were 1214 functioning at risk or not properly functioning for riparian road densities and channel shape and function. 1215 Seven subwatersheds were rated functioning at risk or not properly functioning for large woody debris, 1216 five for the riparian vegetation condition attribute, three for fire regime, three for insects and disease, 1217 seven for total road densities, and two for roads on soils sensitive to erosion.

1218 Lake Roosevelt WSCT

1219 The Lake Roosevelt subbasin includes five subwatersheds with WSCT populations. Four of the five 1220 subwatersheds received a functioning at risk AEC while Meadow Creek was rated not properly 1221 functioning. All the local populations are rated as functioning at risk except Meadow Creek which is not 1222 properly functioning. The watershed condition scores for North Deep Creek, American Fork and Lower 1223 Big Sheep Creek are rated as functioning at risk. Rocky Creek and Meadow Creek are not properly 1224 functioning. The local population scores are influenced by low abundance, isolation due to barriers and 1225 the apparent displacement of WSCT populations by brook trout. The watershed condition scores are due 1226 to all subwatersheds receiving a functioning at risk rating for the large woody debris, channel shape and 1227 function, road density, and riparian road density attributes. Three of the five subwatersheds are rated as 1228 functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the riparian vegetation attribute; three are functioning at 1229 risk for fire regime and one for the insect and disease indicator.

1230 Summary

1231 The AEC for most subwatersheds on the CNF is rated as functioning at risk or not properly functioning. 1232 The local population’s MIS/focal species status is rated functioning at risk or not properly functioning in 1233 most subwatersheds. Subwatersheds with local populations rated as properly functioning include eight 1234 redband populations and one WSCT population in the Kettle subbasin, and four WSCT populations in the 1235 Pend Oreille subbasin. The poor local population status ratings are generally due to low abundance of the 1236 MIS/focal species, hybridization, apparent displacement or competition from non-native fish, especially 1237 brook trout, barriers and a lack of connectivity between populations.

1238 As with the local population status the watershed condition is rated as functioning at risk or not properly 1239 functioning in most subwatersheds. Only the Headwaters South Salmo River, North Fork Sullivan Creek- 1240 Sullivan Creek and Slate Creek subwatersheds in the Pend Oreille subbasin were rated as properly 1241 functioning. Factors influencing the watershed condition scores commonly include low ratings for large 1242 woody debris and channel shape and function, high road and riparian road densities. Degraded riparian 1243 vegetation conditions also influenced the ratings in a number of subwatersheds. Many watersheds were 1244 considered functioning at risk for the fire regime attribute, while the insect and disease attribute did not 1245 receive a properly functioning rating in a few subwatersheds. Road densities within LTAs sensitive to 1246 erosion were identified as a potential problem in some subwatersheds in the Pend Oreille, Colville and 1247 Lake Roosevelt subbasins.

37

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1248 Table 11. Kettle Interior Redband Subbasin AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

170200021301 Trout Creek 0.75 -0.60 0.1

170200021701 Tonata Creek 0.81 -0.60 0.1

North Fork 170200022002 0.44 -0.50 0.0 Deadman Creek

170200022003 Deadman Creek 0.44 -0.40 0.0

Sand Creek-Kettle 170200021904 0.50 0.20 0.4 River

170200021706 Lone Ranch Creek 0.50 -0.30 0.1

Hodgson Creek- 170200022004 0.00 0.20 0.1 Kettle River

170200021304 Saint Peter Creek 0.19 -0.60 -0.2

South Fork 170200021905 0.34 -0.40 0.0 Boulder Creek

North Fork 170200021906 Boulder Creek- 0.34 -0.50 -0.1 Boulder Creek

170200021902 Deep Creek -0.25 -0.40 -0.3

Little Boulder 170200021903 -0.19 -0.20 -0.2 Creek

170200022001 Toulou Creek 0.00 -0.40 -0.2

170200021302 Lambert Creek -0.53 -0.30 -0.4

170200021705 West Deer Creek -0.75 -0.50 -0.6

1249

1250 Table 12. Kettle Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

38

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

East Deer Creek- 170200021907 -0.63 0.30 -0.2 Kettle River

Sand Creek-Kettle 170200021904 0.50 0.20 0.4 River

North Fork 170200021906 Boulder Creek- 0.21 -0.50 -0.1 Boulder Creek

170200022001 Toulou Creek 0.31 -0.40 0.0

170200021902 Deep Creek -0.25 -0.40 -0.3

South Fork 170200021905 -0.29 -0.40 -0.3 Boulder Creek

1251

1252 Table 13. Sanpoil Subbasin WSCT AEC scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

North Fork Sanpoil River- -0.31 -0.30 -0.3 170200040101 Sanpoil River

1253

1254 Table 14. Sanpoil Subbasin Interior Redband AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

170200040102 O`Brien Creek -0.13 -0.30 -0.2

Thirteenmile 170200040108 Creek-Sanpoil -0.50 0.00 -0.3 River

39

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Scatter Creek- 170200040106 -0.75 -0.40 -0.6 Sanpoil River

170200040107 Ninemile Creek -0.75 -0.50 -0.6

1255

1256 Table 15. Pend Oreille Subbasin Bull Trout AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

Headwaters South 170102160702 0.16 0.90 0.5 Salmo River

North Fork 170102160403 Sullivan Creek- -0.29 0.70 0.2 Sullivan Creek

170102160903 Slate Creek -0.16 0.40 0.1

Exposure Creek- 170102160201 -0.56 -0.20 -0.4 Pend Oreille River

West Branch Le 170102160302 -0.24 -0.10 -0.2 Clerc Creek

East Branch Le 170102160303 -0.24 -0.50 -0.4 Clerc Creek

Sweet Creek-Pend 170102160902 -0.35 -0.20 -0.3 Oreille River

170102160102 Winchester Creek -0.63 -0.50 -0.6

170102160103 Smalle Creek -0.69 -0.40 -0.5

170102160206 Tacoma Creek -0.53 -0.50 -0.5

170102160304 Ruby Creek -0.63 -0.70 -0.7

Headwaters 170102160402 -0.94 -0.50 -0.7 Sullivan Creek

170102160401 Harvey Creek -0.75 -0.20 -0.5

North Fork 170102160101 -0.88 -0.70 -0.8 Calispell Creek

170102160104 Calispell Creek -0.50 0.00 -0.3

40

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

170102160202 Skookum Creek -0.63 -0.50 -0.6

Cusick Creek- 170102160207 -0.53 -0.60 -0.6 Pend Oreille River

170102160306 Lost Creek -0.63 -0.40 -0.5

170102160901 Big Muddy Creek -0.53 -0.50 -0.5

Flume Creek-Pend 170102160904 -0.75 -0.10 -0.4 Oreille River

Pewee Creek-Pend 170102160905 -1.00 -0.70 -0.9 Oreille River

170102160204 Cee Cee Ah Creek -0.38 -0.40 -0.4

Maitlen Creek- 170102160307 -0.63 -0.50 -0.6 Pend Oreille River

1257

1258 Table 16. Pend Oreille Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

Headwaters South 170102160702 0.50 0.90 0.7 Salmo River

North Fork 170102160403 Sullivan Creek- -0.13 0.70 0.3 Sullivan Creek

170102160903 Slate Creek 0.13 0.40 0.3

170102161003 Cedar Creek -0.25 0.20 0.0

West Branch Le 170102160302 0.43 -0.10 0.2 Clerc Creek

East Branch Le 170102160303 0.36 -0.50 -0.1 Clerc Creek

170102160103 Smalle Creek 0.06 -0.40 -0.2

41

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

170102160206 Tacoma Creek 0.27 -0.50 -0.1

170102160401 Harvey Creek 0.44 -0.20 0.1

Headwaters 170102160402 0.06 -0.50 -0.2 Sullivan Creek

Sweet Creek-Pend 170102160902 0.01 -0.20 -0.1 Oreille River

170102160304 Ruby Creek 0.01 -0.70 -0.3

Exposure Creek- 170102160201 -0.38 -0.20 -0.3 Pend Oreille River

170102160102 Winchester Creek -0.53 -0.50 -0.5

Pewee Creek-Pend 170102160905 0.06 -0.70 -0.3 Oreille River

North Fork 170102160101 -0.41 -0.70 -0.6 Calispell Creek

170102160204 Cee Cee Ah Creek 0.05 -0.40 -0.2

170102160306 Lost Creek 0.01 -0.40 -0.2

170102160901 Big Muddy Creek 0.11 -0.50 -0.2

170102160104 Calispell Creek -0.50 0.00 -0.3

170102160202 Skookum Creek -0.75 -0.50 -0.6

Cusick Creek- 170102160207 -0.41 -0.60 -0.5 Pend Oreille River

Flume Creek-Pend 170102160904 -0.50 -0.10 -0.3 Oreille River

Maitlen Creek- 170102160307 -0.63 -0.50 -0.6 Pend Oreille River

1259

1260 Table 17. Colville Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores HUC12 Number HUC12 Name HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal Condition AEC

42

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Species Score Score Score

170200030106 Cottonwood Creek 0.20 0.20 0.2

Little Pend Oreille 170200030201 -0.25 -0.50 -0.4 Lakes

South Fork Mill 170200030301 -0.26 -0.60 -0.4 Creek

1261

1262 Table 18. Colville Subbasin Interior Redband AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

South Fork 170200030109 Chewelah Creek- -0.18 -0.50 -0.3 Chewelah Creek

South Fork Mill 170200030301 -0.26 -0.60 -0.4 Creek

North Fork Mill 170200030302 -0.01 -0.60 -0.3 Creek

North Fork 170200030108 -0.25 -0.70 -0.5 Chewelah Creek

1263

1264 Table 19. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Interior Redband AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

170200011401 Upper Hall Creek 0.09 0.20 0.1

South Fork 170200011301 0.03 -0.40 -0.2 Sherman Creek

Upper Sherman 170200011302 -0.31 -0.50 -0.4 Creek

Lower Sherman 170200011303 0.00 -0.50 -0.3 Creek

43

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

170200011306 Barnaby Creek -0.25 -0.50 -0.4

Nancy Creek- 170200011304 Franklin D 0.25 0.20 0.2 Roosevelt Lake

Flat Creek- 170200011207 Franklin D -0.53 -0.30 -0.4 Roosevelt Lake

Quillisascut 170200011307 Creek-Franklin D -0.75 0.00 -0.4 Roosevelt Lake

170200011205 Crown Creek -0.53 -0.20 -0.4

1265

1266 Table 20. Lake Roosevelt Subbasin WSCT AEC Scores HUC12 Watershed Final MIS/Focal HUC12 Number HUC12 Name Condition AEC Species Score Score Score

North Fork Deep 170200011004 -0.38 -0.30 -0.3 Creek

170200011105 American Fork -0.25 -0.30 -0.3

Lower Big Sheep 170200011107 -0.25 -0.10 -0.2 Creek

170200011001 Rocky Creek -0.09 -0.50 -0.3

170200011002 Meadow Creek -0.22 -0.60 -0.4

1267

1268 PIBO Surveys 1269 The AEC assessment provides information on the current status of MIS/focal species populations and 1270 watershed and stream channel condition. That assessment of current aquatic habitat condition on the CNF 1271 is further informed through habitat trend information provided by the PACFISH/INFISH Biological 1272 Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program (PIBO). PIBO began implementation in 2001 (while the CNF 1273 only comes under the INFISH strategy the PIBO program includes areas managed under both the 1274 PACFISH and INFISH strategies).14 The monitoring program was designed to answer the question: “Are 1275 key biological and physical components of aquatic and riparian communities being improved, degraded, 1276 or restored within the range of steelhead (O. mykiss) and bull trout?” As the program has progressed,

14 PIBO PacFish Infish Biological Opinion Monitoring http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp/index.html)

44

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1277 PIBO is using an “index” approach to answer the question.15 The index approach outlined in Al- 1278 Chokhachy et al. (2010) compares six in-channel habitat attributes; residual pool depth, percent pools, 1279 D5016, fines in pool tails, wood frequency, and bank angle. The individual attributes are combined into a 1280 total index and there is an additional index for the aquatic macroinvetebrate community. The scores for 1281 the individual attributes and the final index are then compared to scores from reference stream reaches, in 1282 reference watersheds within the same ecoregion, and across the PIBO monitoring area. PIBO also 1283 evaluated the data to determine if habitat trends on reaches where they had repeat surveys (often three) 1284 were improving (moving in a direction considered to be favorable habitat for salmonids). For the trend 1285 analysis, the attributes bank stability (% bank covered with plants or rock) and percent undercut bank 1286 were added.

1287 The following summarizes the PIBO results within the subbasins on the CNF.17 In all cases below, the 1288 “managed” stream results are compared to the results from reference streams in the same ecoregion and 1289 the term significant refers to statistical significance (p <.10). Consistent with the WCF ratings, the 1290 distribution of the total index scores for streams on the Forest are less (impaired habitat condition) than 1291 would be expected based upon the reference watersheds. There are however indications of some positive 1292 trends in habitat condition as, on a Forest-wide basis, there has been a statistically significant positive 1293 trend in the bank stability, percent undercut bank, and bank angle indicators, and the overall index scores.

1294 Kettle Subbasin

1295 The total index score for sampled streams in the Kettle subbasin were significantly lower than observed 1296 in reference streams within the ecoregion. The bank angle, percent pools, macroinvertebrates, and D50 1297 indicators were all significantly lower (poor quality) than observed in reference streams. The PIBO 1298 surveys revealed that within the sites monitored in the Kettle subbasin the macroinvetebrate community, 1299 percent undercut bank, large wood frequency, residual pool depth and the percent pools and bank angle, 1300 as well as the total index were moving in a positive direction. The large wood and pool depth changes 1301 were significant. Bank stability, the D50 and percent fines in pools showed negative, but not statistically 1302 significant trends.

1303 San Poil Subbasin

1304 Only four managed streams in the San Poil subbasin were available for comparison therefore the 1305 statistical significance of differences in attribute and final scores and trends could not be determined

1306 Pend Oreille Subbasin

1307 The fine sediment indicators of pool fines and D50, were in significantly “worse” condition than 1308 reference watersheds. The large woody debris indicator scores were significantly greater than reference 1309 streams. All other indicators and the total habitat index score were not significantly different than 1310 reference streams, however the distribution of the total index scores appear skewed towards the lower end 1311 of the distribution of the reference stream scores. The total index, , bank stability, percent undercut bank, 1312 bank angle, large wood, pool depth and pool frequency trends were positive; with the improving trends in

15 Personal communication, telephone conversation between Ken MacDonald and Erik Archer, PIBO (March 20, 2014) and email Erik Archer to Ken MacDonald (Preliminary Colville Results) (March 21, 2014) 16 D50 is a measure of the stream substrate mean particle size of the stream substrate. Definitions for all the stream habitat attributes can be found in Kershner et al. (2004). 17 Data obtained in emails from Eric Archer, PIBO to Ken MacDonald (Preliminary Colville Results) (March 21, 2014) (Results) (March 25, 2014) and Telephone Conversation between Eric Archer, PIBO and Ken MacDonald (March 25, 2014) and revised report (Habitat Conditions in the Colville National Forest) from Eric Archer to Ken MacDonald (January 31, 2015).

45

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1313 bank stability, large wood, percent fines in pools and pool depth changes statistically significant. The 1314 macroinvertebrate community and D50 also showed a slight negative trend that is not statistically 1315 significant.

1316 Colville Subbasin

1317 The overall habitat index score was significantly lower for the sampled streams in Colville subbasin than 1318 the expected condition based upon reference stream conditions. Pool fines, the macroinvertebrate 1319 community and D50 scores were significantly lower quality compared reference streams... In the Colville 1320 subbasin, the macroinvertebrate community, bank stability, , large wood, percent fines in pools D50, pool 1321 depths and percent pools showed a positive trend. The changes in percent pools, fines in pools and bank 1322 stability were significant. Negative trends were shown for the bank angle, and percent undercut bank,

1323 Upper Columbia-Lake Roosevelt Subbasin

1324 The total habitat index for the Upper Columbia-Lake Roosevelt subbasin was not significantly different 1325 than the index results for reference streams. The sediment indicators, D50 and percent fines in pool tails 1326 had significantly lower scores than reference streams, while wood frequency scores were significantly 1327 higher than reference streams. The trend for the index score for the Upper Columbia-Lake Roosevelt 1328 Subbasin is positive but the change is not significant. The trend for the macroinvertebrate community, 1329 bank stability, percent undercut bank, bank angle, large wood frequency, D50, pool depths and percent 1330 pools were positive, with the changes in large wood frequency significant. A negative trend was recorded 1331 for percent fines (an increase in fines) in pools but the change is not statistically significant.

1332

1333

1334 Need for Change

1335 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 1336 In the revision of the Forest Plan, three broad-scale concerns drove the need to consider how we address 1337 old forest management, especially the current reserve system approach at the landscape scale. These are:

1338 • The recent history of uncharacteristic levels of disturbances resulting from fire and insect and disease 1339 activity that would likely continue into the future. 1340 • The interaction between disturbances and climate change that elevates the importance of restoring 1341 landscape resiliency. 1342 • Uncertainty about the recovery and viability of old forest-dependent species given the increased risk 1343 of uncharacteristically severe disturbances that is likely to be exacerbated by climate change impacts.

1344 Motorized Recreation Trails 1345 The current land management plans provide direction for summer and winter motorized uses, including 1346 identifying areas where such use may not be authorized or is limited, mainly for protection of aquatic, 1347 plant, and wildlife habitats.

1348 The goal for recreation settings and experiences would include providing a spectrum of high quality, 1349 nature-based outdoor recreational settings where visitors access the Forest, including access to the

46

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1350 biological, geological, scenic, cultural, and experiential resources of the Forest. Where the visitor’s 1351 outdoor recreational experience involves few conflicts with other users, access is available for a broad 1352 range of dispersed recreation activities such as dispersed camping, rock climbing, boating, mushroom and 1353 berry picking, hunting, and fishing and these experiences are offered in an environmentally sound 1354 manner, are within budget limits, and contribute to the local economy.

1355 Access 1356 Three broad concerns drove the need to address road density:

1357 1) the Forest can no longer afford to properly maintain the road system at current operational maintenance 1358 levels,

1359 2) the current road system is not aligned with current and future resource management objectives, and

1360 3) the existing road management direction is confusing and difficult to follow because it is scattered 1361 throughout current Forest Plan (Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), Forest 1362 Plan amendments (East-side Screens, Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, 1363 Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions [INFish, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995]), national-level 1364 decisions (the Roadless Rule), and interim policy (e.g., Grizzly Bear No-Net-Loss, Lynx Agreement, the 1365 Interior Columbia Basin Strategy).

1366 Recommended Wilderness Areas 1367 By law, all National Forest System lands must be evaluated for possible wilderness recommendation 1368 during the plan revision process. The result of that evaluation shows whether a need exists for additional 1369 wilderness and what trade-offs may exist if the area is eventually designated part of the National 1370 Wilderness Preservation System.

1371 Currently, the Salmo-Priest Wilderness covers about 3 percent of the Colville National Forest and 1372 evaluation showed a need for additional wilderness opportunities on the Forest. A review of possible areas 1373 showed some are available to fill this need.

1374 Wildlife 1375 The current Forest Plan provides limited protection for habitat connectivity, providing wildlife and 1376 aquatic crossing structures, and managing activities adjacent to the structures so they are used by wildlife.

1377 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 1378 The current Forest Plan includes riparian management direction from the Inland Native Fish Strategy 1379 (INFISH, USDA Forest Service 1994c and 1995). This approach appears to have either maintained or 1380 improved riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the watershed and larger scales.

1381 Objectives for Riparian Management Areas would give emphasis to maintaining or restoring the riparian 1382 and aquatic structure and function of intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to riparian- 1383 dependent plant and animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the 1384 transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, contribute to improved water quality and flows, and 1385 contribute to a greater connectivity of the watershed for both riparian and upland species.

47

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1386 Desired conditions for Riparian Management Areas within any given watershed are to have compositions 1387 of native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions commensurate 1388 with natural processes.

1389 Environmental Consequences

1390 Methodology 1391 There was a 2 step process for the environmental consequences assessment for fish and aquatic habitat for 1392 each alternative. First, the key indicators for the issues were assessed providing the framework to describe 1393 the relative conservation value to aquatic species of the alternatives, based upon an assessment of the 1394 relative risks and protections the alternatives are judged to provide.

1395 Table 21. Issues and Key indicators for the Aquatic Habitat and Species Environmental Consequences Issue Key Indicators

Old Forest Management and Timber production • The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.

Motorized Trails and Access • Desired Conditions for road densities

• Acres allocated to motorized access.

Recommended Wilderness • Total acres in Recommended Wilderness.

Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management • ACS Direction, RMA Delineation and RMA Direction.

• Key Watershed Acres, Management Direction for Key Watersheds, MIS/Focal Species, Key Watershed and Restoration Objectives.

• Change in distribution of aquatic invasive species.

• Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments.

1396

1397 Once the environmental consequences of an alternative were determined based upon the key indicators, 1398 the Forest Service contribution to providing for the viability of the MIS/focal species was modeled based 1399 on the procedures outlined in Reiss et al. (2008).

1400 Viability Model and Forest Service Contribution to Viability 1401 The viability as described in Reiss et al. (2008) utilizes a DSM, similar to what was used in the AEC to 1402 determine the current status of the MIS/focal species. The viability model however evaluates the

48 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1403 conclusion that the MIS/focal species populations at the subbasin scale are sustainable or viable based on 1404 their current status. The HUC 12 AEC results are aggregated to the subbasin (HUC 8) scale to provide a 1405 broader assessment of population and habitat status to better capture the distribution and ability of the 1406 local populations to interact across a broader landscape. The subbasin scale assessment allows a broader 1407 assessment of natural and human-made disturbance that may be missed if only the AEC results are 1408 considered alone (Reiss et al. 2008).

1409 After the viability of the MIS/focal species populations on the CNF was estimated, the Forest Service 1410 contribution to the ecological viability of the MIS/focal species’ populations was assessed by alternative. 1411 This assessment was also performed at the subbasin scale (Reiss et al. 2008). The viability and Forest 1412 Service Contribution to Viability models was explained further in the Methods section below.

1413 Assumptions 1414 • Forest Budgets would remain relatively constant at current levels, recognizing there may be 1415 increases or decreases in any one year. 1416 • The MIS/focal species approach to determining the AEC, viability analysis and the Forest Service 1417 Contribution to Viability truly captures the conservation requirements for other species that are 1418 not analyzed. 1419 • Alternatives with more reliance on standards than guidelines are more conservative (from an 1420 aquatic perspective) compared to guidelines. 1421 • Where identified, the desired condition road densities are attainable.

1422 Methods of analysis

1423 Rational for Key Indicators addressing the Issues 1424 The following describes the rational for selecting the key indicators for each key issue. The rationale was 1425 developed based upon the literature regarding the potential effects of land management activities on 1426 aquatic habitat and fish populations; and management direction based upon work completed for the 1427 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (see Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), The Interior 1428 Columbia Deputy Team Strategy and Framework documents (discussed below), and the Forest Service 1429 Region 6 Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) (USDA Forest Service 2008).

1430 Old Growth Forest Management and Timber Production 1431 The key indicator for assessing the effects of vegetation management and timber production is; the 1432 number of acres that have a Focused Restoration, General Restoration, or timber production emphasis.

1433 Vegetation management through timber sales for timber production or as a fuel treatment (e.g. thinning, 1434 prescribed fire) to reduce the potential for uncharacteristically severe wildfires can adversely affect 1435 watershed processes, aquatic and riparian habitat (see Spence et al. 1996, Mehan 1991; and Day 2015 ). 1436 The potential for adverse effects is greatest on lands specifically allocated for timber production due to 1437 the emphasis on commodity production; potentially resulting in intense vegetation manipulation and more 1438 ground disturbance due to logging and roads than is expected where vegetation management emphasizes 1439 the restoration of forest vegetation . However, managing vegetation to provide a vegetation composition 1440 and structure that is more characteristic of the natural fire regime and to promote late forest structure 1441 appropriate to the biophysical environment is a component of managing for natural watershed function 1442 and may result in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are more resilient to disturbance from fires or 1443 insects and disease.

49

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1444 Historically fires were a natural disturbance on the landscape. Since European man settled the west, 1445 logging, grazing, fire suppression, and the introduction of exotic plants has changed the natural plant 1446 structure and composition of terrestrial ecosystems resulting in the potential for larger and more severe 1447 fires in many landscapes (Hessburg and Agee 2003). Large fires can result in accelerated erosion due to 1448 surface erosion or debris slides increasing the sediment supply to streams and changing channel structure 1449 (Wondzell and King 2003, Benda et al. 2003). However, disturbances such as fires and the resulting 1450 erosion processes also help create diverse fish habitat through the introduction of large woody debris and 1451 coarse substrates that maintain productive fish habitat (Reeves et al. 1995).

1452 Fires can cause direct mortality to fish resulting in local extirpations. However, fish populations, 1453 especially salmonids, have been observed to rapidly recover after an episodic disturbance such as a 1454 wildfire; as long as the population and habitat are connected to adjoining populations, (Sestrich et al. 1455 2011, Rieman et al. 2003, Rieman et al. 1995). As was discussed in the Affected Environment section, a 1456 number of the local populations for the MIS/focal species are isolated above barriers or in streams with 1457 little connectivity to adjacent populations and are therefore more susceptible to extirpation by a large 1458 disturbance.

1459 The AEC results show s that a number of subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly 1460 functioning for the fire regime and Insects and disease attributes. Management that emphasizes late forest 1461 structure and terrestrial vegetation conditions as may be expected under the natural or historic disturbance 1462 regime may be beneficial to overall watershed health and reduce the potential for uncharacteristically 1463 severe wildfires. For the potential benefits to watershed conditions and aquatic species to be realized the 1464 other attributes of watershed condition would need to be improved as well, or at least maintained.

1465 Motorized Trails and Access 1466 The key indicators for the Motorized Recreation Trails and Access issues are; the desired conditions for 1467 road densities and acres allocated to motorized access.

1468 Roads can have numerous adverse effects on fish and fish habitat including the interruption or alteration 1469 of geomorphic and hydrologic processes. Geomorphic impacts of roads include chronic and long-term 1470 sediment delivery to aquatic habitat, accelerated mass failures of cuts and fills depositing large quantities 1471 of sediment, and altered channel morphology if the roads confine streams and prevent access to the 1472 floodplain. Roads constructed in riparian areas damage or remove vegetation thus reducing stream shade 1473 and large woody debris input. Roads constructed in the floodplain may inhibit natural stream channel 1474 migration processes (Gucinski et al 2001). Meredith et al. (2014) found that in the interior Columbia 1475 Basin, the presence of near-stream roads resulted in reduced amounts of large woody debris in streams.

1476 The effects of roads on hydrologic processes include the interception of rainfall directly on the road 1477 surface and road cutbanks affecting subsurface water moving down the hillslope; concentrating flow on 1478 the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and diverting or rerouting water from normal flow paths 1479 were the roads not present. Roads can deliver pollutants to aquatic habitat as the chemicals applied to 1480 roads or from vehicles runs off a road into a stream (Gucinski et al 2001). Additional discussion regarding 1481 the effects of roads on geomorphic and hydrologic processes is contained in the watershed section of 1482 Chapter 3 of the DEIS and in Day (2015).

1483 Roads can influence fish populations by creating passage barriers at culverts at road/stream crossings. 1484 Blocking passage is a serious issue as maintaining connectivity between populations of a species and 1485 providing access to blocked habitat are important factors in a species’ long-term persistence, such 1486 connectivity to adjacent populations and habitat may be an important strategy for species to persist in a 1487 changing climate (ISAB 2007).

50

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1488 In addition to the effects of the roads on the physical environment and passage, roads are an indicator of 1489 the level of potential human uses or management intensity that may affect fish population. Lee et al. 1490 (1997) found strong fish populations in the interior Columbia Basin were more frequently found in areas 1491 of low road density than high road density. Similarly, Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010) found reference 1492 watersheds generally provided higher quality physical stream habitat than managed watersheds with 1493 higher road densities. Following Lee et al. (1997), the USFWS (1999) considers watersheds with road 1494 densities <1 mile/square mile and no valley bottom roads as one measure of properly functioning 1495 watersheds for bull trout recovery. The USFWS considers road densities of 1-2.4 miles/square mile to be 1496 functioning at risk, and road densities greater the 2.4 miles/square mile to be not properly functioning.

1497 OHV trails that are not designed or maintained properly, including the drainage system, can be sources of 1498 chronic and long-term sediment delivery to streams. Negative impacts of soil and watershed functions 1499 from OHV activities include soil compaction, reduced water infiltration capacity, increased erosion, and 1500 damage to vegetation. Extensive networks of OHV routes across a landscape, especially on steep slopes, 1501 can direct or alter the direction of surface flows forming gullies that channel sediment and contaminants 1502 into aquatic systems (Ouren et al. 2007).

1503 The effects of roads and trails on watershed function can be reduced by considering the location, design, 1504 and employing design or maintenance methods to disperse runoff (Furniss et al. 1991). Road removal or 1505 decommissioning creates a short-term disturbance which may temporally increase sediment but over the 1506 long-term, decommissioning can reduce chronic erosion and the threat of landslides.

1507 Recommended Wilderness 1508 The Key Indicator for the Recommended Wilderness Area issue is the total acres in Recommended 1509 Wilderness (RW). As mentioned above, fish populations and aquatic habitat are generally in better 1510 condition on lands with less management impact; especially low road densities. Although some 1511 management activities such as non-motorized recreation and grazing can occur in RW, and in some 1512 alternatives motorized recreation can continue on the current trail system, and active vegetation 1513 management to restore forest structure to be more resilient to disturbance would not occur, it assumed that 1514 overall these areas would be protective of watershed function and fish habitat.

1515 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 1516 The key indicators used to assess the alternative approaches to riparian and aquatic resource management 1517 are: the Aquatic Conservation Strategy direction, the definition of RMAs and management direction for 1518 RMAs; the acres of Key Watersheds, MIS/focal species habitat and bull trout designated critical habitat 1519 within Key Watersheds; objectives for Key Watersheds and watershed restoration; the change in 1520 distribution of aquatic invasive species (AIS); and the potential for improvement in riparian vegetation 1521 conditions within grazing allotments due to RMA standards and guidelines. The alternatives do not 1522 change grazing allotments however the management direction for grazing within RMAs will be discussed. 1523 All alternatives will then be assessed for the potential Forest Device Contribution to viability of the 1524 MIS/focal species.

1525 The protection of riparian ecosystems is central to all salmonid conservation efforts (FEMAT 1993, 1526 Spence et al. 1996, and Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). As national forest land and resource management 1527 plans (LRMPs) and Bureau of Land Management resource management plans were about to be revised, 1528 the Interior Columbia Deputy Team18 issued in 2003, the Interior Columbia Strategy, A Strategy For

18 The Interior Columbia Deputy Team includes the Assistant Regional Director for the USFWS, the EPA Deputy Regional Administrator, the Deputy Regional Foresters for FS Regions 1, 4, 6, the BLM Idaho Deputy State

51 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1529 Applying The Knowledge Gained By The Interior Columbia Ecosystem Management Project To The 1530 Revision Of Forest and Resource Management Plans And Project Implementation. Direction for using the 1531 Strategy was clarified in August 21, 2008, when the Deputy Team issued further direction through a 1532 memo titled A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Component of the Interior 1533 Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions (hereafter referred to as 1534 Framework). The intent of the Framework was to include the information generated in the Interior 1535 Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) to facilitate consistency 1536 among plans in terms of the structure of riparian and aquatic components while providing for a high level 1537 of agency decision discretion in the substance of individual plan revisions. 1538 1539 Consistent with the aquatic conservation strategies of the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH 1540 Strategies, and suggested by Quigley and Arbelbide (1997), the Framework includes six components: 1541 1. Riparian Conservation Areas, Riparian Management Areas or other land use allocations to 1542 provide direction regarding aquatic and riparian conservation. These special management areas 1543 are not “no management” zones but areas where riparian dependent species receive management 1544 emphasis. The riparian management and delineation of these areas needs to recognize the 1545 important functions they are established for including: 1546 a. The input of fine organic matter and nutrients to aquatic habitat. 1547 b. Providing for bank stability. 1548 c. Filtering sediment due to surface erosion thus controlling the amount reaching the aquatic 1549 system. 1550 d. A source of large woody debris. 1551 e. Shading the aquatic habitat thus helping to control water temperature. 1552 f. Controlling the microclimate within the riparian zone and adjacent to the aquatic habitat. 1553 g. Recognition of small and intermittent streams and managing unstable lands to account for 1554 aquatic function and values.

1555 2. Protection of Population Strongholds for Listed or Proposed Species and narrow endemics. The 1556 revised plans should identify watersheds (HUC10 or HUC12) to be managed for the protection of 1557 ESA listed or proposed species. The intent is to identify habitat networks of existing strongholds 1558 with robust populations and high quality habitat for the species to support expansion and 1559 recolonization to adjacent watersheds. 1560 3. Multiscale Analysis. Recognizing the hierarchical nature of watersheds, plans should describe 1561 how multiscale analysis was used in plan revisions and how multiscale analysis will be used in 1562 subsequent project-level decisions. 1563 4. Restoration Priorities and Guidance. The plans should identify restoration priorities by general 1564 types and geographic areas. 1565 5. Management Direction (Desired Conditions, objectives, management actions). The plans should 1566 provide management direction that identifies desired outcomes or future conditions (conditions 1567 and objectives) for aquatic resources. 1568 6. Monitoring/Adaptive Management to: 1569 a. Determine if a plan is being implemented correctly and is achieving desired results 1570 b. Provide a mechanism for accountability and oversight, 1571 c. Evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts 1572 d. Provide a feedback loop so that management direction may be evaluated and modified.

Director for Resource Services, the BLM Oregon/Washington Deputy State Director for Resource Planning, Use and Protection, the NMFS Assistant Regional Administrator, the PNW and RMRS Deputy Station Director.

52 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1573 7. Climate Change. The discussion of climate change was added by the Deputy Team to account for 1574 the effects of climate change on the success or failure of management actions to achieve an 1575 aquatic/riparian conservation strategy. 1576 1577 Region 6 of the Forest Service includes lands managed under the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and 1578 INFISH. Based on broad-scale monitoring programs, the Aquatic Conservation Strategies (ACS) of 1579 INFISH, PACFISH and the Northwest Forest Plan appear to have been effective in improving aquatic 1580 habitat and watershed condition (Archer et al. 2009, Lanigan et al. 2012, Meredith et al. 2012). As forest 1581 plans were to be revised, Region 6 wanted a regionally consistent approach to the management of 1582 watersheds, and riparian and aquatic habitat. The Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS) 1583 (USDA Forest Service 2008) was developed based upon the lessons learned implementing the Northwest 1584 Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH, and new information that had become available since the earlier 1585 strategies were developed; especially the roll of disturbance and the dynamic nature of watersheds, 1586 riparian and aquatic systems (see Reeves et al 1995). 1587 1588 The ARCS is designed to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds, and aquatic and 1589 riparian ecosystems on National Forest lands. Naiman et al. (1992) define the components ecologically 1590 healthy watersheds as the basin geomorphology, hydrologic pattern, water quality riparian vegetation 1591 characteristics, and habitat characteristics; and the management of ecologically healthy watersheds 1592 requires the preservation of the interactions between these components and accounting for spatial and 1593 temporal variability (Naiman et al. 1992). Another purpose of the ARCS is to develop networks of 1594 properly functioning watersheds that support populations of fish and other aquatic and riparian-dependent 1595 resources across the Region. The intent of the ARCS is to maintain and restore the dynamic ecological 1596 processes responsible for creating and sustaining habitats over broad landscapes, as opposed to just at the 1597 individual project or small watershed scale (USDA Forest Service 2008). The ARCS is intended to 1598 provide a core set of desired conditions, suitability, objectives, standards and guidelines for aquatic and 1599 riparian management for national forests to design the forest plan direction (USDA Forest Service 2008). 1600 1601 Consistent with the Interior Columbia Deputy Team Framework the ARCS includes five elements: 1602 1. Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) along permanently-flowing stream, ponds, lakes, wetlands, 1603 seeps, springs, intermittent streams and unstable sites where management activities are to 1604 maintain, restore or enhance the ecological health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and 1605 dependent resources. 1606 2. Key watersheds. Key watersheds are a network of watersheds selected to serve as strongholds for 1607 important aquatic resources or having the potential to do so. Management emphasizes minimizing 1608 risk and maximizing restoration or maintaining ecosystem health. Key watersheds are selected 1609 based upon the requirements of the MIS/focal species. The Key Watershed concept has been 1610 found to be an effective strategy as in the Northwest Forest Plan area the watershed condition of 1611 Key Watersheds appears to be improving at a faster rate than non-key watersheds (Lanigan et al. 1612 2012.) 1613 3. Mid-Scale Analysis of Watersheds. Watershed or mid-scale analysis provides a basis for 1614 development of watershed-scale restoration strategies and provides the basis for defining desired 1615 conditions, management objectives and monitoring. 1616 4. Watershed Restoration. Watershed restoration is defined as an integrated set of actions and 1617 treatments designed to facilitate the recovery of watersheds and related aquatic ecosystem 1618 structure and function. 1619 5. Monitoring. Monitoring is a strategic assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of 1620 management activities and the ecological trends toward desired conditions. 1621

53

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1622 Each alternative includes an ACS that is either based upon Infish, the ARCs, or a revised version of the 1623 ARCS.The direction in INFISH, the ARCS and the revised ARCS includes goals or desired conditions, 1624 objectives including restoration objectives, RMAs, Key Watersheds and standards and guides. There is no 1625 specific direction for mid-scale analysis in any alternative so the topic is not discussed. Such an analysis 1626 generally occurs during plan implementation. Two types of Mid-Scale Analysis were completed for the 1627 DEIS. The AEC is a broad, mid-scale analysis at the subwatershed scale. The viability assessment and the 1628 Forest Service Contribution to Viability Assessment are subbasin scale analyses. The aquatic monitoring 1629 component of the revised plan is common to all alternatives 1630 Aquatic Conservation Strategy Direction, Desired Conditions, RMAs Key watersheds and Standards and 1631 Guidelines. The environmental consequences for an alternative will be assessed in terms of the relative 1632 effectiveness of the ACS components; desired conditions, the definition of RMAs, standards and 1633 guidelines, the size of the Key Watershed network, and the overlap of the Key watersheds with important 1634 habitat for MIS/focal species, to meet the desired conditions and contribute to the viability of the 1635 MIS/focal species. 1636 Objectives for Key Watersheds and Watershed Restoration. There is a need to accelerate improvement in 1637 watershed condition across the Forest. The current forest plan and amendments do not adequately provide 1638 integrated management direction to maintain and restore properly functioning watersheds that provide a 1639 range of benefits on and off the national forest within a timeframe that is meaningful. This is supported by 1640 new science, the listing of bull trout under the ESA, designation of bull trout Critical Habitat, information 1641 in the draft bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2002, USFWS 2014), and the results of new assessment 1642 tools such as the National Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). Properly functioning watersheds 1643 provide ecological systems that are resilient to disturbance, and allow for habitat conditions that support 1644 aquatic species, contribute to the recovery and de-listing of threatened and endangered species, and 1645 restore waters listed as impaired under the Clean water Act (303[d] listed waters). All alternatives include 1646 objectives for watershed restoration. 1647 AIS. Invasive species, are a threat to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Aquatic invasive species (AIS) 1648 include invasive plants, invertebrates, pathogens, and non-native fish.19 Invasive species may disrupt the 1649 food web, compete with native species for food and space, may be predators on native fish, or introduce 1650 diseases. The management direction for controlling and managing to prevent AIS will be discussed for 1651 each alternative. 1652 Potential Improvement of Riparian Vegetation within Grazing Allotments. The potential effects of 1653 livestock grazing on fish habitat have been well documented (e.g. Platts 1991, Spence et al. 1996). Al- 1654 Chokhachy et al. (2010) found the presence of cattle in watersheds sampled across the interior Columbia 1655 Basin and the Missouri River Basin often resulted in degraded physical aquatic habitat conditions, 1656 especially where grazing occurred in watersheds with high road densities. The potential adverse effects of 1657 grazing include soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams; soil compaction; alteration or removal of 1658 riparian vegetation that provides shade, cover, a terrestrial food source and stabilizes stream banks; 1659 altered channel morphology including channel widening, increased bank instability and loss of undercut 1660 banks. The alternatives do not change grazing allotments however the anticipated effectiveness of the 1661 management direction for grazing within RMAs for each alternative will be discussed.

19 Non-native fish introduced by state agencies in the past as sport fish are not considered invasive although it may now be understood that they can be a threat to native species and management actions may be implemented to reduce their numbers.

54 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1662 Viability and Forest Service Contribution to Viability Assessment

1663 MIS/Focal Species Viability Assessment (see Reiss et al. 2008 for further description and rationale). 1664 The viability assessment evaluates the conclusion that the current MIS/focal species’ populations are 1665 viable. The viability of individual MIS/focal species populations is evaluated at the subbasin scale where 1666 the species is currently present. Ecosystems are dynamic over time so not all habitat within subbasin will 1667 be in good condition all the time and even natural, undisturbed population numbers will be variable. 1668 MIS/focal species are judged to be viable when a large enough proportion of habitat is in good ecological 1669 condition, habitat forming processes are functional, and the local populations of a MIS/focal species 1670 (subwatershed scale) are not isolated; having access to other habitat and local populations (see Reiss et al. 1671 2008).

1672 The AEC analysis assessed the status of local populations within the subwatersheds. But the AEC does 1673 not capture the ability of the local populations to interact with other local populations or assess the 1674 distribution of local populations across the broader landscape. Similarly, the AEC assesses the watershed 1675 and habitat conditions at the subwatershed scale, but may miss natural and human-made disturbance 1676 patterns that become apparent at a larger scale. It should be noted that this viability assessment is 1677 addressing the MIS/focal species viability on the CNF only, primarily assessing national forest lands. 1678 While factors that may influence the larger population of a MIS/focal species are considered, this 1679 assessment is not as broad or inclusive as a viability assessment that the USFWS may undertake for an 1680 ESA status review.

1681 The two attributes assessed to determine the population viability of the MIS/focal species within a 1682 subbasin on the CNF are; the Subbasin Condition and Connectivity within the subbasin. The viability was 1683 assessed in the manner described in Reiss et al. (2008) only instead of using a DSM the information was 1684 put into an Excel spreadsheet (Honeycutt 2014 in prep).20 The attributes discussed below are aggregated 1685 to attain an overall subbasin viability score for the MIS/focal species ranging from +1 (high support for 1686 the conclusion that the MIS/focal species populations on the Forest are viable) to -1 (low support for the 1687 conclusion that to populations are viable). Unlike Reiss et al. (2008), we did not estimate the historic 1688 viability, assuming that before development by European man all the MIS/focal species were viable at the 1689 subbasin scale.

1690 Condition 1691 The Subbasin condition is assessed with three attributes; distribution, patch and the AEC. The distribution 1692 attribute assesses the percentage of the potential spawning and rearing habitat in the subbasin currently 1693 occupied by the MIS/focal species. The distribution reflects the impact of fragmentation and includes 1694 populations isolated by natural barriers. The patch attribute assesses the connected length of stream 1695 available to the MIS/focal species. Habitat patches within the subbasin are delineated by aggregating all 1696 connected stream kilometers of occupied habitat. If there are no barriers, the entire subbasin is one large 1697 patch. Where natural or man-made barriers exist, the occupied habitat above the barrier is its own patch. It 1698 is generally assumed that large, connected patches provide a better chance for a viable population over 1699 time than small isolated patches. Finally, the AEC attribute is the area-weighted average of the 1700 subwatershed scores within the subbasin.

20 2014_11_19ViabilityAssessment-Excel

55 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1701 Connectivity 1702 The connectivity of river systems is a major factor determining the potential for viable populations. 1703 Where streams are connected, local populations have the potential to function as a meta-population with 1704 some degree of genetic exchange over generations. Connectivity also allows an adjacent population to re- 1705 found a local population that becomes extinct due to a disturbance such as a fire or flood. There are two 1706 connectivity attributes; population connectivity and habitat connectivity. Population connectivity 1707 evaluates the overall connectivity of each local population within the subbasin. The habitat connectivity 1708 evaluates the ability of MIS/focal species to access unoccupied, potential habitat in the subbasin (see 1709 Reiss et al. 2008).

1710 Colville National Forest Contribution to MIS/Focal Species’ Ecological Viability (see Reiss et al. 2008 1711 for further description and rationale). 1712 The extent to which the different alternatives may contribute to the viability is assessed at the subbasin 1713 scale as well. This is a relative risk assessment based upon the risk different management allocations may 1714 pose to the MIS/focal species, the current condition of the MIS/focal species populations and habitat, and 1715 the amount of habitat on National Forest lands. The emphasis of this assessment is on management of 1716 CNF lands, in other words management that the CNF has control over. There are numerous actions and 1717 conditions of other lands that affect the MIS/focal species future viability; residential development, road 1718 systems; hydroelectric projects; etc. over which the CNF has more limited management authority. Hence 1719 this a relative assessment of how well CNF management as described for each alternative may be 1720 expected to contribute to the viability of the MIS/focal species.

1721 The contribution to viability assessment includes three attributes; protection, the percent of habitat 1722 occupied by a MIS/focal species on the Forest, and the AEC of the subbasin. As with the AEC and 1723 Viability assessments, Reiss et al. (2008) used a DSM to estimate the level of protection or conservation 1724 value of an alternative towards MIS/focal species viability. We again used an Excel spreadsheet to inform 1725 our analysis.21 The Forest Service contribution is assessed by MIS/focal species in each occupied 1726 subbasin, by alternative. The scores of the attributes are averaged resulting in a +1 (high support for the 1727 conclusion that that an alternative would contribute to MIS/focal species’ ecological viability) to -1 (low 1728 support for the conclusion).

1729 Protection 1730 The Management areas (MAs) described in the alternatives are assessed for the level of protection the 1731 allocation is expected to provide for aquatic habitat and watershed condition. A basic premise is 1732 allocations with no or few roads are more protective than allocations with higher road densities. Lands 1733 where terrestrial vegetation would be managed with a restoration emphasis is more protective or less risky 1734 to aquatic habitat and watershed condition than lands with a timber production emphasis.

1735 The MAs that informed the aquatic effects portion of the DEIS, based upon the four issues; Old Forest 1736 Management and Timber Production, Motorized trails and Access, Recommended Wilderness, Riparian 1737 and Aquatic Resource Management, were assessed for their relative protection afforded aquatic resources 1738 and watershed condition. The MAs included in the assessment are; RW, Backcountry Motorized, 1739 Backcountry Non-Motorized, Focused Restoration, General Restoration (including late Forest Structure in 1740 Alternative R), Active Management Area and Responsible Management Area. The current designated 1741 wilderness was also included. Within each MA the following management activities that relate to the Key 1742 Indicators in the aquatics effects analysis were assessed based on the level of protection (or inversely the 1743 level of risk to the aquatic habitat); non-motorized trails, motorized trails, timber harvest, and roads. At

21 2015_10_12_Forest service ContributionViability-Excel

56

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1744 the beginning of the analysis each allocation starts with a protection value of +1 and then points are 1745 subtracted based upon the potential intensity of an activity within the MA. If an activity is not allowed in 1746 an MA there is zero deduction. For example roads, motorized use and timber harvest are not allowed in 1747 wilderness so there are no deductions for those activities within the Wilderness MA.

1748 Non-Motorized Trails. If non-motorized trails are present -0.1 is deducted for the MA. The reason is that 1749 the presence of the trails do affect a watershed to a small degree and use of the trail does pose a risk to 1750 riparian habitat by trampling vegetation, may increase fishing pressure and possible introduction of AIS 1751 or a non-native fish.

1752 Motorized Trails. If motorized trails are present but the use is no longer permitted (RW in some 1753 alternatives) -0.1 was deducted. If motorized trail use is allowed the deduction is -0.2.

1754 Timber Harvest. Timber harvest deductions are based on the potential intensity of the activity. While the 1755 restoration MAs often emphasize terrestrial vegetation restoration which may help improve watershed 1756 condition, vegetation management activities do pose some risk to aquatic resources. It is assumed the 1757 intensity of vegetation management would be higher in General Restoration MAs than Focused 1758 Restoration MAs where there is more emphasis on aquatic resources and wildlife. The most risk or least 1759 protection is on those MAs that have greater timber production emphasis and allow even-aged 1760 management. Focused Restoration areas therefore received a -0.1 deduction; General Restoration a -0.2 1761 deduction and the Responsible Management and Active Management MAs a -0.3 deduction.

1762 The No Action Alternative MAs are based on the current forest plan so for timber harvest we “lumped” 1763 the MAs based upon the intensity of timber management. The Caribou, Old Growth, Recreation/Wildlife, 1764 Scenic/Winter Range, Winter Range MAs received a -0.2 deduction for timber harvest based on current 1765 management. The Private Lands Originally, Recreation, Scenic/Timber and Wood/Forage MAs received a 1766 -0.3 deduction.

1767 Roads. The road deductions were based upon whether roads are allowed or not, and if allowed the desired 1768 road densities. If roads are allowed and the road density desired condition is up to 1.0 mile/square mile 1769 then -0.2 was deducted. Even low road densities affect hydrologic processes and can affect aquatic 1770 habitat. The 1.0 mile/square mile density is at the upper range of road densities that in general watersheds 1771 may be properly functioning and potentially support strong fish populations. If the road density desired 1772 condition is no greater than 2 miles/square mile there is a -0.3 deduction. The 2.0 miles/square mile road 1773 density is within the range where watersheds are generally considered functioning at risk for road density 1774 as is the potential for the presence of strong fish populations. Road densities of 3.0 miles/square miles are 1775 considered not properly functioning for watershed condition and strong fish populations and received a - 1776 0.4 deduction. Alternatives that have no road density desired condition received a -0.5 deduction as these 1777 alternatives keep the current road mileage on the CNF where most watersheds are already functioning at 1778 risk or not properly functioning for road densities in the AEC assessment.

1779 The total score for a MA is obtained by subtracting the deductions for a total protection value. So 1780 wilderness with only a -0.1 deduction is considered highly protective (0.9), while an MA with even-age 1781 timber management, and high road densities gets a low protection score. All MAs were assumed to have 1782 non-motorized trails and motorized trails unless they are specifically not allowed.

1783 The total protection scores for the MAs for an alternative is the area-weighted average of the score for 1784 each land use allocation by subbasin. In this assessment, the score was determined by assessing the 1785 subbasin as a whole as opposed to doing the same assessment by subwatershed and aggregating the 1786 results together as described in Reiss et al. (2008). Another difference between this assessment and Reiss 1787 et al. (2008) is the treatment of Key Watersheds. Key Watersheds, other than the No Action Alternative

57

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1788 and Alternative B, are primarily in the Focused Restoration MA, although there may be some 1789 Backcountry, Wilderness and RW. Instead of assessing the protection value of Key Watersheds based on 1790 allowed activities in the Key Watersheds, it is assumed the Key Watersheds have an added protection 1791 value of their own as management within Key Watersheds emphasizes minimizing risk and maximizing 1792 restoration or retention of ecological health (see previous Key Indicator rationale). Therefore the percent 1793 area of Key Watershed within a subbasin was added to the protection score. Finally, grazing and RMAs 1794 are not specifically discussed. The grazing allotments are not changed in the different alternatives so 1795 grazing is just discussed as a Key Indicator in the Aquatic effects. The RMAs for different alternatives is 1796 also discussed as a Key Indicator.

1797 Percentage of Occupied Habitat on the CNF 1798 This attribute quantifies the proportion of the total occupied spawning and rearing habitat of a MIS/focal 1799 species on the Forest within a subbasin.

1800 AEC 1801 The AEC attribute is the area-weighted average of the habitat condition AEC scores of the National Forest 1802 lands within the subbasin to help determine the “Forest Service” contribution to viability.

1803 The final protection score for an alternative by subbasin and MIS/focal species is the average of 1804 protection, percent of occupied habitat on National Forest lands, and the AEC. The viability assessment 1805 and the Forest Service Contribution scores represent an interpretation of the relative role of CNF lands to 1806 provide for the viability of a MIS/focal species in a subbasin by alternative. It should be noted that when 1807 the Forest Service contribution to ecological viability scores are low, this does not necessarily indicate 1808 that Forest Service management direction is insufficient, but rather that management is not addressing all 1809 factors that contribute to species ecological viability. Much of the other management not addressed may 1810 be off National Forest lands such as roads managed by other entities. A low Forest Service contribution 1811 may also be due to presence on non-native fish and isolation due to natural barriers and man-made 1812 barriers off the National Forest.

1813 Incomplete and Unavailable Information 1814 Some incomplete or unavailable information includes:

1815 • The rate and magnitude of restoration activities would depend upon budgets social and technical 1816 constraints, therefore for estimating a rate for changing watershed condition is unknown.

1817 • The use of the MIS/focal species concept is assumed to provide for the viability of other aquatic 1818 species including invertebrate species for which little is known on the CNF.

1819 • Although the locations of the land allocations is known the actual level of management activity 1820 within a subbasin overtime is not known.

1821 • The actual effects of climate change (see below)

1822 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 1823 The analysis of the effects of the alternatives on the MIS/focal species and aquatic habitat is completed at 1824 several scales. First the current status of the MIS/focal species’ populations and the watershed/aquatic 1825 habitat condition was assessed at the subwatershed (HUC 12) scale to determine the AEC. The current 1826 viability of the species was then assessed at the subbasin scale (HUC 8). The effects of the alternatives

58

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1827 based upon the plan components is assessed at the scale of the CNF and the final estimate of the potential 1828 effects to MIS/focal species’ viability on the Forest, or the Forest Service contribution to viability is 1829 assessed at the subbasin scale. The temporal context for the assessment is the current time period, with 1830 the relative benefits or risks to the species due to implementation of an alternative estimated through the 1831 life of the revised forest plan as defined by the alternative.

1832 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis 1833 The future status of fish populations, aquatic and riparian habitats on the CNF would be influenced not 1834 only by management on the Forest but also by the management of surrounding lands and actions 1835 implemented by other entities within the subbasins. The potential effects to aquatic habitat due to timber 1836 harvest, roads and recreation management would continue on the Forest. The potential risks to aquatic 1837 habitat would vary depending upon the timber production emphasis, road desired conditions and 1838 recreation emphasis; motorized versus non-motorized recreation. The grazing program remains the same 1839 through all alternatives. The magnitude and severity of cumulative effects would depend upon; the 1840 management direction for the land allocations, the amount of land within the different land allocations, 1841 the ACS for an alternative, and the location and timing of management activities. The ACS plan 1842 components including; the desired conditions, Key Watersheds, RMAs, the number of Key Watersheds, 1843 and management direction provided by standards and guidelines would be important to mitigating 1844 potential cumulative effects. The future design of land management projects including the location, 1845 design criteria and incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) at the project level would be 1846 important factors in determining the potential cumulative effects, either positive or negative, to fish 1847 populations, aquatic and riparian habitat. Fish habitat quality on the Forest appears to be slowly 1848 improving. The improvement in habitat conditions is expected to continue. The potential rate and 1849 magnitude of improvement would depend upon the alternative. 1850 Projected human population growth would continue to put demands to forest resources, especially 1851 recreation. Recreational use of the Forest is projected to increase due to population growth as more people 1852 seek outdoor activities. The anticipated increase in recreation may put demands on infrastructure such as 1853 roads and trails. The degree to which the Forest can attain the desired conditions for road densities and 1854 OHV use, and maintain the infrastructure to improve watershed conditions may be challenging. Increased 1855 recreation use may also increase impacts on riparian habitat. As development of private land continues, 1856 the Forest Service anticipates a greater dependence on the CNF for nature-based activities and 1857 experiences that are becoming less accessible elsewhere. In many locations, resource impacts and 1858 crowding associated with recreation use are growing, with damage to riparian areas and unauthorized trail 1859 development being of particular concern. The Forest has been and would continue to aggressively manage 1860 OHV use through monitoring and restoration of user-built similar to what is described in Appendix 3. The 1861 extent to which recreation and especially OHV use would contribute to cumulative effects that are adverse 1862 to fish populations and habitat would depend on the Forest having the resources to manage the program.

1863 The road system on both the CNF and adjacent lands is an important watershed condition attribute 1864 resulting in the current, impaired watershed condition in most subwatersheds. The transportation system 1865 managed by other jurisdictions is not expected to change in the future, resulting in approximately 2,500 1866 miles of road within the subwatersheds over which the CNF has no management authority. Roads would 1867 continue to contribute to the cumulative effects that have resulted in the impaired watershed and stream 1868 channel conditions on the Forest. The degree to which the road system contribution to cumulative effects 1869 may be reduced would depend upon achieving restoration objectives and the Forest’s ability to maintain 1870 the desired road system.

59

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1871 The AEC analysis found that few subwatersheds on the CNF have watershed conditions or MIS/focal 1872 species populations that are considered to be properly functioning. The ability of the CNF to improve 1873 watershed conditions would depend on the Forest’s ability to manage the expected increased demands for 1874 use of the Forest and continue to implement the current watershed restoration programs, in addition to the 1875 restoration objectives described for the alternatives. The CNF, in the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 1876 2020 project, is planning to accomplish the following by the year 2020 in order to improve upslope and 1877 watershed conditions:

1878 • Establish forest vegetation on 35,000 acres

1879 • Improve forest vegetation on 13,600 acres,

1880 • Treat 2,000 acres to manage noxious weeds and invasive plants

1881 • Protect maintain or improve 100 acres of water or soil resources.

1882 • Restore or enhance 20 miles of stream habitat.

1883 • Restore or enhance 45,600 acres of terrestrial habitat.

1884 • Improve maintenance on 1,840 miles of high clearance system roads and 165 miles of passenger 1885 car system roads receiving maintenance.

1886 • Decommission 52 miles of road

1887 • Improve aquatic organism passage at 31 stream crossings.

1888 • Improve to standard 785 miles of trail.

1889 • Utilize timber sales to treat 42,500 acres of forestlands and treat hazardous fuels on 136,000 acres 1890 to reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire.

1891 The activities identified in Forest Vision 2020 are expected to contribute to achieving both desired 1892 conditions and objectives. A whole watershed restoration strategy where restoration is focused on meeting 1893 the objectives for specific watersheds should help restore watershed condition to some degree and 1894 potentially improve the resiliency of watersheds and aquatic habitat to disturbance.

1895 The ability to restore healthy native fish populations on the Forest would be challenged by the past 1896 introduction, and resulting established populations, of non-native trout. Restoring the populations of the 1897 MIS/focal species on the CNF would be greatly influenced by actions implemented by other entities both 1898 on and off the Forest. The hydroelectric projects on the mainstem rivers would continue to impact 1899 migratory fish populations including WSCT and bull trout. Riverine habitats have been converted to 1900 reservoir habitat and the dams impede fish passage. The mitigation measures included in the re-licensing 1901 for the hydroelectric dams on mainstem rivers adjacent to the CNF should provide some beneficial 1902 impacts to MIS/focal species populations and aquatic habitat on the Forest. Some actions to be 1903 implemented include (USFWS 2012):

1904 • Removing Mill Pond Dam on Sullivan Creek and installing a cold water pipe in Sullivan Lake.

1905 • Providing upstream fish passage at Boundary Dam

1906 • Eradicating non-native fish and supplementing the native WSCT and bull trout populations.

60

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1907 • Habitat improvement projects both on and off the Forest.

1908 Additionally, Pend Oreille PUD under actions associated with the Box Canyon license would be 1909 providing upstream and downstream fish passage at Box Canyon Dam, restoring 164 miles of tributary 1910 habitat, eradicating non-native fish and supplementing with natives, controlling aquatic invasive weed 1911 species and controlling erosion on CNF lands along Box Canyon Reservoir. 22

1912 Uncharacteristic fire may affect both watershed conditions and MIS/focal species populations. While 1913 disturbances such as fire and subsequent erosion events can be beneficial for long-term productive 1914 habitat, significant fish mortality can also occur. The MIS/focal species’ populations can often recover 1915 quickly from such disturbances if the populations are connected to other populations, or have a migratory 1916 life history where some individuals are not present at the time of the disturbance. On the CNF, however, a 1917 number of the MIS/focal species’ local populations are isolated and no longer appear to express the 1918 historic migratory life history type. Severe fires in subwatersheds with the isolated populations could 1919 result in the extirpation of a local population. The degree to which these populations become more 1920 resilient to such disturbances would depend upon improvement in the different attributes of the AEC and 1921 restoration actions to be implemented off the Forest by other entities.

1922 Climate Change 1923 Climate change is the largest unknown factor that would influence long-term cumulative effects. There is 1924 a wide range of climate change models that give an equally wide range of future trajectories. There is 1925 general agreement that climate would warm but no certainty on rate. Major shifts in several tree species 1926 are expected by the end of the century as is a doubling of fire acres by 2040, and a tripling of fire acres by 1927 2080 (see Vegetation section of the DEIS).

1928 In addition to the potential changes to terrestrial vegetation and the resulting potential for increased 1929 wildfires, climate change may also produce profound impacts to fish and aquatic habitat. As summarized 1930 by Staab et al. (2014), climate change across the Pacific Northwest is expected to result in:

1931 • declines in snowpacks;

1932 • increased streamflow and associated flooding in the winter and early spring;

1933 • decreased streamflow in the late spring, summer and fall;

1934 • increased stress on scarce summer water supplies;

1935 • increased stress on salmon and other cold-water species due to declining summer streamflows 1936 and rising stream temperatures.

1937 Streamflow patterns are expected to change in northeastern Washington with decreasing snowpacks in 1938 mid-elevation and wetter locations. Most subbasins on the CNF have a mixed rain and snow winter 1939 precipitation pattern, with only the Pend Oreille considered to be a snow dominated subbasin as a whole; 1940 however it may transition to a more mixed pattern by 2040 (Snover et al 2013). In the mountains of 1941 northeastern Washington, snowpacks are expected to persist at higher elevations but at diminished levels, 1942 with large portions of the mountains of northeastern Washington possibly losing their April 1 snow-water

22 Email Brian Peck, CNF to Ken MacDonald (FW: Project Operations Compliance Report submitted in FERC P- 2144-000 by Seattle City Light, et al.) (March 21, 2014). Terms of Seattle City Light’s license are available at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20140318-5216 (March 25, 2014)

61

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1943 equivalent (see Staab et al. 2014), 23 which may result in lower summer flows and potentially an increase 1944 in stream temperatures that are stressful for native salmonids (Mantua et al. 2010). Additional changes in 1945 streamflow regimes that may be expected include peak streamflows occurring earlier in the spring, a 1946 slight increase in the 20-year recurrence interval flood, and some reduction in low flows (Mantua et al. 1947 2010).

1948 Although many biotic and abiotic factors interact to determine suitable habitats for different fish species 1949 at a specific location, warming streams, declining summer flows, and increasing flood risk are, in general, 1950 all expected to negatively affect coldwater fish populations such as trout. Bull trout are especially 1951 vulnerable given that spawning and rearing are constrained by their location in upper watersheds and the 1952 species’ requirement for cold water temperatures. Warming water temperatures may reduce the miles of 1953 stream suitable for bull trout spawning and rearing (Rieman et al. 2007; Wenger et al. 2011). Increased 1954 water temperatures may also put bull trout at a competitive disadvantage with brook trout where the two 1955 species overlap (Rodtka and Volpe 2007, McHahon et al. 2007). Williams et al. (2009), hypothesize that 1956 westslope cutthroat trout populations in northeastern Washington are at high risk due to warming 1957 temperatures, however Wenger et al. (2011) felt westslope cutthroat trout distribution may not be strongly 1958 influenced by climate change where brook trout are not present. The potential for WSCT populations to 1959 hybridize with the non-native rainbow trout is greater in streams with higher mean summer water 1960 temperatures (Muhlfield et al. 2009).

1961 While climate change may give brook trout a competitive advantage over bull trout, climate change 1962 would also influence brook trout distribution. Like bull trout, Wenger et al. (2011) feel brook trout 1963 populations would be negatively affected by climate change, which may be an advantage to westslope 1964 cutthroat trout whose distribution appears to be negatively influenced by the presence of brook trout. 1965 Rainbow and redband trout may not be as susceptible to warmer water temperatures as they generally are 1966 more tolerant of higher water temperatures (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Issak et al. (2010) found over a 13- 1967 year period that increased stream temperatures, primarily driven by climate and to a lesser degree 1968 wildfires, minimally affected the thermal habitat for rainbow trout but reduced bull trout habitat.

1969 Climate change would influence the distribution of non-native fishes as well. Warming water 1970 temperatures may increase the range of non-native predators such as smallmouth bass and northern pike 1971 (Esox lucius) from large rivers into tributaries.

1972 The USFWS (2012) in their biological opinion for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project felt that if the 1973 current climate change models and predictions for Pacific Northwest aquatic habitats are relatively 1974 accurate, bull trout in the Pend Oreille River basin are likely to be impacted through at least one or more 1975 of the following pathways:

1976 • Changes in distribution of bull trout within the core area, such as reduced spawning habitat, 1977 and/or seasonal thermal blockage in the migratory corridors associated with increased stream 1978 temperatures

1979 • Disturbance or displacement of eggs, alevins, juveniles, and adults of resident and/or migratory 1980 adults during winter flooding events

23 Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) is a common snowpack measurement. It is the amount of water contained within the snowpack. It can be thought of as the depth of water that would theoretically result if you melted the entire snowpack instantaneously (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, March 22, 2014) http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/or/snow/?cid=nrcs142p2_046155. (March 2

62

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

1981 • Short-or long-term changes in habitat and prey species due to stochastic events during winter 1982 floods

1983 • Changes in flow/out-migration timing in the spring for bull trout and their prey species

1984 • Increased migration stressors from lower stream flows and high stream temperatures during 1985 spawning migrations

1986 The USFWS (2012) also judged some specific habitat effects may include:

1987 • Changes in flows in Sullivan Creek due to altered snowpack and snowmelt, which may change 1988 the timing of higher flows in lower Sullivan Creek, resulting in a barrier to bull trout migration in 1989 July and August.

1990 • Changes in temperature and flows within Sullivan and Slate Creeks may alter the species 1991 composition and abundance of the macroinvertebrate and fish populations with adverse 1992 consequences to bull trout food base.

1993 • Increased temperatures in Boundary Reservoir would decrease the amount of time that the 1994 reservoir is suitable for bull trout migration. Increased temperatures could alter the migratory 1995 pattern of bull trout for times entering tributary streams to spawn as well as migration times to 1996 and from the Lake Pend Oreille system. Warmer temperatures within Boundary Reservoir would 1997 improve conditions for non-native predators.

1998 Few MIS/focal species fish populations on the CNF are judged to be properly functioning as described in 1999 the AEC. The negative effects caused by the widespread distribution of the non-native fish may be 2000 exacerbated by climate change. In the face of climate change efforts to conserve native fish species 2001 should focus on restoring degraded habitat, improving riparian vegetation, providing habitat and 2002 population connectivity, providing flows in stream for ecosystem purposes, and providing for a network 2003 of intact habitats to support large populations (ISAB 2007; Haak and Williams 2012).

2004 Summary of Effects Common to All Alternatives

2005 Focus Watersheds and Priority Watersheds 2006 All alternatives include Key Watersheds (including the INFISH Priority Watersheds) and Focus 2007 Watersheds. While the Key Watersheds vary by alternative, the Focus watersheds are common to all 2008 Alternatives.

2009 Forest Service Region 6 developed the Region 6 Aquatic Restoration Strategy (ARS) in 2005 to provide 2010 guidance for watershed and aquatic and riparian improvement at a regional scale (see Hydrology section 2011 in the DEIS). As the ARS is scaled down for implementation at the forest level, the National Forests are to 2012 work with partners to identify Focus Watersheds (HUC10). The idea of the Focus Watersheds are to take a 2013 whole watershed approach to restoration to meaningfully affect change in watershed condition as opposed 2014 to practicing “random-acts-of-kindness” by scattering restoration efforts over a broad landscape ( Roni et 2015 al. 2010). Working with the partners, Forests are to then develop a watershed action plan (WAP) that 2016 identifies the needed restoration work that is technically and socially feasible. The current CNF Focus 2017 Watersheds are the Le Clerc-Pend Oreille River (HUC 171021602), The Upper Sanpoil River (HUC 2018 1702000401) and Chewelah Creek-Colville River (HUC 1702000301). WAP have been prepared for the 2019 Upper and West Forks Sanpoil River, and Le Clerc Creek. A WAP has not been completed to date for the 2020 Chewelah Creek-Colville River

63

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2021 National Forests throughout the United States were mandated in 2010 to implement the WCF, which was 2022 discussed for the AEC model. The results of the assessment were used to identify Priority subwatersheds 2023 to focus management to improve impaired watershed function (see Hydrology section of the DEIS for 2024 more information on Focus Watersheds and Priority subwatersheds).

2025 Monitoring 2026 Watershed conditions, stream and riparian habitat would be monitored through the life of the plan to 2027 determine;

2028 1. If plan implementation is achieving the watershed and aquatic objectives.

2029 2. The effects of various resource management activities on watershed, riparian and aquatic 2030 resources.

2031 The CNF would continue to cooperate with the PIBO monitoring program to determine current habitat 2032 conditions and to track the trends of aquatic habitat condition. 24 Additionally, the CNF would continue 2033 assessing aquatic habitat condition using the Region 6 Level II stream survey protocol, or future versions. 2034 Currently the CNF surveys about 17 stream miles annually. The Level II surveys also collect information 2035 on fish distribution at the time of the survey but are not designed to estimate population size. Changes in 2036 watershed condition would be determined through periodic updates of the WCF and the effectiveness the 2037 protection of watershed, riparian and aquatic resources during the implementation of land management 2038 projects would be monitored through Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring. For more 2039 information regarding the WCF, BMP and additional water quality monitoring see the Watershed section 2040 of the DEIS.

2041 The CNF would continue to cooperate and coordinate with monitoring programs implemented by other 2042 entities such as those associated with the Boundary Hydroelectric Project. For example, the Boundary 2043 Project re-licensing terms include a hatchery program to re-build the populations of native fish, initially 2044 focusing on WSCT. The terms for the hatchery program include establishing population goals for self- 2045 sustaining populations of the native fish. Seattle City Light is to monitor the success of the out-planting 2046 program until the population goals are met.

2047 Current Viability of MIS/focal Species

2048 The assessment of the current MIS/focal species viability on the Forest, bull trout, WSCT and interior 2049 redband trout, evaluates the conclusion that the MIS/focal species’ populations are viable at the subbasin 2050 scale. MIS/focal species are judged to be viable when a large enough proportion of habitat is in good 2051 ecological condition, habitat forming processes are functional, and the local populations of a MIS/focal 2052 species (subwatershed scale) are not isolated; having access to other habitat and local populations. The 2053 inputs to the viability assessment include the distribution of the MIS/focal species within the subbasin, the 2054 patch size, the weighted average of the AEC scores (that describe the habitat and population and habitat 2055 connectivity. The MIS/focal species viability score for a subbasin species status within subwatersheds)

24 See Appendix1 page 15 in the April 18, 2014 letter from the Deputy Regional Directors to FS Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Research Station Director, NOAA Fisheries Branch Chiefs (West Coast Region), BLM District/Field Managers (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana), FWS Field Supervisors (Pacific Region), EPA Office of Water Directors (Regions 8, 9, and 10), EPA Operations Office Directors (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington),EPA Region Forest/Range Manager (Region 10) Updated Interior Columbia Basin Strategy: A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation

64

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2056 can range from +1 (high support for the conclusion that the MIS/focal species populations on the Forest 2057 are viable) to -1 (low support for the conclusion that the populations are viable). Table 22 displays the 2058 final viability model scores for the MIS/focal species by subbasin.

2059 Table 22. MIS/focal species Viability Scores (WSCT=westslope cutthroat, IRT=interior redband, BT=bull 2060 trout) Subbasin Pend Oreille Columbia Kettle Colville SanPoil

Species WSCT BT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT

Viability -0.22 -0.42 -0.70 -0.43 -0.73 -0.09 -0.40 -0.53 -0.89 -0.61

2061

2062 As displayed in Table 22, in no subbasin, for any MIS/focal species, is there support for the conclusion 2063 the populations are currently viable. If one were to categorize the scores as +1 to +0.33 is viable, 0.33 to - 2064 0.33 as viability is at risk and > -0.33 as not viable, the viability of the WSCT in the Pend Oreille 2065 subbasin and interior redband in the Kettle subbasin would be considered at risk. All other populations 2066 would be considered not currently viable at the subbasin scale. This is not surprising as in the AEC 2067 assessment the status of most local populations was rated as functioning at risk or not properly 2068 functioning, as were the habitat condition scores. There were no positive scores for patch size other than 2069 for bull trout in the Pend Oreille meaning most populations occupy or have access to a stream network 2070 smaller than what is considered beneficial for long-term viability. The overall scores reflect the threats to 2071 the MIS/focal species due to: the overall poor population status; impaired watershed functions and aquatic 2072 habitat generally in a “poor” condition compared to reference streams; and poor distribution of the 2073 MIS/focal species within the subbasins due to natural isolation above waterfalls, man-made barriers 2074 including those off the Forest; and the abundance of non-native fish, especially brook trout. In some cases 2075 the natural barriers are protecting the WSCT and interior redband populations from invasion by the non- 2076 native trout. The following summarizes the viability by subbasin. Additional information on the 2077 MIS/focal species’ population status and habitat conditions may be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

2078 Pend Oreille 2079 The MIS/focal species in the Pend Oreille subbasin are WSCT trout and bull trout. The WSCT 2080 populations are well distributed but their viability is at risk due to the presence of non-native trout, culvert 2081 barriers, and habitat degradation. The bull trout populations have also been affected by non-native trout, 2082 culvert barriers and habitat degradation. Bull trout have not been recently observed on the Forest hence 2083 the species has a poor distribution score. The bull trout migratory life history and connectivity between 2084 populations is also impaired due to hydroelectric dams on the mainstem rivers.

2085 Upper Columbia/Lake Roosevelt 2086 The WSCT and redband trout are MIS/focal species in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin. The WSCT 2087 populations are mainly found in watersheds flowing into the eastside of Lake Roosevelt and are isolated 2088 from the lake and other populations by natural barriers. The interior redband trout populations are mainly 2089 found in watersheds draining into the westside of the lake and are also isolated by natural barriers. The 2090 isolated populations of both species have small patch sizes and the AEC scores reflect degraded habitat 2091 conditions. Non-native trout are probably preventing the two MIS/focal species from expanding their

65

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2092 ranges but the barriers are also preventing the non-native trout from invading the currently occupied 2093 WSCT and interior redband trout habitat.

2094 Kettle 2095 WSCT and interior redband trout inhabit the Kettle subbasin. The WSCT populations are isolated in two 2096 subwatersheds by natural barriers resulting in a low distribution and patch score. The AEC scores are low 2097 due to low or unknown population numbers and degraded habitat conditions. The distribution of the 2098 WSCT populations is likely restricted by the presence of non-native trout but as with the Lake Roosevelt 2099 populations, the natural barriers are preventing the non-native trout from invading the currently occupied 2100 WSCT habitat. 2101 2102 The interior redband trout are distributed across 15 subwatersheds although many populations are 2103 probably hybridized with non-native coastal rainbow trout. Pure populations are isolated from the Kettle 2104 River by man-made and natural barriers resulting in small patch sizes. The MIS/focal species population 2105 status is relatively healthy in eight subwatersheds but the isolated populations combined with some 2106 degraded habitat conditions and non-native trout below the barriers are threats to the interior redband 2107 populations.

2108 Colville 2109 The small interior redband trout and WSCT populations in the Colville subbasin are isolated by natural 2110 and man-made barriers. The population viability of both species is threatened due to small, isolated 2111 populations, degraded habitat conditions and the wide distribution of non-native trout.

2112 Sanpoil 2113 There is a small WSCT population within one subbasin in the Sanpoil subbasin. The population is 2114 isolated from the rest of the subbasin by a natural barrier. The limited distribution, small population 2115 number, small patch size, and lack of connectivity with other WSCT populations, combined with 2116 watershed conditions rated as functioning at risk are threats to the population viability. 2117 2118 Small populations of interior redband trout are distributed in only four subwatersheds within the Sanpoil 2119 subbasin. The populations are isolated due to natural barriers resulting in small patch sizes and poor 2120 population and habitat connectivity. Widely distributed non-native trout are likely preventing both WSCT 2121 and interior redband trout from becoming more widely distributed.

2122 Alternative 1 – No Action 2123 This is the current Colville Forest Plan as amended. No action means the current management direction 2124 would continue. The current plan delineates broad Management Areas (MA’s) where the general 2125 management intent is similar. Table 23 displays the MAs that share the same management direction in all 2126 Alternatives.

2127 Table 23. Management Areas that share the same direction across all action alternatives Management areas with Management direction and comparison to existing plan direction direction that remains the same across alternatives Administrative and Recreation The sites are established as separate management areas rather than overlays or Sites inclusions in other management areas. The management direction remains

66

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Management areas with Management direction and comparison to existing plan direction direction that remains the same across alternatives (Includes permitted and developed unchanged from current plans. recreation sites) Eligible and suitable wild and Plan direction emphasizes maintaining the eligibility of the areas. scenic rivers Overarching management direction from legislation, policy, and directives bounds the direction. (Includes all rivers identified in the current forest plans and those additional proposed eligible rivers) Research Natural Areas Emphasizes maintaining the research values of the areas. Boundaries of these areas remain unchanged from current. Overarching management direction from policy, directives, and establishment records bounds the direction. Scenic Byways Emphasizes maintaining the scenic values and functions of the area and remains unchanged across alternatives. Overarching management direction from policy and directives bounds the proposed plan revision direction. Special Interest Areas (SIA) Proposes new SIAs, combines others, and removes current SIAs that do not fit the category. Overarching management direction from directives bounds the proposed plan revision direction. Plan revision direction emphasizes maintaining the special values of the area and remains unchanged across alternatives. The boundaries and amount of SIAs are affected by wilderness recommendations changing across alternatives. Wilderness Congressionally designated wilderness boundaries do not change across alternatives. Management direction within Wilderness also does not change across alternatives. A notable change from current management is a proposal to allow the Forest to authorize use of prescribed fire within wilderness areas. 2128

2129 Management areas specific to the current plan are displayed in Table 24.

2130 Table 24. No Action Management Areas by Subbasin (acres) Management Area Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake Caribou Habitat 30,280 30,280 Downhill Skiing 2,024 2,024 No Management Area 17 17 Assigned Old Growth Dependent 4,674 6,772 7,097 10,335 4,290 33,168 Species Habitat Private Lands Originally 91 77 20 1025 1213 Recreation 8,511 9,722 9,158 11,146 4,642 43,179 Recreation/Wildlife 2,248 978 9,235 12,461 Research Natural Area 401 2269 2350 5020 Scenic Timber 22,595 42,961 46,498 89,594 14,472 216,120 Scenic/Winter Range 8,101 7,588 11,736 47,067 1,861 76,353

67

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Management Area Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake Semi-Primitive, Motorized 3,449 10,118 13,567 Recreation Semi-Primitive, Non- 29,942 16,824 33,696 7,534 87,996 Motorized Recreation Wilderness Management 31,429 31,429 Winter Range 16,422 16,877 37,483 34,506 20,396 125,966 Wood/Forage 48,082 74,556 158,418 109,254 32,601 422,911 Total* 108,477 194,593 298,330 404,099 97,381 1,103,162 2131 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology

2132 Summary of Effects

2133 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 2134 Key Indicators

2135 • The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General 2136 Restoration, and a timber production emphasis – 30,741 acres (about 3% of the Forest is 2137 allocated to Old Growth Dependent Species Habitat.

2138 • Number of acres where management to produce timber is allowed – about 891,000 (about 81% 2139 of the Forest). However vegetation management in the Caribou, Old Growth Dependent Species, 2140 Recreation/Wildlife, Scenic/Winter Range and Winter Range MAs is more likely to be similar to 2141 vegetation management in the Focused Restoration or Late Forest Structure MAs in the Proposed 2142 Action and Alternatives R and P, the Restoration Zone in Alternatives B and O. These No Action 2143 MAs include about 25% of the Forest (approximately 278,230) which is similar to the Proposed 2144 Action. More intense timber production is expected in the recreation, Scenic/Timber and 2145 Wood/Forage MAs totaling about 682,200 acres (62 percent of the Forest) which is more than the 2146 Active Management Area of Alternative B and Responsible Management Area included in 2147 Alternative O. The risks to watershed processes and aquatic habitat associated with timber 2148 production would occur over more of the Forest than any other alternative.

2149 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 2150 Key Indicators

2151 • Desired conditions for road densities- No desired conditions that specifically address watershed 2152 condition or aquatic habitat.

2153 • Acres allocated to Motorized Recreation – In total approximately 931,221 acres, about 85% of 2154 the Forest is available for off-road motorized. Off-road vehicle use would continue to be allowed 2155 in designated areas and trails over approximately 698,575 acres (about 65% of the Forest); 2156 allowed but subject to seasonal closures or other restrictions on approximately 232,646 acres 2157 (about 21% of the Forest; and discouraged or not allowed on about 168,370 acres (15% of the 2158 Forest) 2159

68

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2160 There are approximately 4,000 miles of National Forest System roads on the CNF and another 2161 approximately 2,500 miles of roads owned by other jurisdictions within the boundaries of subwatersheds 2162 that include the CNF. The AEC assessment found most subwatersheds on the Forest to be functioning at 2163 risk or not properly functioning for the road density and riparian road density attribute. The No Action 2164 Alternative, along with Alternatives B and O do not include desired conditions for road densities and cap 2165 the road system at 4,000 miles. While some MAs within the No Action Alternative have desired 2166 conditions limiting open road densities, primarily to benefit wildlife, roads that are closed to use but still 2167 on the landscape continue to impact watershed processes and are considered “open” from a watershed and 2168 aquatic habitat perspective. The No Action Alternative along with Alternatives B and O present the most 2169 risk to aquatic resources and watershed conditions due to roads.

2170 Off-road vehicle use would continue to be allowed in designated areas and trails over approximately 2171 698,575 acres (about 65% of the Forest); allowed but subject to seasonal closures or other restrictions on 2172 approximately 232,646 acres (about 21% of the Forest; and discouraged or not allowed on about 168,370 2173 acres (15% of the Forest). Off-road use increases the potential for accelerated sediment delivery to 2174 streams and damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. These risks may increase if recreation use 2175 increases as expected and budgets to manage and maintain the system as described in Appendix 3 do not 2176 keep pace.

2177 Recommended Wilderness Areas 2178 The current CNF plan has no areas recommended for wilderness.

2179 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 2180 Key Indicator-ACS Direction, RMA Delineation and RMA Direction

2181 Under the No Action Alternative, current forest plan direction for watershed, aquatic and riparian 2182 resources would remain as defined by INFISH.

2183 INFISH includes eight riparian goals (similar to Desired Conditions) establishing the expectation for 2184 providing the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas and fish habitat; Riparian 2185 Management Objectives (RMOs) that are numeric descriptors for good fish habitat25; Riparian Habitat 2186 Conservation Areas (RHCAs) (similar to RMAs) where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 2187 emphasis and specific standards and guides for land management activities are to be applied; Priority 2188 Watersheds designated to protect and conserve inland native fish habitat and populations; Watershed 2189 Analysis, a systematic procedure for determining how a watershed functions in relation to its physical and 2190 biological components; watershed restoration to improve the current condition of watersheds to restore 2191 degraded habitat and to provide long-term protection to riparian and aquatic resources (although no 2192 restoration strategy was originally included); and Monitoring (USDA Forest Service 1995) (See Appendix 2193 1 for a complete description of the ACS for each alternative.

2194 The delineation of riparian management areas, where riparian –dependent ecosystems receive primary 2195 emphasis would continue under the INFISH RHCA definitions (Table 25). Standards and guidelines 2196 direct management within the RHCAs to meet the numeric RMOs.

25The specific measurable RMOs are for the following in-stream features; pool frequency; water temperature; large woody debris; bank stability; lower bank angle and width/depth ratio The RMOs are to remain in place unless they are revised through watershed or site-specific analysis

69

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2197 Table 25. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width Stream and water body Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width classification

Fish bearing streams 300 ft slope distance on each side (600 ft total)

Permanently flowing non-fish 150 ft slope distance on each side (300 ft total) bearing streams

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs and 150 feet slope distance around feature wetlands greater than 1 acre

Seasonally flowing or 100 ft slope distance in priority watersheds, 50 ft slope intermittent streams, wetlands distance in non-priority watersheds. less than 1 acre

2198

2199 The INFISH standards and guidelines for RHCA’s constrain management activities (timber, roads, 2200 livestock grazing, recreation, minerals, fire/fuels, lands, general riparian, watershed and habitat 2201 restoration, fisheries and wildlife restoration) in order to achieve the Riparian Goals and RMO’s and 2202 ensure protection of physical and biological resources.

2203 The results of stream surveys conducted by the CNF show that many of the reaches surveyed are not 2204 meeting the RMOs as defined by INFISH, although recent analysis of habitat trends show conditions may 2205 be slowly improving.

2206 Key Indicator –Key Watershed; Acres, Management Direction, MIS/Focal Species and Objectives

2207 There are currently 13 Priority watersheds that cover 214,283 acres or about 19% of the Forest. 2208

70

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2209 2210 Figure 5. Distribution of InFish Priority Watersheds

2211 The RHCA widths for intermittent streams are wider in Priority Watersheds than in non-priority 2212 watersheds (100 ft. vs. 50 ft.) however there are no other specific goals, desired conditions, or other 2213 direction specific to the priority watersheds. The Priority Watersheds are located in the Pend Oreille 2214 subbasin. Most Priority Watersheds support both bull trout critical habitat and WSCT populations. There 2215 are no Key or priority watersheds in the other subbasins within the Forest. 2216 2217 Key Indicator - Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments

2218 Managing grazing allotments would continue under INFISH riparian goals and the four INFISH grazing 2219 standards and guidelines that focus on attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, which may or may 2220 not be appropriate to site-specific hydrologic, geomorphic and riparian vegetation conditions. There are 2221 no other specific physical or biological indicators specified. Allotments with bull trout Critical Habitat 2222 would continue to be governed by biological opinions issued by the USFWS and may include more 2223 specific measures to limit impacts on bull trout and bull trout habitat.

2224 Although stream habitat on the CNF in many locations are “degraded” compared to reference streams, 2225 conditions may be slowly improving. The PIBO index indicators for fine sediment and bank angle are 2226 trending in a negative direction in some streams, a possible indication of grazing affecting aquatic habitat. 2227 The impacts of grazing may be most acute in watersheds with high road densities.

2228 Key Indicator – Change in distribution or Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) 2229 There is no INFISH direction specific to dealing with the threat of aquatic invasive species. There is one 2230 standard and guideline. AIS and preventing their distribution is indirectly addressed in the INFISH 2231 riparian goals.

71

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2232 Forest Service Contribution to Viability 2233 Although there is some indication aquatic habitat is improving with implementation of INFISH, the AEC 2234 for most subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk or not properly functioning and little 2235 improvement would be expected given there are no road desired conditions, no extra protection to aquatic 2236 and riparian resources from RW, and the more of the land base is open to intensive timber production 2237 under the No Action Alternative than any other Alternative. The No Action Alternative provides the least 2238 Forest Service contribution to improve the viability of the MIS/focal species than any other alternative 2239 (Table 26).

2240 Table 26. Forest Service Contribution to Viability. (The higher the score the greater the Forest Service 2241 Contribution) (WSCT=westslope cutthroat trout, IRT-interior redband trout, BT=bull trout) FS Pend Oreille Roosevelt Kettle Colville Sanpoil Contribution

Species WSCT BT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT WSCT IRT

Proposed 0.10 -0.17 -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 0.04 -0.26 -0.46 -0.04 -0.34 Action

No Action 0.01 -0.26 -0.34 -0.34 -0.36 -0.10 -0.29 -0.49 -0.46 -0.41

Alternative B 0.03 -0.24 -0.32 -0.31 -0.31 -0.05 -0.28 -0.48 -0.42 -0.37

Alternative R O.13 -0.14 -0.04 -0.03 -0.13 0.12 -0.15 -0.35 -0.38 -0.33

Alternative P 0.13 -0.14 -0.06 -0.06 -0.17 0.09 -0.22 -0.43 -0.37 -0.32

Alternative O 0.07 -0.20 -0.11 -0.10 -0.21 0.05 -0.27 -0.48 -0.40 -0.34

2242

2243 As mentioned in the Methods section, the final score for an alternative is the average of the relative 2244 protection to watershed and aquatic resources afforded by the MAs, the percent of occupied habitat on the 2245 National Forest lands, and the AEC (which includes watershed and habitat condition and the species 2246 status). The Forest Service Contribution scores represent an interpretation of the relative role of CNF 2247 lands to provide for the viability of a MIS/focal species in a subbasin by alternative. It should be noted 2248 that when the Forest Service contribution to ecological viability scores are low it does not necessarily 2249 indicate that Forest Service management direction is insufficient, but rather that Forest Service 2250 management is not addressing all factors that contribute to species ecological viability. Much of the other 2251 management issues not addressed may be off National Forest lands such as roads managed by other 2252 entities and hydroelectric dams. A low Forest Service contribution may also be due to presence on non- 2253 native fish and isolation due to natural barriers and man-made barriers off the National Forest as well as 2254 the current status of the MIS/focal species and habitat conditions as reflected in the AEC. As has been 2255 discussed, the viability of the MIS/focal species is currently threatened because: many MIS/focal species 2256 are isolated above natural as well as anthropogenic barriers and population status affected by the 2257 widespread distribution and abundance of non-native trout; and degraded habitat conditions both on and 2258 off the Forest.

2259 The No Action Alternative provides a current baseline from which to judge the relative potential change 2260 in the Forest Service contribution to MIS/focal species viability between alternatives.

72

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2261

2262 Effects

2263 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 2264 Old forest management in the current forest plan occurs in old growth fixed reserves and is also guided by 2265 the Eastside Screens. The fixed reserves cover 30,741 acres or about three percent of the CNF. The 2266 Eastside Screens direct that no tree over 21” in diameter be harvested. Timber production is allowed in the 2267 Recreation, Scenic/Timber, Scenic/Winter Range, Wood/Forage and Winter Range MAs that cover almost 2268 81% of the Forest. However, vegetation management in the Caribou, Old Growth Dependent Species, 2269 Recreation/Wildlife, Scenic/Winter Range and Winter Range MAs is more likely to be similar to 2270 vegetation management in the Focused Restoration or Late Forest Structure MAs of the Proposed Action 2271 and Alternatives R and P, and the Restoration Zone in Alternatives B and O. The aforementioned No 2272 Action MAs include about 25 percent of the Forest, which is similar to the Proposed Action.

2273 More intense timber production is expected in the Recreation, Scenic/Timber and Wood/Forage MAs 2274 totaling about 682,200 acres (62 percent of the Forest). The area with a timber production emphasis is 2275 more than the Active Management Area of Alternative B and the Responsible Management Area included 2276 in Alternative O. The watershed condition and AEC for most subwatersheds on the Forest are rated as 2277 functioning at risk or not properly functioning and little improvement may be expected over the current 2278 baseline conditions. The risks to watershed processes and aquatic habitat associated with timber 2279 production continue to occur over more of the Forest than any other alternative. While past timber 2280 harvest may have degraded the riparian vegetation attribute of the AEC, the transportation system needed 2281 to support the timber program is a bigger impact on watershed processes. Recent work completed by 2282 PIBO shows, that after almost 20 years of implementing INFISH, stream habitat conditions may be 2283 improving but the rate of improvement is slow, and habitat conditions on the Forest are in “poor” 2284 condition compared to reference streams. Therefore aquatic habitat may continue to show slow 2285 improvement but most watersheds would likely continue to function at risk or be not properly 2286 functioning.

2287 Motorized Recreation and Access 2288 Roads are allowed on over 80 percent of the Forest. Currently there are approximately 4,000 miles of 2289 National Forest system roads. There are approximately 2,500 miles of roads owned by other jurisdictions 2290 within the boundaries of subwatersheds that include the CNF. Roads not only disrupt watershed processes 2291 but their presence can have an impact on fish populations as well. Generally watersheds that exhibit 2292 properly functioning watershed condition and support strong fish populations have road densities <1.0 2293 mile/square mile and no valley bottom roads. Watersheds with road densities of 1-2.4 miles/square mile 2294 are generally considered to be functioning at risk for maintaining watershed processes and strong fish 2295 populations, and watersheds with road densities greater the 2.4 miles/square mile are considered to be not 2296 properly functioning. The AEC assessment found most subwatersheds on the Forest to be functioning at 2297 risk or not properly functioning for the road density and riparian road density attributes. The impaired 2298 watershed conditions are expected to continue under the No Action Alternative. While some MAs include 2299 desired conditions limiting open road densities at least seasonally there are no specific desired conditions 2300 for watersheds function or fish habitat. A road that is closed to access, such as for deer winter range, but 2301 still existing on the landscape is still has an imprint on watershed processes and therefore such roads are 2302 considered “open” in our road density calculations.

73

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2303 The CNF currently decommissions about four miles of road per year and completes three to five fish 2304 passage improvement projects annually and it is assumed this rate would continue under the No Action 2305 Alternative. Road decommissioning should help improve watershed conditions, especially when 2306 concentrated in “focus” watersheds and may be expected to reduce fine sediment delivery to streams over 2307 the long-term. However with an emphasis on timber production the overall road densities are not 2308 expected to be significantly reduced on the Forest as a whole.

2309 Off-road vehicle use would continue to be allowed in designated areas and trails over approximately 2310 698,575 acres (about 65% of the Forest); allowed but subject to seasonal closures or other restrictions on 2311 approximately 232,646 acres (about 21% of the Forest; and discouraged or not allowed on about 168,370 2312 acres (15% of the Forest). Off-road use increases the potential for accelerated sediment delivery to 2313 streams and damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. These risks may increase if recreation use 2314 increases as expected and budgets to manage and maintain the system do not keep pace.

2315 Recommended Wilderness 2316 The current CNF forest plan includes no lands recommended as potential wilderness. The No Action 2317 Alternative is the only alternative that does not include RW.

2318 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 2319 Watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat direction is provided by INFISH. The existing forest plan and 2320 amendments focus heavily on Goals, Objectives and Standards and Guidelines to implement the 2321 watershed, aquatic, and riparian direction (see Appendix 1 INFISH plan direction and comparison to 2322 Action Alternatives). Under the No Action Alternative current forest plan direction for watershed, aquatic 2323 and riparian resources would remain as defined in INFISH.

2324 INFISH includes eight riparian goals (similar to Desired Conditions) establishing the expectation for 2325 providing the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas and fish habitat; Riparian 2326 Management Objectives (RMOs) that are numeric descriptors for good fish habitat26; Riparian Habitat 2327 Conservation Areas (RHCAs) (similar to RMAs) where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 2328 emphasis and specific standards and guides for land management activities are to be applied; Priority 2329 Watersheds designated to protect and conserve inland native fish habitat and populations; Watershed 2330 Analysis, a systematic procedure for determining how a watershed functions in relation to its physical and 2331 biological components; watershed restoration to improve the current condition of watersheds to restore 2332 degraded habitat and to provide long-term protection to riparian and aquatic resources (although no 2333 restoration strategy was originally included); and Monitoring (USDA Forest Service 1995) (See Appendix 2334 1 for a complete description of the ACS for each alternative).

2335 The delineation of riparian management areas would continue under the INFISH RHCA definitions 2336 (Table 27). RHCA widths may be increased or decreased when necessary to attain RMOs when site- 2337 specific data supports the change. Standards and guidelines direct management within the RHCAs to meet 2338 the numeric RMOs although there is no distinction between a standard and a guideline.

26The specific measurable RMOs are for the following in-stream features; pool frequency; water temperature; large woody debris; bank stability; lower bank angle and width/depth ratio The RMOs are to remain in place unless they are revised through watershed or site-specific analysis

74

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2339 Table 27. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width Stream and water body Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) width classification

Fish bearing streams 300 ft slope distance on each side (600 ft total)

Permanently flowing non-fish 150 ft slope distance on each side (300 ft total) bearing streams

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs and 150 feet slope distance around feature wetlands greater than 1 acre

Seasonally flowing or 100 ft slope distance in priority watersheds, 50 ft slope intermittent streams, wetlands distance in non-priority watersheds. less than 1 acre

2340

2341 INFISH designated what are termed Priority Watersheds. Within Priority Watersheds inland native fish 2342 are to receive special attention and treatment (USDA Forest Service 1995). The criteria to designate 2343 priority watersheds include: 2344 1. Watersheds with excellent habitat of strong assemblages of inland native fish, with a priority on 2345 bull trout populations 2346 2. Watersheds that provide for meta-population objectives

2347 3. Degraded watersheds with a high restoration potential 2348 2349 Watersheds in good condition are to serve as anchors for the potential recovery of depressed populations, 2350 and provide colonists for adjacent areas where habitat had been degraded by land management or natural 2351 events. Those watersheds with lower quality habitat and high potential for restoration would become 2352 future sources of good habitat through focused restoration. The RHCA widths for intermittent streams are 2353 wider in Priority Watersheds than in non-priority watersheds (100 ft. vs. 50 ft.) however there are no other 2354 specific goals, desired conditions, or other direction specific to the priority watersheds. 2355 The results of stream surveys conducted by the CNF show that many of the reaches surveyed are not 2356 meeting the RMOs as defined by INFISH. Deficiencies were noted in pool frequency and the number of 2357 large pools, large woody debris, bank conditions and stream widths riparian vegetation and sediment. 2358 However, given the natural variability in stream habitat conditions due to weather, disturbance and the 2359 physical environment a “one-size-fits-all” approach, such as the use of RMOs may not adequately 2360 describe habitat conditions (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2011).

2361 Archer et al. (2009) and Meredith et al. (2012) found that the PACFISH and INFISH strategies appeared 2362 to be working although streams within managed watersheds are generally in a more degraded condition 2363 than more unmanaged or reference watersheds (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2010). Using an index approach, 2364 PIBO data was assessed for sampled streams on the CNF. After almost 20 years implementing INFISH, a 2365 number of individual components of aquatic habitat and overall habitat scores on the CNF tended to be 2366 (but not universally) less (impaired habitat condition) than would be expected compared to reference 2367 streams. However, the results indicate positive trends for a number of the stream habitat indicators, 2368 suggesting that habitat may be slowly improving under current management. The bank angle and fine 2369 sediment indicators, D50 and percent fines, appear to be most commonly in what might be considered an 2370 impaired condition.

75

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2371 There are currently 13 Priority watersheds where inland native fish are to receive special emphasis. The 2372 Priority Watersheds cover 214,283 acres or about 19% of the Forest. Watersheds in good condition would 2373 serve as anchors for the potential recovery of depressed populations, and provide colonists for adjacent 2374 areas where habitat had been degraded by land management or natural events. Those watersheds with 2375 lower quality habitat and high potential for restoration would become future sources of good habitat 2376 through focused restoration. The RHCA widths for intermittent streams are wider in Priority Watersheds 2377 that in non-priority watersheds (100 ft. vs. 50 ft.) however there are no other specific goals, desired 2378 conditions or other direction specific to the priority watersheds.

2379 The Priority Watersheds are only located in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Most the Priority Watersheds 2380 support both bull trout and WSCT populations. The Priority watersheds include all designated bull trout 2381 critical habitat on the Forest (Table 28).

2382 Table 28. INFISH Priority and Alternative B Key Watersheds (WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, 2383 IRT=Interior Redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF Species/CH Number Name Subwatershed Ownership Acres Acres

170102160201 Exposure Creek- 41224 14463 BT, WSCT Pend Oreille River

170102160202 Skookum Creek 31811 14192 BT, WSCT

170102160301 Middle Creek-Pend 23209 5066 BT Oreille River

170102160302 West Branch Le 21672 15099 WSCT, CH Clerc Creek

170102160303 East Branch Le 26663 11145 WSCT,CH Clerc Creek

170102160401 Harvey Creek 32999 27554 BT, WSCT

170102160402 Headwaters Sullivan 45516 45417 WSCT,CH Creek

170102160403 North Fork Sullivan 12709 11259 WSCT,CH Creek-Sullivan Creek

170102160702 Headwaters South 20697 12472 BT, WSCT Salmo River

170102160704 Outlet South Salmo 14013 3460 BT, WSCT River

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend 41832 28890 WSCT Oreille River

76

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF Species/CH Number Name Subwatershed Ownership Acres Acres

170102160903 Slate Creek 20195 19907 WSCT,CH

170102161003 Cedar Creek 17209 5359 WSCT,CH

Total Acres 349747 214283

2384

2385 While native fish are to receive special management emphasis within Priority Watersheds, there is no 2386 additional management direction provided such as specific desired conditions, objectives, or standards 2387 and guides specific to the Priority Watersheds.

2388 There is no INFISH direction specifically addressing the threat of aquatic invasive species. There is one 2389 standard and guideline:

2390 • FW-4 Cooperate with Federal, Tribal, and State fish management agencies to identify and 2391 eliminate adverse effects on native fish associated with habitat manipulation, fish stocking, fish 2392 harvest, and poaching. 2393 AIS and preventing their distribution is indirectly addressed in the INFISH riparian goal to maintain or 2394 restore the:

2395 • diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian zones. 2396 • riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within 2397 the specific geo-climatic region. 2398 • habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, 2399 and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities. 2400 Currently the CNF AIS strategy includes a milfoil weed control project in the Little Pend Oreille Lakes 2401 and using preventive measures such as disinfecting field gear to reduce the accidental spread of AIS. 2402 These activities are expected to continue. 2403 Active grazing allotments overlap with RHCAs, including those that provide habitat for MIS/focal 2404 species. Managing grazing allotments would continue under INFISH riparian goals and the four INFISH 2405 grazing standards and guidelines that focus on attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, which 2406 may or may not be appropriate to site-specific hydrologic, geomorphic and riparian vegetation conditions. 2407 There are no other specific physical or biological indicators specified. Aquatic habitat tends to be of poor 2408 quality on the CNF compared to reference streams, but after almost 20 years of implementing INFISH, 2409 there is indication that aquatic habitat conditions on the Forest are slowly improving. The bank stability, 2410 percent undercut bank, and bank angle attributes of aquatic habitat, which can be affected by grazing, are 2411 showing some improving trends on the Forest. However, the bank angle attribute and the fine sediment 2412 indicators, D50 and percent fines, which also can be affected by grazing, are commonly in a “poor 2413 condition”, although it must be noted the extent to which grazing is or is not contributing to the current 2414 habitat conditions is not determined at this time. .Allotments with bull trout critical habitat would 2415 continue to be governed by biological opinions issued by the USFWS and may include more specific 2416 measures to limit impacts on bull trout and bull trout habitat. 2417 Cumulative Effects

77

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2418 A general discussion of cumulative effects common to all alternatives is included in the section; Past 2419 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis. The watershed condition 2420 and status of most of the MIS/focal Species’ local populations are functioning at risk or not properly 2421 functioning, although there is some indication of slow improvement in aquatic habitat condition. Road 2422 densities and riparian road densities which are two major attributes causing the poor watershed condition 2423 scores may not significantly improve, despite restoration, due to the amount of land available for timber 2424 production, the current CNF road system, and the 2,500 miles of road managed by other entities, which is 2425 not expected to change.

2426 The CNF would continue with actions as described in the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 2427 project. Such actions, especially when they are implemented in a whole watershed restoration approach, 2428 should help restore watershed condition to some degree. However, given the road system and the fact that 2429 after 20 years of implementing INFISH on the Forest stream habitat is only slowly improving, watershed 2430 condition and stream habitat may not be expected to significantly improve Forest-wide. The magnitude of 2431 the improvement within a subwatershed would depend upon the amount of work that is socially 2432 acceptable and technically feasible to implement. The MIS/focal species’ population status are 2433 significantly affected by high numbers and wide distribution of non-native fish, isolation above barriers 2434 and low MIS/focal species numbers, and problems in the migratory corridors on the larger rivers. The 2435 terms associated with relicensing of hydroelectric dams on mainstem rivers adjacent to the CNF should 2436 have beneficial impacts to native fish, especially bull trout and WSCT.

2437 Climate Change 2438 The overall effects of climate change was presented in the Summary of Effects Common for all 2439 Alternatives section. Under the No Action Alternative, CNF aquatic resource management direction for 2440 managing for stronghold populations that may contribute to the MIS/focal species persistence under 2441 different climate change scenarios is contained in the INFISH direction for Priority Watersheds. The 2442 Priority Watersheds are Exposure Creek-Pend Oreille River, Skookum Creek, Middle Creek Pend Oreille 2443 River, West Branch Le Clerc Creek, East Branch Le Clerc Creek, Harvey Creek, Headwaters Sullivan 2444 Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek-Sullivan Creek, Headwaters South Salmo River, Outlet South Salmo 2445 River, Sweet Creek-Pend Oreille River, Slate Creek, and Cedar Creek. The Priority watersheds may 2446 provide the potential to rebuild populations and improve habitat, especially in the East Fork and West 2447 Fork Le Clerc Creeks which are Focus watersheds. Where implemented, habitat restoration projects, 2448 improved aquatic passage, road decommissioning should help protect MIS/focal species populations and 2449 improve connectivity for bull trout populations in those streams, especially in the East and West Branch 2450 Le Clerc Creek and Ninemile Creek where restoration actions are to be focused in the near-term. The 2451 threat to the MIS/focal species due to the high abundance and broad distribution of non-native trout may 2452 be exacerbated in a warming climate.

2453 Monitoring Recommendations 2454 The monitoring program was previously described in the Summary of Effects Common for all 2455 Alternatives.

2456 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 2457 The Proposed Action reflects current management policies of the Forest. The Proposed Action provides 2458 for a mix of wilderness, motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities to address the increase in 2459 visitor uses due to population growth and changing demographics. Similar to the current forest plan, the 2460 Proposed Action allows the existing level of authorized road access with approximately 80 percent of the

78

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2461 Forest in a roaded recreation setting. Some key differences between the Proposed Action and the current 2462 plan include; a dynamic approach to managing old forests rather than fixed reserves, more area 2463 emphasizing backcountry motorized use, and approximately 101,390 acres identified as Recommended 2464 Wilderness (RW).

2465 In addition to including the RW MA, two restoration management areas are proposed, Focused 2466 Restoration and General restoration. Focused restoration areas are defined by Key Watersheds, and 2467 grizzly bear and caribou recovery areas that are not included in BackCountry and Backcountry Motorized 2468 MAs. General Restoration areas spatially include all areas not already included in another MA.

2469 The road density desired conditions for Focused and General Restoration areas vary between the 2470 Proposed Action, and Alternatives R and P. Road density is defined as the miles of all National Forest 2471 System roads per square mile of National Forest system land. The total National Forest System road 2472 density is averaged over the whole MA (Focused or General Restoration) within a watershed (HUC10).

2473 Table 29. Proposed Action Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion Management Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total* Area D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake

Focused 0 31,073 46,989 179,079 0 257,143 Restoration

General 101,808 96,764 166,104 106,538 62,348 533,844 Restoration

Backcountry 5,270 13,627 20,448 32,907 18,587 90,838

Backcountry 1,357 11,807 40,459 5,259 2,844 61,726 Motorized

Wilderness 0 30,002 24,009 38,876 8,498 101,387 Recommended

Wilderness- Congressionally 0 0 0 31,429 31,429 Designated

2474 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology.

2475 The proposed action addresses the need for updated, integrated direction for watershed, aquatic and 2476 riparian management. Riparian and aquatic resource direction included in the Proposed Action is based on 2477 the ARCS (USDA Forest Service 2008). The ARCS includes designation of riparian management areas 2478 (RMAs), designation of a key watershed network, and a core set of desired conditions, goals, objectives, 2479 and standards and guidelines designed to provide ecological conditions conducive to maintaining, 2480 restoring, and enhancing habitat necessary to sustain aquatic and riparian-dependent species on National 2481 Forest System lands.

79

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2482 Summary of Effects

2483 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 2484 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General 2485 Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.

2486 • Focused Restoration – 257,143 acres.

2487 • General Restoration – 533,844 acres

2488 The Proposed Action employs a landscape approach to restoring vegetation conditions, including late 2489 forest structure forests across the CNF. Approximately 71% of the Forest is available for timber harvest in 2490 the restoration MAs with the intent to restore forest vegetation conditions. The Focused Restoration MA 2491 includes about 23 percent of the Forest and the General Restoration Area about 48 percent of the Forest. 2492 The amount of land in these two MAs is almost reversed in Alternative R. Alternative P has similar 2493 amounts of land in the two MAs; about 28 percent in Focused restoration and almost 45 percent in 2494 General Restoration.

2495 The intent of timber harvest and other vegetation management activities is to create vegetation conditions 2496 that are more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations. Management to 2497 restore vegetation to conditions, including old forests or late forest structure that are more resilient to 2498 disturbances such as fire, drought and insects and disease may help improve watershed conditions. The 2499 restoration management approach would likely have fewer risks to aquatic habitat and watershed 2500 condition than management with a timber production emphasis. It is assumed that there would be more 2501 active management within the General Restoration MA and therefore potentially more risk to aquatic 2502 resources due to vegetation management activities, as the Focused Restoration MA has a greater emphasis 2503 to provide habitat for wildlife and Key Watersheds. However, the potential increased risks due to 2504 vegetation management in the General Restoration MA compared to the Focused Restoration areas is 2505 small as the intent in both areas is to improve upslope vegetation conditions. The potential benefits to 2506 watershed condition and aquatic habitat due toterrestrial vegetation management may not be fully realized 2507 due to the desired road densities (see below).

2508 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 2509 Key Indicators

2510 • Desired Conditions for road densities – Road density desired conditions are 2.0 miles/square 2511 mile in Focused Restoration MA and 3.0 miles/square mile in General Restoration MA.

2512 • Acres allocated to motorized use – Approximately 954,000 acres or 87% of the Forest, however 2513 it should be noted that 102,200 of those acres are in RW where only existing trails can be used 2514 and no new trails developed.

2515 Watershed conditions would continue to be impaired as road densities above 2.4 miles/square mile are 2516 generally considered indicative of a not properly functioning watershed and are not conducive to 2517 supporting strong fish populations. The 2.0 miles/square mile road density desired conditions still falls in 2518 the range where watershed conditions and the ability of a watershed to support strong fish populations is 2519 at risk.

2520 Off-road vehicle use is allowed over most of the Forest including in RW where the trails currently exist. 2521 The continued off-road use increases the potential for accelerated sediment delivery to streams and

80

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2522 damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. The level or magnitude of the risks would depend in 2523 part, whether the Forest can maintain the trail system to keep pace with the expected growing demand.

2524 Recommended Wilderness Areas 2525 Key Indicator - Total Area in Recommended Wilderness – 101,390 acres

2526 The 101,390 acres allocated to RW would be protective of streams within those lands. While no roads can 2527 be constructed within RW, the propose Action would allow existing motorized recreation uses to continue 2528 presenting more risk to watershed processes, riparian and aquatic habitat than alternatives in which 2529 motorized recreation is not to be permitted within RW.

2530 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 2531 Key Indicator – ACS Direction, RMA Delineation and RMA Direction

2532 The Proposed Action ACS, based upon the Region 6 ARCS (USDA Forest Service 2008) includes desired 2533 conditions, standards and guidelines, and a key watershed network designed to provide the ecological 2534 conditions conducive to maintaining, restoring, and enhancing habitat necessary to sustain aquatic and 2535 riparian-dependent species on National Forest System lands. Watershed, aquatic, and riparian direction 2536 address both ecosystem and species diversity at watershed and landscape scales by providing the core set 2537 of desired conditions, objectives and standards and guidelines for general water resources, key watersheds 2538 and riparian management areas

2539 The Proposed Action includes Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), similar to the RHCAs in the No 2540 Action Alternative. Two notable differences between the Proposed Action RMAs and the existing INFISH 2541 RHCA definitions are: 1) a 300 foot RMA for lakes and natural ponds compared to INFISH riparian 2542 width of 150 feet; and 2) the proposed riparian width of 100 feet for all seasonally flowing or intermittent 2543 streams, wetlands, seeps and springs less than one acre; compared to the existing direction of 100 feet in 2544 Priority Watersheds, and 50 feet in non-priority watersheds. The increase in RMAs, compared to the 2545 INFISH direction contained in the No Action Alternative, recognizes the importance of these areas for 2546 maintaining watershed function and protecting downstream aquatic habitat as well as associated riparian 2547 dependent species (USDA Forest Service 2008).

2548 Direction for managing RMAs to benefit riparian-dependent resources, includes two desired conditions. 2549 Direction for managing other resource programs within the RMAs is provided by 13 standards and 28 2550 guidelines. In the current forest plan there is no distinction between standards and guidelines within the 2551 INFISH RHCAs. The inclusion of specific standards and guidelines provides clear direction for resource 2552 management within RMAs.

2553 The Proposed Action also includes six key watershed and riparian management objectives for improving 2554 riparian and aquatic habitat. The objectives address grazing concerns, restoring riparian processes at 2555 dispersed recreation sites and on user-constructed trails, and to restore fish passage in Key Watersheds 2556 (Appendix 2).

2557 Key Indicator – Key Watersheds, Management Direction, MIS/Focal Species and Objectives 2558 The proposed action carries forward the concept of Key Watersheds as a primary element to maintain and 2559 improve aquatic conditions for the MIS/focal species’ populations, other aquatic species, and to provide 2560 high water quality. Management in Key Watersheds emphasizes minimizing risk and maximizing 2561 restoration or retention of ecological health.

81

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2562 The Proposed Action identifies 22 HUC 12 subwatersheds as Key Watersheds covering 371,943 acres or 2563 almost 34% of the Forest; compared to the 13 Priority Watersheds in the No Action Alternative that 2564 include 214,283 acres (about 19% of the Forest). In the No Action Alternative all the Priority Key 2565 Watersheds are located in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. The Proposed Action includes a broader network 2566 that not only benefits bull trout and includes bull trout critical habitat, but expands the Key Watershed 2567 network for WSCT and includes subwatersheds with interior redband trout populations.

2568 2569 Figure 6. Key watershed network under the proposed action.

2570 Management direction is provided through three desired conditions that address Key Watershed 2571 contribution to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered fish species, watershed 2572 integrity, and minimizing the risk due to roads. Unlike INFISH which has no standards specific to Key 2573 Watersheds, the Proposed Action includes three. There is to be no net increase in roads in a Key 2574 Watershed and there are two standards for hydroelectric development. The Proposed Action includes six 2575 objectives for Key Watersheds, emphasizing that management within Key Watersheds is to focus on; the 2576 restoration or protection of watershed, aquatic and riparian function; reducing the impacts of roads on 2577 watershed function; improving aquatic organism passage at road/stream crossings, range management 2578 actions; enhancing late forest structure in upland plant communities within RMAs and improving stream 2579 channel and floodplain function (Appendix 1). Additional, specific objectives have also been developed 2580 to guide restoration activities (Appendix 2). The expansion of Key Watersheds to include more 2581 subwatersheds supporting WSCT and interior redband trout is expected to better protect those populations 2582 than under the current Key Watershed network, as experience within the Northwest Forest plan area has 2583 shown key watershed designation generally results in improved watershed conditions (Lanigan et al. 2584 2012). The improved conditions observed within key watersheds is due to the overall management 2585 direction provided by desired conditions and standards, but also focused restoration as displayed by the 2586 specific objectives in Appendix 2. 2587 Key Indicator - Change in distribution of aquatic invasive species (AIS): 2588 There is no specific direction within the Proposed Action that addresses AIS prevention, control, or 2589 eradication other than a desired condition; “Native assemblages of riparian dependent plants and animals 2590 are free of persistent non-native species”. There is also indirect direction for managing AIS risk in the

82

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2591 overall and riparian desired conditions for healthy watersheds and aquatic systems, maintaining and 2592 recovering native species. 2593 Improvement in riparian vegetation conditions within grazing allotments 2594 Grazing management within RMAs is guided by watershed and RMA desired conditions and RMA 2595 standards and guidelines. The Proposed Action includes one standard addressing livestock handling, 2596 management and watering facilities, and four guidelines. One guideline specifically addresses streambank 2597 alteration, and utilization of herbaceous and woody vegetation. The guideline provides a starting point for 2598 managing grazing within RMAs to protect riparian and aquatic habitat.

2599 The Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability 2600 The Proposed Action is expected to contribute to the viability of the MIS/focal species to a greater degree 2601 than the No Action Alternative. Compared with the No Action Alternative the Proposed Action includes 2602 more lands allocated to MAs that are felt to be “protective“ of watershed processes and aquatic habitat 2603 (Wilderness, RW, Backcountry and Backcountry Motorized), more lands that have a “moderate” level of 2604 protection (Focused Restoration); and while timber is expected to be an output from both the Focused and 2605 General Restoration areas, there is more emphasis of restoring forest vegetation conditions than timber 2606 production in the Proposed Action than the No Action Alternative. There is also a significantly larger Key 2607 Watershed network that expands the Key Watersheds to include more subwatersheds with bull trout and 2608 WSCT in the Pend Oreille subbasin; and subwatersheds with interior redband trout in the Lake Roosevelt 2609 and Kettle subbasins. The Forest’s contribution to viability is improved as well by road density desired 2610 conditions for the Focused and General Restoration Areas, but the overall contribution compared to 2611 Alternatives R and P is reduced because the desired road densities, especially for the General Restoration 2612 MA, are higher than the road densities generally found in functioning watersheds that provide habitat for 2613 strong fish populations. The RMAs in the Proposed Action are expanded compared to the No Action 2614 Alternative to included extra consideration for all intermittent streams, recognizing the importance of 2615 these small streams for providing high quality water to downstream aquatic habitat.

2616 Table 26 in the No Action discussion displays the relative CNF contribution to viability in the subbasins 2617 for the MIS/Focal Species by alternative. The Proposed Action increases the Forest Service contribution 2618 to the focal species viability in all subbasins for all the MIS/focal species. If the ratings for the MIS/Focal 2619 Species are averaged across the subbasins, the Forest Service contribution to MIS/focal species’ viability 2620 under the Proposed Action is greater for all species than in the No Action and Alternative B but less than 2621 in Alternatives R and P; and less than, but somewhat similar to Alternative O.

2622 Effects

2623 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 2624 Approximately 71% of the forest is available for timber harvest in the Focused and General Restoration 2625 MAs. The intent of timber harvest and other vegetation management activities is to create vegetation 2626 conditions that are more resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations. 2627 Although endemic levels of insects and diseases create snags which in turn provide woody debris to 2628 streams, and low-severity fires can deliver wood and nutrients to aquatic system, many of the 2629 subwatersheds are functioning at risk for the fire regime indicator and a few are not properly functioning 2630 in the AEC assessment. A few subwatersheds are functioning at risk for insects and disease. Epidemic 2631 insect population levels and/or high-severity fire can lead to vegetation losses or sediment increases above 2632 desired levels for native fish populations. Management to restore vegetation to conditions, including late 2633 forest structure, as may be expected under historical and anticipated environmental conditions is a

83

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2634 component of managing for healthy, resilient watersheds and may help improve watershed conditions. 2635 There are likely less risks to aquatic resources due to vegetation management in the Focused Restoration 2636 MA than in the General Restoration MA, as the Focused Restoration includes a greater emphasis for 2637 wildlife habitat and Key Watersheds. The restoration management approach for both the MAs would 2638 likely have fewer risks to aquatic habitat and watershed condition than management with a timber 2639 production emphasis, however the potential benefits of terrestrial vegetation management may not be 2640 fully realized due to the desired road densities (see below).

2641 Motorized Recreation and Access.

2642 Motorized trails are not authorized in research natural areas, wilderness, or on national scenic trails. 2643 Wilderness designation further precludes mechanized use with minor exceptions. Motorized trails may be 2644 authorized in specified locations at recreation or administrative sites.

2645 The Proposed Action has two Backcountry MAs, motorized and non-motorized. In the Proposed Action, 2646 approximately six percent of the Forest is allocated to Backcountry Motorized (BCM) management and 2647 approximately eight percent is allocated to Backcountry Non-motorized (BC). Motorized trail use and off- 2648 trail over-snow use is allowed in the BCM management areas but not in BC areas. Summer and winter 2649 motorized use would be authorized within the Focused and General Restoration MAs.

2650 Roads are currently allowed on about 80 percent of the Forest and the Proposed Action continues to allow 2651 road access in those areas. Road access would not be allowed within recommended or designated 2652 wilderness areas, BCM and BC MAs, or research natural areas. Road density desired conditions are 2653 identified for the Focused and General RAs. The desired road density in the Focused Restoration Areas is 2654 2.0 miles/square mile averaged over the Focused Restoration areas within watershed and 3.0 miles/square 2655 mile in the General Restoration areas.

2656 Most subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the AEC road 2657 density and riparian road density attributes. The road attributes are a prime reason for impaired watershed 2658 function. Roads are currently allowed on 80 percent and the Proposed Action would continue to allow 2659 access to these areas. Road access is not allowed in wilderness areas, RW, backcountry motorized and 2660 non-motorized management areas or research natural areas; about 26 percent of the Forest.

2661 The Proposed Action identifies desired road densities for the Focused Restoration and General 2662 Restoration Areas. The Focused Restoration MA, approximately 23% of the Forest, has a road density 2663 desired condition of 2.0 miles/square mile. The General Restoration MA, about 48% of the Forest, has a 2664 desired road density of 3.0 miles per square mile. Watersheds with road densities of 1.0-2.4 miles/square 2665 mile are generally considered functioning at risk for watershed condition and for providing the conditions 2666 necessary to support strong fish populations. Road densities greater than 2.4 miles/square mile are 2667 generally considered not properly functioning. The Forest’s ability to achieve the desired road densities 2668 would be depend upon budgets and in some cases public acceptance. Implementation of the Proposed 2669 Action may improve watershed conditions in Focused Restoration areas that currently exceed 2.0 miles 2670 per square mile, with the greatest improvements likely to occur as restoration objectives are met in Key 2671 Watersheds. However, approximately 71% of the Forest watersheds may be expected to remain 2672 functioning at risk or not properly functioning for road densities.

2673 The desired conditions, standards and guides for aquatic resources provide direction for minimizing the 2674 effects of roads especially in Key watersheds and RMAs

2675 Off-road vehicle use is allowed over most of the Forest including in RW where the trails current exist. 2676 The continued off-road use increases the potential for accelerated sediment delivery to streams and

84

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2677 damage to riparian vegetation and stream banks. The level or magnitude of the risks would depend in part 2678 if budgets to manage the system keep pace with the expected growing demand.

2679 Some improvement to impaired watershed condition due to roads and off-road vehicle use may occur due 2680 to the Aquatic and Riparian Management plan components, including overall desired conditions, RMA 2681 standards and guidelines, and Key Watershed direction (see Riparian and Aquatic Resource 2682 Management). The Forest currently decommissions about four miles of road a year and completes three to 2683 five fish passage improvement projects annually and it is assumed the activities would continue at the 2684 present rate. Road decommissioning should improve watershed function, especially in focus and Key 2685 Watersheds but the overall effectiveness at improving watershed condition may be constrained by the 2686 desired road densities. Implementation of the objectives for restoration, Key Watersheds and RMAs may 2687 help reduce the impacts of roads and trails that are left on the landscape (see Appendix 1 and 2).

2688 Recommended Wilderness 2689 The Proposed Action identifies 101,390 acres, about nine percent of the Forest, to be managed as RW. 2690 The wilderness character of these areas is to be maintained until Congress either designates them as 2691 wilderness or releases an area from consideration. Existing motorized trails are allowed. While there may 2692 be some impacts to watershed processes and fish habitat associated with use of the existing trails, overall 2693 the RW areas, with no roads or management other than recreation, should be protective of aquatic habitat.

2694 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 2695 The Proposed Action ACS is based upon the Region 6 ARCS (USDA Forest Service 2008). The ARCS 2696 and subsequently the Forest’s ACS includes desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and a key 2697 watershed network designed to provide the ecological conditions conducive to maintaining, restoring, and 2698 enhancing habitat necessary to sustain aquatic and riparian-dependent species on National Forest System 2699 lands. Watershed, aquatic and riparian direction address both ecosystem and species diversity at 2700 watershed and landscape scales by providing the core set of desired conditions, objectives and standards 2701 and guidelines for general water resources, key watersheds and riparian management areas.

2702 Overall direction is provided by plan components that include 11 Desired Conditions that apply to all 2703 watersheds, aquatic and riparian systems (see Appendix 1). These are similar to the Riparian Goals of 2704 INFISH. Desired conditions apply to all watersheds and are intended to provide a comprehensive 2705 description of the characteristics of healthy functioning water, fisheries and riparian resources towards 2706 which land management should be directed. The 11 Desired Conditions direct National Forest System 2707 Lands to contribute to; the distribution, diversity and resiliency of watershed and landscape scale features; 2708 uninterrupted physical and biological processes within and between watersheds; habitat and ecological 2709 conditions that are capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of native and desired non-native 2710 aquatic and riparian dependent plant and animal species; the physical integrity of aquatic systems and 2711 riparian habitat; water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems; the 2712 sediment regime within the natural range of variation; in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain 2713 riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient and wood routing; the 2714 timing, variability and duration of floodplain inundation; the timing, variability and water table elevation 2715 in wetlands, seeps and springs; the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in 2716 riparian management areas (including wetlands); and native assemblages of riparian dependent plants and 2717 animals.

2718 The ACS identifies RMAs similar to the INFISH RHCAs except additional consideration is given to the 2719 riparian areas adjacent to intermittent streams, wetlands less than one acre, seeps and springs and unstable 2720 and potential unstable areas in all watersheds. The increase in RMAs provides additional protection to

85

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2721 these areas, recognizing their importance for maintaining watershed function and protecting downstream 2722 aquatic habitat as well as associated riparian dependent species (USDA Forest Service 2008).

2723 Table 30. Riparian widths for the Proposed Action, R, P, and O Alternatives Stream and Water body Classification Riparian Management Area (RMA) Widths

Fish bearing streams 300 feet each side

Permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams 150 feet each side

Constructed ponds and reservoirs and wetlands greater than 1 acre 150 feet

Lakes and natural ponds 300 feet

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, seeps and 100 feet springs less than 1 acre and unstable and potentially unstable areas

2724

2725

2726 Desired Conditions for RMAs include:

2727 • RMA’s within any given watershed reflect a natural composition of native flora and fauna and a 2728 distribution of physical, chemical and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance 2729 regimes.

2730 • Key riparian processes and conditions (slope stability, vegetative root strength, wood delivery, 2731 etc.) are operating consistently with local disturbance regimes.

2732 Standards and guidelines provide direction for management activities within RMAs. Standards and 2733 guidelines are defined as (2012 planning rule: section 219.7):

2734 (iii) Standards. A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, established 2735 to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, 2736 or to meet applicable legal requirements.

2737 (iv) Guidelines. A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for 2738 departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help 2739 achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet 2740 applicable legal requirements.

2741 Direction for managing RMAs to benefit riparian-dependent resources, including direction for managing 2742 other resource programs within the RMAs, is provided by 14 standards and 26 guidelines. In the current 2743 forest plan there is no distinction between standards and guidelines within the INFISH RHCAs. The 2744 inclusion of specific standards and guidelines provides clear direction for resource management within 2745 RMAs.

2746 The direction for RMAs also include four riparian management objectives specifically addressing 2747 improving riparian processes and function in grazing programs, restoring dispersed recreation sites and 2748 user-constructed trails, and restoring fish passage in the Key Watersheds. The riparian objectives are 2749 different than the RMOs in INFISH and the No Action alternative. The INFISH RMOs were considered to

86

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2750 be general descriptors of good fish habitat that could be changed by a Forest with more site specific 2751 information. The RMO “one-size-fits-all” approach is somewhat problematic and may not adequately 2752 describe habitat conditions due to the natural variability in stream habitat conditions caused by weather, 2753 disturbance and the physical environment (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2011).

2754 Key watersheds are defined as a network of watersheds selected to serve as strongholds for important 2755 aquatic resources or having the potential to do so. They are areas crucial to TES and areas that provide 2756 high quality water important for downstream aquatic habitat. The protocol for developing Key 2757 Watersheds is provided by Reiss et al. (2008). The Proposed Action designates an expanded network of 2758 Key Watersheds compared to the No Action Alternative by identifying 22 HUC 12 subwatersheds as Key 2759 Watersheds covering 371,943 acres, or almost 34 percent of the Forest; compared to the 13 Priority 2760 Watersheds in the No Action Alternative that include 214,283 acres (about 19 percent of the Forest). In 2761 the No Action Alternative all the Priority Key Watersheds are located in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. The 2762 Proposed Action includes a broader network that not only benefits bull trout and includes bull trout 2763 critical habitat, but expands the Key Watershed network to other subbasins benefiting additional WSCT 2764 populations and includes subwatersheds with interior redband trout populations. Watershed and aquatic 2765 habitat condition is expected to improve within Key Watersheds as found by Lanigan et al. (2012) over 2766 time. The improved watershed conditions are due to the management direction for the Key Watersheds, 2767 the management intent to minimize risks to watershed condition and aquatic habitat within Key 2768 Watersheds, and the emphasis on restoration (discussed below).

2769 Table 31. Proposed Action Key Watersheds (WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior redband, 2770 BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF Ownership MIS/ Number Name Subwatershed Acres Acres Focal Specie CH

170102160102 Winchester Creek 10482 5627 WSCT, CH

170102160103 Exposure Creek- 41223 14462 BT, Pend Oreille WSCT River

170102160106 Smalle Creek 17753 11058 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160109 Tacoma Creek 39519 27182 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160202 West Branch Le 21671 15098 BT, Clerc Creek WSCT, CHCH

170102160203 East Branch Le 26662 11145 BT, Clerc Creek WSCT,

87

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF Ownership MIS/ Number Name Subwatershed Acres Acres Focal Specie CH

CH

170102160204 Ruby Creek 19597 18385 BT, CH

170102160302 Sweet Creek-Pend 41831 28890 WSCT Oreille River

170102160303 Harvey Creek 32998 27553 BT, WSCT

170102160304 Headwaters 45516 45417 BT, Sullivan Creek WSCT, CH

170102160305 North Fork 12708 11258 BT, Sullivan Creek- WSCT, Sullivan Creek CH

170102160306 Slate Creek 19911 19907 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160307 South Salmo 22271 15932 BT River

170200010104 North Fork Deep 49256 26633 WSCT Creek

170200010306 Barnaby Creek 23107 14299 IRT

170200010401 Upper Hall Creek 31648 13785 IRT

170200010402 Sitdown Creek 14484 0

170200010403 Middle Hall 15480 1927 IRT Creek

170200020401 Trout Creek 23434 14121 IRT

170200020501 Tonata Creek 14453 13780 IRT

170200020608 North Fork 13449 13185 IRT Deadman Creek

170200020609 Deadman Creek 26518 22299 IRT

88

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF Ownership MIS/ Number Name Subwatershed Acres Acres Focal Specie CH

Total 563971 371943

2771

2772 Management activities in Key Watersheds are to emphasize minimizing risk and maximizing restoration 2773 or retention of ecological health. Three Desired Conditions are identified for Key Watersheds:

2774 • Networks of watersheds with good habitat and functionally intact ecosystems that contribute to 2775 and enhance conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered fish species

2776 • Roads do not present risk to aquatic resources;

2777 • Key Watersheds have high watershed integrity.

2778 The Proposed Action includes three standards for management within Key Watersheds:

2779 1. There shall be no net increase at any time in the mileage of Forest roads in any key watershed 2780 unless doing so results in a reduction in road-related risk to watershed condition.

2781 2. Hydroelectric and other water development authorizations shall include requirements for in- 2782 stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore native fish and other desired aquatic 2783 species populations, riparian dependent resources, favorable channel conditions, and aquatic 2784 connectivity.

2785 3. New hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not be located in a key watershed 2786 unless it can be demonstrated they have minimal risks and/or no adverse effects to fish and water 2787 resources for which the key watershed was established

2788 The Proposed Action also includes six objectives for restoration for Key Watersheds.

2789 • Key watershed objective 1: Management in key watersheds focuses on restoration or 2790 preservation of watershed, aquatic, and riparian function and recovery of threatened and 2791 endangered species. The East Branch LeClerc Creek, West Branch LeClerc Creek, Deadman 2792 Creek, Barnaby Creek, Harvey Creek, North Fork Deadman Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek- 2793 Sullivan Creek, Tonata Creek, and Ruby Creek subwatersheds are priorities for active 2794 restoration. Additional key watersheds that are priorities for restoration would be identified as 2795 priority work is completed.

2796 • Key watershed objective 2: Reduce road hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery through 2797 storm damage risk reduction, full hydrologic decommissioning, and other acceptable treatment 2798 measures;

2799 • Key watershed objective 3: Restore or maintain aquatic organism passage at road/stream 2800 crossings for all species, seasons, flows, and life stages within 15 years of plan implementation, 2801 through culvert replacement or installation and improvement of hydrologic and aquatic habitat 2802 function and resiliency to a range of flows thorough natural channel design and other acceptable 2803 treatment measures;

89

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2804 • Key watershed objective 4: Improve hydrologic and aquatic function through range 2805 infrastructure improvements, including riparian fencing, movement and improvement of watering 2806 troughs, and other acceptable treatments;

2807 • Key watershed objective 5: Enhance late forest structure in upland vegetation within riparian 2808 management areas;

2809 • Key watersheds objective 6: Restore hydrologic, geomorphic, and riparian process and function 2810 through streambank stabilization, restoration of lateral and vertical hydrologic connectivity and 2811 improvement of stream channel and floodplain function.

2812 Additionally, there are objectives for key watersheds that identify restoration activities specific to the 2813 individual key watersheds. The objectives identify treating 68 miles of road to reduce impacts on water 2814 quality and watershed processes; improving aquatic organism passage at 30 road/stream crossings; 2815 improving range infrastructure to reduce the potential for detrimental impacts to riparian and aquatic 2816 habitat due to grazing on 240 acres; improving the structure and composition of upland vegetation within 2817 RMAs on between 450-900 acres; and restoring 70 miles of stream.(Appendix 2)The combined direction 2818 for Key Watersheds should improve watershed condition as roads are decommissioned and riparian 2819 vegetation is improved. The benefits may improve watershed conditions the most where the actions are 2820 focused in a watershed.

2821 All Key Watersheds are in the Focused Restoration MA. The intent to restore terrestrial vegetation should 2822 help improve the resiliency of watersheds to disturbance although the actual benefit would depend upon 2823 the amount of terrestrial restoration activity that actually occurs in a watershed or subwatershed. Key 2824 Watershed and riparian management objectives to reduce road related sediment should help improve 2825 water quality and fish habitat, but changing watershed conditions to full functioning may be limited by 2826 the road density desired condition of 2.0 miles/square mile that is considered a risk to watershed 2827 processes and strong fish populations.

2828 There is no specific direction within the Proposed Action that addresses AIS prevention, control, or 2829 eradication other than a desired condition; “Native assemblages of riparian dependent plants and animals 2830 are free of persistent non-native species. There is also indirect direction for managing AIS risk in the 2831 overall and riparian desired conditions for healthy watersheds and aquatic systems, maintaining and 2832 recovering native species.

2833 A number of subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the AEC Riparian 2834 Vegetation attribute. Aquatic habitat tends to be of poor quality on the CNF compared to reference 2835 streams, but after almost 20 years of implementing INFISH, there is indication that aquatic habitat 2836 conditions on the Forest are slowly improving. The bank stability, percent undercut bank and bank angle 2837 attributes of aquatic habitat, which can be affected by grazing, are showing some improving trends on the 2838 Forest. However, the bank angle attribute and the fine sediment indicators, D50 and percent fines, which 2839 also can be affected by grazing are commonly in a “poor condition”. The extent to which grazing is or is 2840 not contributing to the current habitat conditions is not determined at this time. Grazing management 2841 within RMAs is guided by watershed and RMA desired conditions and RMA standards and guidelines. 2842 The Proposed Action includes one standard addressing livestock handling, management and watering 2843 facilities, and four guidelines. One guideline describes utilization within the RMA that states: Within 2844 green-line vegetation area adjacent to all watercourses27:

27 National Forests can modify the numeric values in these guidelines to more effectively achieve desired conditions. Rationale for these changes should be documented.

90

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2845 • do not exceed 20 percent streambank alteration;

2846 • do not exceed 40% utilization of mean annual vegetative production on woody vegetation;

2847 • maintain at least 4-6 inches or do not exceed 40% utilization of mean annual vegetative 2848 production on herbaceous vegetation28

2849 Streambank alteration is an indicator of damage to streambanks that can lead to bank instability, 2850 accelerated delivery of sediment to stream channels, loss of undercut banks and increasing bank angles 2851 with an associated loss of cover for fish and contributing to channel widening. When discussing standards 2852 or guidelines for streambank alteration it is important to identify the protocol to be used as the allowable 2853 percent alternation would depend upon the protocol (Different protocols may have different results for the 2854 same level of bank alteration {Archer 2014}). It is assumed that the Forest would continue to use the 2855 Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol (Burton et al 2011). Bengeyfield (2006) suggest bank 2856 alteration of 20% or less should be protective of streambanks, however Bengefield (2006) used a different 2857 protocol. A standard of 20% bank alteration using the MIM protocol is consistent with the 2858 recommendations of Archer (2014) based upon the PIBO monitoring information. Not exceeding 40% 2859 utilization of mean annual vegetative production on woody vegetation should protect riparian shrubs and 2860 bushes from excessive grazing (Winward 2000). Maintaining four to six inches stubble heightis designed 2861 to protect the health of riparian vegetation. Clary and Leininger (2000) suggest that a four inch stubble 2862 height is a starting point for improved riparian grazing but raising the stubble height to six to eight inches 2863 may be required to protect willows and limit bank trampling. Therefore, depending upon the conditions at 2864 a site, a four-inch residual stubble height may not be sufficient for improving riparian vegetation 2865 conditions. Root strength is important for maintaining stable streambanks, preventing bank erosion, and 2866 for the development of undercut banks that provide cover for fish. Overall utilization of herbaceous 2867 vegetation can result in slow or diminished root growth thus potentially affecting the health of riparian 2868 vegetation and reducing the root strength. The standard for not exceeding 40% utilization of the mean 2869 annual vegetative production of herbaceous vegetation is at the upper end of the recommendations of 2870 Archer (2014). ). The guideline establishes the upper limits for bank alteration, utilization and stubble 2871 height as the starting point for identifying grazing management strategies within RMAs.

2872 The other guidelines address considering the removal of existing livestock handling or management 2873 facilities form RMAs, avoidance of livestock trailing, bedding, loading and other handling activities, and 2874 avoiding trampling threatened or endangered fish species’ redds. The specific direction to avoid red 2875 trampling is important as redd trampling can cause direct mortality to the eggs or alevins.

2876

2877 The grazing guidelines, when used in total, should help manage livestock grazing to protect riparian and 2878 aquatic habitat. The bank alteration and utilization standards may be more protective and actually be

28 Sampling and assessment of these parameters is intended to portray the general condition of banks and riparian vegetation along an individual stream reach within each pasture. It is assumed that there would be some variability in conditions within the reach, including occasional, limited area of concentrated animal use, such as water gaps or crossings. *Numeric values in this standard represent minimum levels of what cannot be exceeded and should be more conservatively modified where determined necessary to effectively achieve desired conditions. Rationale for these changes must be documented. Standards can be applied solely or in combination as appropriate to site specific conditions. Sampling and assessment of these parameters is intended to portray the general condition of banks and riparian vegetation along an individual stream reach within each pasture after the grazing season. It is assumed that there would be some variability in geomorphic, hydrologic and vegetation conditions within designated monitoring areas, including occasional, limited area of concentrated animal use, such as water gaps or crossings.

91 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2879 reached before the stubble height is grazed down to four to six inches. The bank alteration standard 2880 however needs to be measured very soon after the cattle are removed from an allotment and before the 2881 fall rains that may wash away signs of alteration (Archer 2014

2882 Cumulative Effects 2883 Information regarding cumulative effects that is common for all alternatives is included in the Past, 2884 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 2885 the influence of the Proposed Action, such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with 2886 hydroelectric projects are common for all alternatives. The activities associated with the Northeast 2887 Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would continue and be guided by the Proposed Action direction.

2888 The ACS for the Proposed Action is based on the Region 6 ARCS which was based upon the lessons 2889 learned through implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH, as well as science 2890 that came to light after those plans were written. The ACS clarifies standards and guidelines for RMAs 2891 and Key Watersheds as well as restoration objectives that should provide more direction for improving 2892 watershed, aquatic and riparian habitat conditions that may result in those conditions improving at a faster 2893 rate than has occurred under the No Action Alternative.

2894 However over the Forest most subwatersheds may remain functioning at risk or not properly functioning 2895 due to the road density desired conditions for the Focused Restoration (2.0 miles/square mile) and 2896 General Restoration (3.0 miles/square mile) MAs and the transportation system managed by other 2897 entities. Actual achievement of the road density desired conditions would be dependent upon budgets for 2898 restoration and social acceptance.

2899 Restoration work and attaining the ACS desired conditions may be greatest where CNF actions and 2900 coordinated with the actions of other entities such as those associated with the Boundary Hydroelectric 2901 Project.

2902 Climate Change 2903 The general description of the potential effects of climate change remain the same as discussed in the 2904 Effects Common to All Alternatives section. The increased overall direction of the ACS including Forest- 2905 wide desired conditions, riparian and key watershed standards and guides; the Key Watershed network 2906 covering approximately 34 percent of the Forest; desired conditions for and management to improve the 2907 vegetative structure and composition of Forests; and objectives for improving riparian and watershed 2908 conditions may remove human stressors to the environment and provide a somewhat better opportunity 2909 for aquatic species to adjust to climate change. Specific Key watershed objectives to improve aquatic 2910 organism passage should help improve the habitat and MIS/focal species population connectivity as the 2911 projects are implemented. However the road density desired conditions may continue to pose a risk to 2912 MIS/focal species’ persistence in the face of climate change.

2913 A particular risk to the MIS/focal species would remain the presence of non-native fish, low MIS/focal 2914 species population numbers, and isolated and fragmented populations. In addition to the CNF actions 2915 described above, the non-native fish population suppression or eradication, habitat improvement and 2916 improved passage at the hydroelectric project dams may be key factors in conserving the MIS/focal 2917 species.

92

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2918 Monitoring Recommendations 2919 The monitoring program was previously described in the Summary of Effects Common for all 2920 Alternatives.

2921 Alternative R 2922 Alternative R responds to public comments that support old forest protection through static old forest 2923 reserve land allocations and a 21-inch upper diameter limit on cutting trees, addresses comments 2924 advocating for increased wilderness, fewer miles of motorized trail, and additional protections for 2925 wildlife. Likewise, Alternative R responds to public concerns that the proposed action may not provide 2926 watershed and aquatic resource protection as effective as the current the No Action Alternative (INFISH) 2927 and that the proposed action may not adequately manage the potential for detrimental effects of activities 2928 within riparian areas.

2929 Riparian and aquatic resource direction in alternative R is based on the Proposed Action direction, but 2930 incorporates additional desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines that address 2931 contemporary issues specific to the CNF raised by the public, regulatory agencies, and internally during 2932 scoping.

2933 Table 32. Alternative R Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion Management Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total* Area D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake

Late Forest 84,792 120,823 160,038 195,906 3,990 565,549 Structure

General 17,023 13,517 59,778 93,241 61,222 244,781 Restoration

Backcountry 0 0 7,570 12,214 437 20,221

Backcountry 1,357 63 0 5,279 0 6,699 Motorized

Wilderness 5,339 48,945 70,928 55,951 26,699 207,800 Recommended

Wilderness- Congressionally 0 0 0 31,429 31,429 Designated

2934 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology

93

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2935 Summary of Effects

2936 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 2937 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General 2938 Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.

2939 • Focused Restoration (Late Forest Structure)- 565,550 acres

2940 • General Restoration – 245,063

2941 Alternative R retains the two restoration MAs introduced in the Proposed Action. The Focused 2942 Restoration Area includes about 51 percent of the Forest and the General Restoration area about 22 2943 percent of the Forest. Alternative R includes more land in the Focused Restoration MA and less in the 2944 General Restoration MA than either the Proposed Action or Alternative P. In addition, approximately 2945 484,000 acres within the Focused Restoration MA are to be managed with an emphasis on late forest 2946 structure.

2947 Vegetation management to restore vegetation to conditions, including late forest structure that may be 2948 more expected under historic and anticipated disturbance regimes, is a component of managing for 2949 healthy watersheds. Vegetation management including timber harvest as outlined for Alternative R may 2950 be more beneficial towards improving watershed conditions than the Proposed Action due to more land 2951 within the Focused Restoration MA.

2952 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 2953 Key Indicator - Desired Conditions for Road Density

2954 • Focused Restoration Areas 1.0 miles/square mile

2955 • General Restoration Areas – 2.0 miles/square mile

2956 Road density desired condition for Focused restoration MA is 1.0 mile/square mile. Road density 2957 indicator for General Restoration is 2.0 miles/square mile. Most subwatersheds on the forest are not 2958 properly functioning or functioning at risk for the AEC road density and riparian road density attributes. 2959 Implementating Alternative R would potentially help improve watershed condition more than the 2960 Proposed Action. If the road density desired conditions are attained watershed conditions may be 2961 expected to improve. The Focused Restoration MA, with a desired average road density of 1.0 2962 mile/square mile covers about half percent of the Forest. In general road densities of 1.0 mile/square mile 2963 are the upper bounds of what are considered properly functioning watersheds, conducive to providing 2964 habitat for strong fish populations. The General Restoration MA with a desired average road density of 2965 2.0 miles/square mile includes a little less than one-quarter of the Forest. Watersheds with 2.0 2966 miles/square miles are generally considered to be functioning at risk for watershed condition and 2967 supporting strong fish populations. The extent to which the road density desired conditions would be 2968 attained would depend upon budgets and social acceptance.

2969 Key Indicator - Acres allocated to motorized recreation - Approximately 833,630 acres, about 76 2970 percent of the Forest.

2971 The Alternative includes 207,800 acres of RW (second most of the alternatives), where not only new 2972 roads won’t be built, but no motorized recreation is permitted, reducing the risk of accelerated sediment

94

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

2973 delivery from motorized trails compared to the Proposed Action. Motorized recreation is allowed on 2974 approximately 817,311 acres; 74 percent of the Forest.

2975 Key Indicator - Recommended Wilderness Areas 2976 Alternative R allocates approximately 19 percent of the Forest to RW, second highest amount of all the 2977 alternatives. The restrictions on motorized use of all kinds reduces the risk of accelerated sediment 2978 delivery to streams from any existing trails.

2979 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 2980 Riparian and aquatic resource direction in alternative R is based on direction in the Proposed Action, but 2981 incorporates additional desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines that address 2982 contemporary issues specific to the CNF raised by the public, regulatory agencies, and internally during 2983 scoping.

2984 Key Indicator – ACS Direction, RMA Delineation, and RMA Direction

2985 Watershed direction within the Alternative R incorporates the desired conditions for watersheds, aquatic 2986 and riparian systems that were described in the Proposed Action with clarifying language added to several 2987 of the desired conditions. Alternative R also includes the addition of desired conditions for TES species, 2988 one for roads, and five additional standards to decrease the spread of AIS and to minimize the disruption 2989 of hydrologic processes due to roads and trails.

2990 The Alternative R definition of RMAs and the associated widths are the same as in the Proposed Action. 2991 The management direction for RMAs includes 16 standards and 23 guidelines . Several of the RMA 2992 guidelines in the Proposed Action are standards in Alternative R, some additional standards have been 2993 added, and specificity has been added to the language describing some standards and guidelines. 2994 Changing guidelines to standards may add additional clarity and certainty to expectations concerning how 2995 management actions are to be implemented within RMAs. An additional desired condition is also added 2996 regarding livestock grazing.

2997 Key Indicator – Key Watershed acres, Management Direction for Key Watersheds, MIS/Focal 2998 Species, Key Watershed and Restoration objectives

2999 The Alternative R Key watershed network includes 25 subwatersheds covering 452,051 acres, compared 3000 to 22 Key Watersheds covering about 371,943 acres in the Proposed Action. Three subwatersheds were 3001 removed from the Proposed Action Key Watershed network because they had less than 25 percent CNF 3002 ownership. The Key Watershed network includes the bull trout critical habitat and expands the network to 3003 include subwatersheds with interior redband trout and additional subwatersheds with WSCT. The 3004 Alternative R along with Alternatives P and O (discussed later) provide the greatest benefit to the 3005 MIS/focal and aquatic species due to the key watershed network.

95

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3006 3007 Figure 7. Key watershed network under alternatives R, P, and O.

3008 Alternative R includes the three Key Watershed desired conditions as in the Proposed Action with some 3009 clarifying language added and the three Key Watershed standards. The Key Watershed objectives are 3010 similar to those as described for the Proposed Action (See Appendix 1 and 2) with additional objectives to 3011 improve range infrastructure to protect riparian habitat, restore the structure and composition of upland 3012 vegetation within RMAs and for stream restoration.

3013 Key Indicator – Change in the Distribution of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)

3014 Alternative R includes standards developed specifically for prevention, control, and eradication of AIS. 3015 Such plan components provide more clear and urgent direction to implement appropriate AIS 3016 management actions than the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives and thus Alternative R may be 3017 provide more protection from AIS invasion than the No Action and Proposed Action.

3018 Key Indicator – Improvement in riparian conditions within grazing allotments.

3019 Alternative R includes three standards and two guidelines for grazing within RMAs. The guideline in the 3020 Proposed Action for that refers to maintaining four to six inch stubble height and no more than 20 percent 3021 bank alteration is changed to maintaining at least eight inch stubble height and to not exceed 25 percent 3022 bank alteration.

3023 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability 3024 Alternative R provides the greatest CNF contribution to MIS/focal species viability of all alternatives. 3025 The CNF contribution for Alternative R is the highest for WSCT and interior redband trout of any 3026 alternative and equal to Alternative P for bull trout (Table 26in the No Action discussion). The reason that 3027 Alternative R exhibits the greatest potential contribution is the expanded Key Watershed network that 3028 includes the bull trout critical habitat and has an increased the Key Watershed area for WSCT and interior 3029 redband trout compared to the No Action, Proposed Action and Alternative B. Alternative R includes the 3030 second greatest amount of RW of all alternatives and the greatest amount of land within the Focused

96

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3031 Restoration MA. The potential benefits of the amount of land within the Focused MA is the 1. 0 3032 mile/square mile road density desired condition compared to the 2.0 mile/square mile desired condition 3033 included in the Proposed Action.

3034 Although not included in the “scoring”, Alternative R maintains the definition for RMAs that is included 3035 in the Proposed Action, extending the amount of lands within RMAs around intermittent streams. 3036 Alternative R, compared to the No Action, relies more on standards than guidelines to provide 3037 management direction and includes standards for the prevention, control and eradication of AIS. The 3038 distinction between standards and guidelines is mentioned standards may add additional clarity and 3039 expectations concerning how management actions are to be implemented within RMAs than a guideline 3040 may offer.

3041 Effects

3042 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3043 Alternative R uses a fixed reserve management approach to maintain old forest habitats and late forest 3044 structure. The reserves are called “late forest structure emphasis areas” and overlay other management 3045 areas, guiding the vegetation management emphasis for the area. The desired conditions, standards, and 3046 guidelines in the old forest emphasis areas are the same as the Proposed Action’s plan direction for old 3047 forests and direction for goshawk habitat. The key difference between the Proposed Action and 3048 Alternative R for late forest structure that these areas in the Proposed Action are managed dynamically at 3049 the landscape scale whereas in Alternative R they are managed in a static reserve system.

3050 Old forest emphasis areas emphasize habitat for Key Watersheds and wildlife species including grizzly 3051 bear and goshawk. Road density direction is a desired condition of 1.0 mile/square mile on average. 3052 Alternative R allocates about 51 percent of the Forest to Focused Restoration and about 22 percent of the 3053 Forest to General Restoration.

3054 Timber harvest is permitted in the Focused and General Restoration MAs. On approximately 484,000 of 3055 those acres the goal is to provide late forest structure appropriate to the vegetation community. Other than 3056 in the approximately 484,000 acres reserved for late forest structure, vegetation management within the 3057 Restoration MAS is to emphasize providing the vegetation structure and composition to provide for forest 3058 communities that are resilient to disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations, similar to 3059 the Proposed Action. Many of the subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk for the fire regime 3060 indicator in the AEC assessment, and a few are not properly functioning. Vegetation management to 3061 restore vegetation to conditions including, late forest structure, that may be more expected under historic 3062 and anticipated disturbance regimes may help improve watershed conditions. Vegetation management 3063 including timber harvest as outlined for Alternative R may be more beneficial towards improving 3064 watershed conditions due to the road density desired conditions compared to the Proposed Action. The 3065 potential risks to aquatic resources due to vegetation management projects, especially timber sales would 3066 likely be greatest in the General Restoration area due to the higher desired conditions for road density and 3067 an expected greater amount of active vegetation management than in the Focused Restoration Area.

3068 Motorized Recreation and Access 3069 Alternative R provides one percent of the Forest for summer motorized trail opportunities in a 3070 backcountry, unroaded setting and two percent of the Forest for summer non-motorized trail opportunities 3071 in a backcountry, unroaded setting. Summer and winter motorized trails may be authorized in 3072 administrative and recreation sites and are not authorized on national scenic trails or in research natural

97

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3073 areas, RW, or wilderness. Seasonal restrictions and closures may apply to areas such as deer and elk 3074 winter range. Summer and winter motorized use would be authorized within the Focused and General 3075 Restoration management areas, providing a roaded recreation setting.

3076 The Alternative includes 207,800 acres of RW (second most of the alternatives). The RW allocation 3077 combined with the Backcountry Recreation MA and current Wilderness comprise about 24 percent of the 3078 Forest where no motorized recreation is permitted, reducing the risk of accelerated sediment delivery 3079 from motorized trails. However, motorized use is still allowed on most of the Forest where some 3080 accelerated erosion and potential damage to riparian and aquatic habitat may occur, especially if 3081 management is not able to maintain the trail system given the expected increase in use.

3082 Roads are currently allowed on about 80 percent of the Forest and Alternative R would continue to allow 3083 roads in those areas. Like all other alternatives, new road access would not be allowed in recommended 3084 or designated wilderness areas, backcountry motorized and non-motorized management areas, or research 3085 natural areas.

3086 Alternative R includes desired condition for road density in the Focused and general restoration MAs. 3087 Desired road density in the Focused Restoration MA is no greater than 1.0 mile/square mile averaged over 3088 Focused Restoration areas within the 5th field watershed. The desired road density in the General 3089 Restoration MA is no greater than 2.0 miles/square mile averaged over General Restoration areas within 3090 the 5th field watershed.

3091 Most subwatersheds on the forest are not properly functioning or functioning at risk for the AEC road 3092 density and riparian road density attributes. Implementation Alternative R would potentially help improve 3093 watershed condition more than the Proposed Action. The majority of lands within Key Watersheds are 3094 within the Focused Restoration MA which includes a desired average road density of 1.0 mile/square 3095 mile, or other MAs that restrict road development including Backcountry non-motorized, RW and 3096 Wilderness. The benefits of the alternative to watershed and aquatic resources is extended to the plan area 3097 as a whole, compared to the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives, as the Focused Restoration MA 3098 includes about one-half of the CNF. In general, road densities of 1.0 mile/square mile are the upper 3099 bounds of what are considered properly functioning watersheds, conducive to providing habitat for strong 3100 fish populations. The General Restoration MA with a desired average road density of 2.0 miles/square 3101 mile includes only about one-quarter of the Forest. Watersheds with 2.0 miles/square miles are generally 3102 considered to be functioning at risk, however between the two MAs there should be some improvement in 3103 watershed conditions and fish habitat if the desired road densities are attained. As with the Proposed 3104 Action and Alternative P, the ability of the Forest to attain the desired road densities would depend upon 3105 budgets and social acceptance. Achieving the desired road densities is most likely in the Key Watersheds 3106 due to focused restoration.

3107 Recommended Wilderness 3108 Alternative R includes approximately 207,800 of RW, second highest amount of all the alternatives, 3109 where no new roads or motorized use is allowed. The restriction on motorized use of all kinds provides 3110 benefit to watershed conditions and aquatic habitat by reducing the risk of sediment delivery to streams 3111 and aquatic habitat due to the use of existing motorized trails, and the construction of new roads or trails.

3112 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 3113 Watershed direction in the Alternative R contains plan components (desired conditions, objectives and 3114 standards and guidelines) for general watershed resources; Key Watersheds and RMAs. Watershed,

98

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3115 aquatic and riparian forest plan direction is designed to maintain and restore the ecological health of 3116 watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystems on National Forest System lands.

3117 Watershed direction within the Alternative R incorporates the desired conditions for watersheds, aquatic 3118 and riparian systems that were described in the Proposed Action; adds clarifying language to several of 3119 the desired conditions, and incorporates an additional desired condition regarding TES fish: National 3120 Forest lands contribute to the recovery of Threatened and Endangered fish species and conservation of 3121 Regional Foresters sensitive fish species. Aquatic habitat supports spawning, rearing and other key life 3122 history requirements.

3123 Five additional standards were added that apply not only to overall watershed management but to RMAs 3124 as well. These standards include direction to decrease the potential spread of AIS when working in water; 3125 including during fire suppression activities, utilizing Early Detection and Rapid Response principles to 3126 respond to a potential introduction of an AIS, and an overall standard to minimize the disruption of 3127 hydrologic processes due to roads and trails.

3128 The Alternative R definition of RMAs and the associated widths are the same as in the Proposed Action. 3129 The management direction for RMAs includes 16standards () and 23 guidelines . Standards may add 3130 additional clarity and expectations concerning how management actions are to be implemented within 3131 RMAs than a guideline.

3132 The Alternative R includes additional Key Watersheds than are included in the Proposed Action. The Key 3133 Watershed network includes 25 subwatersheds covering 452,051 acres. The Key Watershed network was 3134 expanded in Alternative R based on updated fish distribution data and improved data on aquatic habitat 3135 function since designation of the Proposed Action Key Watershed network. Five subwatersheds were 3136 added to the Key Watershed network included in the proposed action and three subwatersheds were 3137 removed from the Proposed Action Key Watershed network because they had less than 25 percent CNF 3138 ownership. The Alternative R Key Watersheds include bull trout critical habitat and expand the Key 3139 Watersheds providing habitat for WSCT and interior redband trout. Alternative R, along with Alternatives 3140 P and O (discussed below) provides the greatest potential benefit to the MIS/focal and other aquatic 3141 species due to the Key Watershed network.

3142 Table 33. Key Watersheds for Alternatives R, P, O (WSCT=Westslope Cutthroat Trout, IRT=Interior 3143 redband, BT=Bull Trout, CH=Bull Trout Critical Habitat Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF MIS/Focal Number Name Subwatershed Ownership Species/ Acres Acres CH

170102160102 Winchester Creek 10482 5628 WSCT, CH

170102160103 Smalle Creek 17754 11058 BT, WSCT, CH

170102160201 Exposure Creek- 41224 14463 BT, WSCT Pend Oreille River

170102160206 Tacoma Creek 39519 27182 BT, WSCT,CH

99

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF MIS/Focal Number Name Subwatershed Ownership Species/ Acres Acres CH

170102160302 West Branch Le 21672 15099 BT, Clerc Creek WSCT, CHCH

170102160303 East Branch Le 26663 11145 BT, Clerc Creek WSCT, CH

170102160304 Ruby Creek 19597 18385 BT, CH

170102160401 Harvey Creek 32999 27554 BT, WSCT

170102160402 Headwaters 45516 45417 BT, Sullivan Creek WSCT, CH

170102160403 North Fork 12709 11259 BT, Sullivan Creek- WSCT, Sullivan Creek CH

170102160702 Headwaters South 20697 12472 BT Salmo River

170102160902 Sweet Creek-Pend 41832 28890 WSCT Oreille River

170102160903 Slate Creek 20195 19907 BT, WSCT, CH

170102161003 Cedar Creek 17209 5359 BT, WSCT, CH

170200011004 North Fork Deep 49257 26634 WSCT Creek

170200011301 South Fork 22004 21899 IRT Sherman Creek

170200011302 Upper Sherman 26381 26260 IRT Creek

170200011303 Lower Sherman 20987 15998 IRT Creek

170200011306 Barnaby Creek 23108 14299 IRT

100

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Subwatershed Subwatershed Total CNF MIS/Focal Number Name Subwatershed Ownership Species/ Acres Acres CH

170200011401 Upper Hall Creek 31648 13786 IRT

170200021301 Trout Creek 23435 14122 IRT

170200021701 Tonata Creek 14453 13781 IRT

170200021907 East Deer Creek- 23385 15443 WSCT Kettle River

170200022002 North Fork 13450 13185 IRT Deadman Creek

170200022003 Deadman Creek 26518 22300 IRT

Total 642692 451525

3144

3145 The Alternative R Key Watershed direction carries over the Key Watershed desired conditions in the 3146 Proposed Action with some clarifying language added and includes the Proposed Action’s three Key 3147 Watershed standards. The key watershed objectives are similar to those as described for the Proposed 3148 Action (See Appendix 1 and 2) with additional objectives to improve range infrastructure to protect 3149 riparian habitat, restore the structure and composition of upland vegetation within RMAs and for stream 3150 restoration. Additionally the objectives identify the amount and type of actions expected within the Key 3151 Watersheds to move watershed and stream channels towards the desired conditions. Over the life of the 3152 plan the objectives identify;

3153 • Reducing road-hydrologic connectivity and sediment risk on 78 miles of road.

3154 • Restoring or passage at road/stream crossings for all life stages of native aquatic species and 3155 improving the hydrologic and aquatic habitat function at 44 crossings.

3156 • Improving range infrastructure over 240 acres.

3157 • Restoring between 600-1,200 acres of upland vegetation conditions within RMAs.

3158 • Restoring 76 miles of stream

3159

3160 Alternative R includes standards developed specifically for prevention, control, and eradication of AIS. 3161 Such plan components provide more clear and urgent direction to implement appropriate AIS 3162 management actions and therefore may be more protective against AIS becoming established than the 3163 Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives.

3164 A number of subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the AEC Riparian 3165 Vegetation attribute.. As mentioned in the Proposed Action discussion, aquatic habitat tends to be of poor 3166 quality on the CNF compared to reference streams, but there appears to be slow improvement in aquatic 3167 habitat after 20 years of implementing INFISH. The extent to which grazing is or is not contributing to

101

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3168 the current habitat conditions is not determined at this time . Alternative R includes three standards and 3169 two guidelines for grazing within RMAs. The one guideline in the Proposed Action for streambank 3170 alteration and woody vegetation utilization and stubble height is revised to read:

3171 Within green-line vegetation area adjacent to all watercourses:

3172 • Do not exceed a 25 percent streambank alteration;

3173 • Do not exceed a 40 percent utilization of available mean annual vegetative production on woody 3174 vegetation;

3175 • Maintain at least six to eight inches residual stubble height and utilize no more than 40 percent of 3176 mean annual vegetative production on deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation.

3177 The rationale for the guideline was presented in the discussion of the grazing guideline in the Proposed 3178 Action. The six to eight inch stubble height may be more protective of woody species such as willow 3179 (Clary and Leininger 2000) than a guideline for maintaining four to six inches residual stubble height. 3180 The combination of no more than 25 percent bank alteration combined with the six to eight inch stubble 3181 height and no more than 40 percent utilization should be allow for the maintenance and improvement of 3182 riparian vegetation conditions and thus be protective of streambanks and stream channel conditions. 3183 While the allowable 25 percent streambank alteration is greater than the 20 percent allowed in the 3184 Proposed Action, the eight inch residual stubble height plus the 40 percent utilization limits should be 3185 protective of riparian vegetation and thus streambanks. The guideline reflects the recommendations of 3186 Archer (2014), based on PIBO results, for improve riparian habitat and stream channel conditions while 3187 allowing livestock grazing. The bank alteration stubble height and utilization guidelines set a starting 3188 point for designing grazing strategies that are potentially more protective of riparian vegetation and 3189 stream habitat than the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives.

3190 Cumulative Effects 3191 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 3192 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 3193 the influence of Alternative R, such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with 3194 hydroelectric projects and the transportation system managed by other entities are common for all 3195 alternatives. The activities associated with the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would 3196 now be guided by the Alternative R key watershed objectives and restoration direction.

3197 The watershed condition of most subwatersheds and the subbasins as a whole on the CNF are not 3198 properly functioning or functioning at risk with the road systems appearing to be a primary driver. 3199 Alternative R road density desired conditions in Focused Restoration Areas and General Restoration MAs 3200 are more within the range considered supportive of good watershed conditions and strong fish 3201 populations. The desired conditions for roads, plus vegetation management to improve the composition 3202 and structure of forests, should help make watersheds and stream channels more resilient to disturbance. 3203 It would be less likely for watersheds within the General Restoration MA to become properly functioning 3204 for watershed condition due to the desired road density of 2.0 miles/square mile. The realized benefit 3205 however would depend upon the timeframe the road density desired conditions can be met and the 3206 amount of terrestrial management occurs in any watershed or subwatershed.

3207 Watershed conditions may improve through the implementation of the ACS. The desired conditions; 3208 standards and guides; and objectives are designed to provide for and restore watershed riparian and 3209 aquatic habitat conditions. The benefits may be greatest where watershed and riparian restoration,

102

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3210 especially in key watersheds, is coordinated with vegetation management and road management to attain 3211 the desired conditions. The ACS with an increase in the area covered by RMAs, additional standards and 3212 guides and a larger Key Watershed network with specific restoration actions identified than has occurred 3213 under INFISH and may be expected under the other Alternatives except Alternative P.

3214 The status of many MIS/focal species’ local populations are likely to remain at risk due to the presence of 3215 non-native fish, isolation above natural and man-made barriers to migration. Coordinating restoration 3216 actions on Forest with the work of other entities, such as work tied to hydroelectric project relicensing, 3217 provide the most potential for improving the population status of MIS/focal species.

3218 Climate Change 3219 The general description of the potential effects of climate change remain the same as discussed in the 3220 Past, Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The increased 3221 overall direction of the ACS including Forest-wide desired conditions, riparian and key watershed 3222 standards and guides; the Key Watershed network covering approximately 41 percent of the Forest; 3223 desired road densities more in the range of what is considered beneficial to aquatic species and watershed 3224 function; desired conditions for and management to improve the vegetative structure and composition of 3225 Forests; and objectives for improving riparian and watershed conditions may remove human stressors to 3226 the environment to provide a better opportunity for aquatic species to adjust to climate change. A 3227 particular risk to the MIS/focal species would remain the presence of non-native fish, low MIS/focal 3228 species population numbers and isolated and fragmented populations. In addition to the CNF actions 3229 described above, the actions associated with hydroelectric project re-licensing including, the non-native 3230 fish population suppression or eradication, habitat improvement and improved passage at the 3231 hydroelectric project dams may be key factors in conserving the MIS/focal species.

3232 Monitoring Recommendations 3233 The monitoring program was previously described in the Summary of Effects Common for all 3234 Alternatives. 3235

3236 Alternative P 3237 Similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative P includes a whole landscape approach to providing late forest 3238 structure, including about seven percent of the Forest as recommended wilderness, and includes the 3239 Focused and General Restoration MAs. Desired road densities for the Focused and General Restoration 3240 MAs are the same as for Alternative R. Alternative P also proposes to allocate about five percent of the 3241 Forest to backcountry non-motorized recreation versus about eight percent in the Proposed Action.

3242 Table 34. Alternative P Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion Management Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total* Area D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake

Focused 4 61,422 58,769 185,920 3 306,118 Restoration

103

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Management Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total* Area D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake

General 101,843 66,757 159,117 100,026 65,206 492,949 Restoration

Backcountry 5,338 19,481 44,426 29,110 24,690 123,045

Backcountry 1,357 11,893 36,072 5,255 0 54,577 Motorized

Wilderness 0 23,624 0 42,353 2,356 68,333 Recommended

Wilderness- Congressionally 0 0 0 31,429 0 31,429 Designated

3243 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology

3244 The definition of RMAs, the Key Watershed network and plan components for watersheds, RMAs and 3245 Key Watersheds are the same as alternative R..

3246 Summary of Effects

3247 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3248 Key Indicator - The number of acres that have Focused Restoration (or Late Forest Structure), General 3249 Restoration, and a timber production emphasis.

3250 • Focused Restoration – 306,118 acres

3251 • General Restoration – 492,949 acres

3252 As in Alternative R, the roaded portion of the CNF is divided into the Focused and General Restoration 3253 MAs. The major difference between the two alternatives is Alternative P allocates more land to the 3254 General Restoration MA (about 492,949acres; 45 percent of the Forest) than the Focused Restoration MA 3255 (about 306,000 acres; 28 percent of the Forest). Timber harvest is allowed in both restoration MAs. The 3256 objective for vegetation management, including timber harvest, is to improve the resiliency of forests to 3257 disturbance. Many subwatersheds on the Forest are considered to be functioning at risk for the fire regime 3258 attribute of the AEC so vegetation management within the restoration areas may help improve watershed 3259 condition. The risks to watershed processes and aquatic habitat associated with vegetation management is 3260 probably greater in the General Restoration MA, as the Focused Restoration MA includes more 3261 management emphasis for wildlife habitat and Key Watersheds. The potential benefits of vegetation 3262 management improving watershed condition across the Forest is less than Alternative R due to the greater 3263 amount of land with a 2.0 mile/square mile road density desired condition.

104

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3264 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 3265 Key Indicator- Desired Conditions for Road Densities

3266 • Focused restoration – 1.0 miles/square mile

3267 • General restoration – 2.0 miles/square mile

3268 Roads are allowed over 80 percent of the forest as in the other alternatives. Most subwatersheds on the 3269 Forest are not properly functioning or functioning at risk for the road and riparian road density attributes 3270 of the AEC. Alternative P with desired road densities of 1.0 mile/square mile in the Focused Restoration 3271 MA and 2.0 miles/square mile in the General Restoration MA may result in improved watershed 3272 conditions compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative B and Alternative O; but the potential 3273 improvement is less than Alternative R due to more lands within the General Restoration MA. New roads 3274 cannot be constructed in RW, or Backcountry Motorized or Backcountry non-motorized MAs.

3275 Key indicator – Acres Allocated to Motorized Use

3276 Motorized recreation is allowed on about 853,926 acres the Restoration MAs and Backcountry Motorized 3277 MA. The current levels of motorized recreation are allowed in RW which brings the total amount of land 3278 open to motorized recreation to 922,259 acres or about 84 percent of the Forest.

3279 Recommended Wilderness Areas 3280 Key Indicator – Total acres in RW

3281 Alternative P only proposes to allocate 68,333acres or about six percent of the Forest to RW. Therefore 3282 the protection afforded to watershed condition and aquatic habitat is less than the recommended RW in 3283 the Proposed Action (9 percent of the Forest) and Alternative R (19 percent) and Alternative B (about 20 3284 percent of the Forest). Alternative P does recommended more RW than the No Action and O alternatives. 3285 As in the Proposed Action, existing motorized and mechanized use is maintained until Congress makes a 3286 decision on potential wilderness designation.

3287 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 3288 The Alternative P ACS incorporates the ARCS+ strategy that was described for Alternative R. The plan 3289 components; desired conditions, the definition of RMAs, the Key Watershed network, standards and 3290 guidelines, and objectives are the same as Alternative R as are the anticipated effects.

3291 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability 3292 Only Alternative R provides a greater contribution to MIS/focal species viability than Alternative P. 3293 Alternative P includes the same Key Watershed network and definitions and management direction for 3294 RMAs as Alternative R. The Alternative P contribution to bull trout viability is the same as Alternative R 3295 as the watersheds with bull trout critical habitat are included in the Key Watershed network. The total 3296 amount of lands within RW, Wilderness and the two Backcountry MAs is also similar between the two 3297 alternatives, although the actual mix varies. Alternative P contributes slightly less to the viability of 3298 WSCT and interior redband trout than Alternative R (Table 26 in the No Action Alternative). Although the 3299 Key Watershed network is the same for both Alternatives, Alternative P includes more lands within the 3300 General Restoration MA and the associated desires road density of 2.0 miles/square mile.

105

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3301 Effects

3302 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3303 Alternative P uses the whole landscape approach to provide late forest structure. Like the Proposed Action 3304 and Alternative R the roaded portion of the Forest is divided into two vegetation restoration areas, the 3305 Focused Restoration 306,100 acres (about 28 percent of the Forest) and General Restoration 493,200 3306 acres (about 45 percent of the Forest) MAs. The major difference between the two restoration MAs are 3307 the desired road densities and the Focused Restoration MA also emphasizes habitat for Key watersheds, 3308 and wildlife species. Timber harvest is allowed in both restoration MAs.

3309 As in the Proposed Action and Alternative R, timber harvest is allowed on about 73 percent of the Forest 3310 in the Focused and General Restoration MAs. These areas are to be managed to provide the vegetation 3311 structure and composition, including late forest structure, for forest communities that are resilient to 3312 disturbances such as wildfire, drought and insect infestations. Many of the subwatersheds on the Forest 3313 are functioning at risk for the fire regime indicator in the AEC assessment, and a few are not properly 3314 functioning. As with Alternative R, vegetation management to restore vegetation to conditions as may be 3315 expected under historic and anticipated disturbance regimes, may improve watershed condition especially 3316 in the Focused Restoration MAs if the desired road densities are attained.

3317 Watersheds in the General Restoration area may not become fully functioning due to the desired road 3318 densities although there may be some improvement from the current conditions as the road densities in 3319 not properly functioning watersheds are reduced towards the desired levels The potential risks to aquatic 3320 resources due to vegetation management projects, especially timber sales, would likely be greatest in the 3321 General Restoration area due to the higher desired conditions for road density and a likely higher level of 3322 vegetation management than in the Focused Restoration Area. Management direction for RMAs should 3323 minimize the potential adverse impacts to riparian dependent resources due to timber sales. Vegetation 3324 management including timber harvest as outlined for Alternative P may be more beneficial towards 3325 improving watershed conditions due to the road density desired conditions compared to the Proposed 3326 Action but less so than Alternative R. As with Alternative R and the Proposed Action, achieving the 3327 desired road densities is most likely in the key watersheds due to focused restoration, and would depend 3328 upon budgets and social acceptance.

3329 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 3330 Alternative P would continue to allow roads over 80 percent of the Forest. Similar to all other alternatives 3331 new roads are not allowed in RW, backcountry motorized, or backcountry non-motorized MAs, or 3332 research natural areas. The desired road densities in Focused Restoration MA is no greater than 1.0 3333 miles/square mile and in the General Restoration Area no greater than 2.0 miles/square mile. About or 3334 five percent of the Forest is allocated for backcountry motorized recreation.

3335 Similar to Alternative R, watershed conditions and the AEC for the MIS/focal species may improve as the 3336 desired road densities are attained but watersheds in the General Restoration MA would likely remain 3337 functioning at risk even if the desired road densities are attained. Alternative P allocates the second most 3338 amount of area to backcountry recreation. The RW, current wilderness and backcountry recreation areas 3339 combine to comprise 20% of the Forest where roads are not allowed. However, motorized use is still 3340 allowed over 80 percent of the Forest where some accelerated erosion and potential damage to riparian 3341 and aquatic habitat may occur, especially if management is not able to maintain the trail system given the 3342 expected increase in use.

106

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3343 Recommended Wilderness 3344 Alternative P proposes to add 68,333acres or about six percent of the Forest. Therefore the protection 3345 afforded to watershed condition and aquatic habitat is less than the recommended RW in the Proposed 3346 Action (9 percent of the Forest), Alternative R (19 percent) and Alternative B (about 20 percent of the 3347 Forest). Alternative P does recommend more RW than the No Action and O alternatives. Motorized and 3348 mechanized use is allowed pending a Congressional decision on wilderness designation. Sediment may 3349 continue to be delivered to streams and aquatic habitat due to the use of the existing motorized trail 3350 system. The level of effect on aquatic habitat would likely depend upon the ability of the Forest to 3351 maintain the trails, given the expected increased recreation use.

3352 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 3353 The Alternative P ACS incorporates the strategy that was described for Alternative R. The Plan 3354 Components; desired conditions, the definition of RMAs, the Key Watershed network, standards and 3355 guidelines, and objectives are the same as Alternative R as are the anticipated effects.

3356 Cumulative Effects 3357 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 3358 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 3359 the influence of Alternative P such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric 3360 projects and the transportation system managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The 3361 activities associated with the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by 3362 the Alternative P restoration direction.

3363 The watershed condition of most subwatersheds and the subbasins as a whole on the CNF are not 3364 properly functioning or functioning at risk with the road systems appearing to be a primary driver. A 3365 number of subwatersheds are also functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the fire regime and 3366 insect indicators of the AEC. The Alternative P road density desired conditions in Focused Restoration 3367 Areas covering about 28 percent of the Forest are more within the range considered supportive of good 3368 watershed conditions and strong fish populations. The desired conditions for roads plus vegetation 3369 management to improve the composition and structure of forests in the Focus Restoration MAs may help 3370 make watersheds more resilient to disturbance and reduce the adverse impacts to aquatic habitat. The 3371 realized benefit however would depend upon the timeframe the road density desired conditions can be 3372 met and the amount of terrestrial management that occurs in any watershed or subwatershed. It would be 3373 less likely for watersheds within the General Restoration MA to become properly functioning for 3374 watershed condition due to the desired road density of 2.0 miles/square mile.

3375 Watershed conditions may improve through implementation of the ACS. The desired conditions; 3376 standards and guides; and objectives are designed to provide for and restore watershed riparian and 3377 aquatic habitat conditions. The benefits may be greatest where watershed and riparian restoration, 3378 especially in key watersheds, is coordinated with vegetation management and road management to attain 3379 the desired conditions. The ACS with an increase in the area covered by RMAs, additional standards and 3380 guides and a larger Key Watershed network, with restoration objectives, than the No Action or Proposed 3381 Action Alternatives may be expected to improve aquatic habitat at a faster rate than has occurred under 3382 INFISH.

3383 Many populations of the MIS/focal species are likely to remain at risk due to the presence of non-native 3384 fish, isolation above barriers and other barriers to migration. Coordinating restoration actions on Forest

107

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3385 with the work of other entities, such as work tied to hydroelectric project relicensing, provide the most 3386 potential for improving the population status of MIS/focal species.

3387 Climate Change

3388 The general description of the potential effects of climate change remain the same as discussed for the 3389 Past, Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis. The increased overall 3390 direction of the ACS including Forest-wide desired conditions, riparian and key watershed standards and 3391 guides; the Key Watershed network covering approximately 41 percent of the Forest; the Focus 3392 Restoration MA with desired road densities more in the range of what is considered beneficial to aquatic 3393 species and watershed function; desired conditions for and management to improve the vegetative 3394 structure and composition of Forests; and objectives for improving riparian and watershed conditions; 3395 may remove some human stressors to the environment to provide a better opportunity for aquatic species 3396 to adjust to climate change, especially if actions are concentrated in Key Watersheds. A particular risk to 3397 the MIS/focal species would remain the presence of non-native fish, low MIS/focal species population 3398 numbers and isolated and fragmented populations. In addition to the CNF actions described above, the 3399 non-native fish population suppression or eradication, habitat improvement and improved passage at the 3400 hydroelectric project dams may be key factors in conserving the MIS/focal species.

3401 Monitoring Recommendations 3402 The Monitoring requirements are the common for all alternatives

3403 Alternative B 3404 Alternative B designates restoration and timber management zones, recommends a high level of 3405 wilderness protection, and designates the least amount of area for backcountry motorized use.

3406 Two MAs focus on forest vegetation: the Restoration Zone MA, which emphasizes old forests or late 3407 forest structure on 31 percent of the landscape, and the Active Management area, which emphasizes 3408 timber production on 43 percent of the Forest. The Restoration Zone and the Active Management Area are 3409 similar to Focused or General Restoration areas in the Proposed Action and other alternatives. Active 3410 management to restore late forest structure is limited to only dry plant association groups. Also unlike the 3411 Proposed Action, in Alternative R and Alternative P, the Active Management MA emphasizes even-aged 3412 management for timber production.

3413 Table 35. Alternative B Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion Management Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total* Area D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake

Restoration 17,301 59,902 103,416 140,786 17,123 392,262

Active Management 84,491 74,515 116,645 152,616 48,200 476,467 Area

Backcountry 0 0 0 4,835 0 4,835

108

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Backcountry 1,357 0 0 5,249 0 6,606 Motorized

Wilderness 5,356 49,640 78,278 59,275 27,761 220,330 Recommended

Wilderness- Congressionally 0 0 0 31,423 0 31,429 Designated

3414 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology

3415 Summary of Effects

3416 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3417 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have a focused restoration (or late forest structure), general 3418 restoration, timber production emphasis.

3419 • Focused restoration – The Restoration MA includes 338,538 acres

3420 • General Restoration – The Active Management Area includes 476,752 acres. Even-aged 3421 management for timber production is allowed.

3422 Timber harvest is allowed in both the Restoration and Active Management MAs.

3423 Vegetation management within the Restoration MA emphasizes enhancing the ecological integrity and 3424 ecosystem function by restoring late forest structure, natural processes and the resiliency of forests. 3425 Within the Active Management MA, the focus is to provide a stable flow of forests products to the local 3426 economy, maintain the infrastructure necessary to provide forest products while increasing the Forest’s 3427 resilience to insects, disease and uncharacteristic fire. Alternative B allocates less land to a focused 3428 restoration type of management than Alternative R but more than is allocated in the Proposed Action; and 3429 similar amount as in Alternatives P and O. Unlike the Proposed Action, Alternatives R and P, the 3430 emphasis on timber production in the Active Management MA increases the risk to watershed processes 3431 and aquatic habitat compared to vegetation management in the Proposed Action, Alternatives R and P and 3432 the Restoration MA of this alternative. Any potential benefit to watershed conditions that may be accrued 3433 by managing for more resilient forests is likely to be diminished as the current level of 4,000 road miles is 3434 to be retained across the Forest.

3435 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 3436 Key Indicator – Desired conditions for road densities.

3437 There are no road density desired conditions that would potentially improve watershed conditions. There 3438 may be some reduction in road densities within the Restoration MA but access would be maintained 3439 within the Active Management Area to facilitate the flow of forest products. Overall the current level of 3440 4,000 road miles on the Forest is to be maintained and therefore watershed conditions are not expected to 3441 be greatly improved.

3442 Key Indicator – Acres allocated to motorized access.

109

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3443 Alternative B allocates the least amount of lands to Backcountry Motorized and Backcountry MAs. 3444 Motorized access including motorized trails is allowed on 821,886 acres in the Active Management Area, 3445 Restoration and Backcountry Motorized MAs, approximately 75 percent of the landscape.

3446 Recommended Wilderness Areas 3447 Key Indicator – Total acres in RW.

3448 Alternative B recommends 220,330 acres as wilderness, slightly less than Alternative R and more than 3449 any other Alternative. As in Alternative R, motorized use is not allowed in RW, enhancing the benefits of 3450 the allocation for watershed and aquatic resources compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative P and 3451 Alternative O.

3452 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 3453 Alternative B continues current riparian and aquatic management under INFISH. The RMA widths to not 3454 provide extra consideration to intermittent streams as in the other alternatives. As in the Proposed Action, 3455 the Priority Watersheds are only located in the Pend Oreille subbasin benefiting bull trout, a few WSCT 3456 populations and no interior redband trout populations. Stream habitat on the Forest may be slowly 3457 improving in the 20 years INFISH has been implemented but most subwatersheds and aquatic habitat 3458 condition is still considered impaired. The trends in watershed condition and stream habitat are expected 3459 to be similar as would be expected under the No Action Alternative.

3460 3461 Figure 8. Alternative B INFISH Priority Watersheds

3462 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability. 3463 Implementation of Alternative B is expected to contribute the least to MIS/focal species viability 3464 compared to all alternatives except the No Action Alternative (Table 26 in the No Action Alternative). The 3465 relatively low contribution is due to maintaining the current amount of road mileage on the Forest, a

110

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3466 significant amount of the Forest in the Active Management MA and the relatively small number of Key 3467 Watersheds. Alternative B also maintains the INFISH ACS, which after 20 years is showing some slow 3468 improvement in stream habitat, but most subwatersheds and stream habitat is, and may be expected to 3469 continue to be, in a functioning at risk or not properly functioning state with watershed conditions not 3470 generally considered conducive for strong fish populations.

3471 Effects

3472 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3473 Alternative B includes two MAs that emphasize vegetation management, the Restoration Zone and the 3474 Active Management Zone. Both the Active Management Area and the Restoration Zone allow use of 3475 timber harvest, prescribed fire, and thinning of stands to meet vegetation management objectives. 3476 Vegetation management in the 338,528 acre Restoration Zone emphasizes enhancing the ecological 3477 integrity of forests by restoring late forest structure and natural processes and resiliency of the terrestrial 3478 vegetation landscape. Standards limit management for late forest structure objectives to dry plant 3479 associations only, as forests in these plant associations are likely to be highly departed from historic 3480 conditions due to past management and fire suppression, although moist mixed conifer forests may 3481 require some restoration as well.

3482 The Active Management Area includes 43 percent of the Forest. The emphasis in the Active Management 3483 Zone is to provide a stable flow of forest products to the local economy and sustain forest products 3484 infrastructure while increasing the Forest’s resilience to insects, disease, and uncharacteristic fire. Even- 3485 aged management is allowed subject to guidelines for timber production. The risks to watershed, riparian 3486 and aquatic resources due to vegetation management are expected to be greater in the Active Management 3487 MA compared to the Restoration MA due to the greater emphasis on timber production.

3488 The fire regime and insect indicators of the AEC are functioning at risk or not properly functioning in 3489 most subwatersheds on the Forest. Vegetation management to improve the resiliency of forests to 3490 disturbance, such as uncharacteristically severe wildfire, may help improve the fire regime and insect and 3491 disease attributes of watershed condition especially in the Restoration MA. However, overall watershed 3492 conditions are unlikely to improve in the either the Restoration or Responsible MAs as any benefit 3493 accrued by improving the Forest’s resiliency to disturbance would be off-set by maintaining the 3494 transportation system at current levels.

3495 Motorized Trails and Access 3496 Alternative B provides the least amount of summer and winter motorized and non-motorized recreation 3497 opportunities in a backcountry, unroaded setting, with less than one percent of the forest allocated to 3498 backcountry motorized trail recreation.

3499 Motorized recreation is allowed on about 75 percent of the Forest.. Like all other alternatives, new road 3500 access would not be allowed in recommended or designated wilderness areas, backcountry motorized 3501 (trail access only) and non-motorized management areas, or research natural areas. Motorized recreation 3502 increases the risk for accelerated sediment delivery to streams from the trails and use of the trails as well 3503 as the potential for degrading riparian areas and stream habitat by off-trail use. The level to which the 3504 potential adverse impacts occur would depend upon the Forest’s ability to management the trail system 3505 given the expected increase in recreation use.

111

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3506 Alternative B does not include desired road densities as in the Proposed Action, and Alternatives R and P. 3507 Alternative B caps the total miles of National Forest System roads at the current level, about 4,000 miles, 3508 and uses a standard that would require at least one mile of road to be decommissioned when adding a mile 3509 to the system. Most subwatersheds are already functioning at risk or not properly functioning for road 3510 and riparian road densities with road densities above those generally supporting strong fish populations. 3511 While there may be some reduction in road density within the Restoration MA due to watershed 3512 improvement activities the overall Forest-wide watershed condition is not expected to improve.

3513 Recommended Wilderness 3514 Alternative B allocates 220,330 acres to RW, the most of any alternative. Motorized and mechanized use 3515 are not permitted in the RW prior to their potential designation by Congress. The restriction on motorized 3516 use of all kinds reduces the risk of sediment delivery sediment delivery to aquatic habitat in the RW due 3517 to the use of existing motorized trails and the construction of new roads or trails.

3518 Riparian Aquatic and Resource Management 3519 Alternative B continues current riparian and aquatic management under INFISH and effects of the ACS 3520 are the same as described for the No Action Alternative. The RHCA widths, the Priority Watershed 3521 Network, and riparian and aquatic resource goals objectives, standards, and guidelines are the same as the 3522 No Action. The RHCAs do not extend the same consideration to intermittent streams as the other 3523 alternatives so may not be as protective of watershed processes. The potential benefits of Key Watershed 3524 designation only occurs in the Pend Oreille subbasin. The Key Watersheds include bull trout critical 3525 habitat and some WSCT populations but fewer WSCT populations than the other Alternatives, except No 3526 Action, and no interior redband trout populations are included in the Key Watersheds. Stream habitat on 3527 the Forest may be slowly improving in the 20 years INFISH has been implemented but most 3528 subwatersheds and aquatic habitat is considered impaired. The trends in watershed condition and stream 3529 habitat are expected to be similar as would be expected under the No Action Alternative.

3530 Cumulative Effects 3531 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 3532 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The activities outside 3533 the influence of the CNF, such as the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric 3534 projects and the transportation system managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The 3535 activities associated with the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by 3536 the Alternative B restoration direction.

3537 The watershed condition and status of most of the MIS/Focal Species’ populations are functioning at risk 3538 or not properly functioning although there is some indication of slow improvement in aquatic habitat 3539 condition. Road densities and riparian road densities which are two major attributes causing the poor 3540 watershed condition scores may not significantly improve despite restoration due to the amount of land 3541 available for timber production, maintaining the current miles of National Forest System roads and the 3542 2,500 miles of road managed by other entities, which is not expected to change.

3543 The CNF would continue with actions as described in the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 3544 project. Such actions, especially when they are implemented in a whole watershed restoration approach, 3545 should help restore watershed condition to some degree. The magnitude of the improvement within a 3546 subwatershed would depend upon the amount of work that is socially acceptable and technically feasible 3547 to implement. However, given the current road system and the fact that after 20 years of implementing 3548 INFISH on the Forest stream habitat is only slowly improving, watershed condition and stream habitat

112

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3549 may not be expected to significantly improve Forest-wide. The MIS/focal species’ population status is 3550 significantly affected by the high numbers and wide distribution of non-native fish, isolation above 3551 barriers and low MIS/focal species numbers, and problems in the migratory corridors on the larger rivers.

3552 Climate Change 3553 The overall effects of climate change were presented in the Past, Present and Foreseeable Future 3554 Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. Under Alternative B, the CNF aquatic resource 3555 management direction for managing for stronghold populations that may contribute to the MIS/focal 3556 species persistence under different climate change scenarios is contained in the INFISH direction for 3557 Priority Watersheds. The Priority watersheds may provide the potential to rebuild populations and 3558 improve habitat to allow bull trout and WSCT the opportunity to adapt to climate change, especially in 3559 the East Fork and West Fork Le Clerc Creeks and Ninemile Creek which are Focus watersheds. As 3560 mentioned in the cumulative effects section, the actual benefits to fish habitat and populations from such 3561 work is likely to be limited due to maintaining the current number of roads on the Forest. The potential 3562 effects of climate change may be greatest for this alternative and the No Action Alternative as the amount 3563 of subwatersheds and populations expected to be functioning at risk or not properly functioning is 3564 expected to remain as is. The threats to MIS/focal species viability due to population isolation and 3565 fragmentation, combined with the wide distribution of non-native fish and poor habitat conditions may be 3566 exacerbated in a warming climate.

3567 Monitoring Recommendations 3568 Monitoring recommendations are common to all alternatives.

3569 Alternative O 3570 Alternative O emphasizes summer and winter non-motorized opportunities in a backcountry, unroaded 3571 setting and minimizes recommended wilderness. Late forest structure is managed with a fixed reserve 3572 system. Alternative O includes two management areas to address vegetation management: the Restoration 3573 Zone MA to restore the historic range of variation, and the Responsible Management Area that 3574 emphasizes timber production. The management zones are very similar to those proposed in Alternative 3575 B. The total percentage of the Forest allocated to vegetation management is similar to Alternative B 3576 though Alternative O has a greater percentage in the Restoration Zone MA than Alternative B.

3577 Table 36. Alternative O Management Area Acres by Subbasin Pertinent to Aquatics Discussion Management Colville Franklin Kettle Pend Sanpoil Total* Area D. Oreille Roosevelt Lake

Restoration 23,993 62,766 110,389 140,463 31,419 369,030

Responsible 77,805 65,358 108,242 146,071 33,763 431,239

Backcountry 5,354 42,856 44,448 54,576 27,068 174,302

Backcountry 1,356 11,878 35,241 5,259 0 53,734 Motorized

113

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Wilderness 0 0 0 15,955 0 15,955 Recommended

Wilderness- Congressionally 0 0 0 31,423 0 31,429 Designated

3578 *Acres are approximate and vary due to GIS methodology

3579 The plan components for watershed, riparian and aquatic management; desired conditions, standards and 3580 guides, and the definition of RMAs is the same as the Proposed Action. Alternative O however 3581 incorporates the same Key Watershed network as in Alternatives R and P.

3582

3583 3584 Figure 9. Key watershed network under alternatives R, P, and O.

3585 Summary of Effects

3586 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3587 Key Indicator – The number of acres that have a focused restoration (or late forest structure), general 3588 restoration, timber production emphasis.

3589 • Focused restoration – The Restoration MA includes 369,030 acres

3590 • General Restoration – The Responsible Management Area includes 431,525 acres. Even-aged 3591 management for timber production is allowed.

3592 Timber harvest is allowed in both the Restoration and Responsible Management MAs.

114

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3593 Vegetation management and timber production as described for Alternative O is very similar to 3594 Alternative B. Vegetation management within the Restoration MA emphasizes enhancing the ecological 3595 integrity and ecosystem function by restoring late forest structure, natural processes and the resiliency of 3596 forests. The emphasis for vegetation management in the Responsible Management MA is for sustainable 3597 active management to provide a steady flow of forest products to the local economy and maintain the 3598 infrastructure necessary to provide forest products, while increasing the Forest’s resilience to insects, 3599 disease and uncharacteristic fire.

3600 Alternative O allocates approximately 39 percent to a focused restoration type of management in the 3601 Restoration MA. The amount of land in the Restoration MA is less than the Focused Restoration MA in 3602 Alternative R, more than the Focused Restoration MA in the Proposed Action and Alternatives P and the 3603 Restoration MA in Alternative B. Similar to Alternative B, the emphasis on timber production in the 3604 Active Management MA increases the risk to watershed processes and aquatic habitat compared to 3605 vegetation management within the General Restoration MAs in the Proposed Action, Alternatives R and 3606 P. Any potential benefit to watershed conditions that may be accrued by managing for more resilient 3607 forests is likely to be diminished as the current level of 4,000 road miles is to be retained across the 3608 Forest.

3609 Motorized Recreation Trails and Access 3610 Key Indicator – Desired conditions for road densities.

3611 As in Alternative B, there are no road density desired conditions that would potentially improve 3612 watershed conditions. There may be some reduction in road densities within the Restoration MA but 3613 access would be maintained within the Responsible MA to facilitate the flow of forest products. Overall 3614 the current level of 4,000 road miles on the Forest is to be maintained and therefore watershed conditions 3615 are not expected to be greatly improved.

3616 Key Indicator – Acres allocated to motorized access.

3617 Alternative O allocates the most amount of lands to the Backcountry MA and approximately five percent 3618 of the Forest is allocated to motorized recreation in a backcountry setting. Motorized recreation is allowed 3619 in the Backcountry motorized, Restoration and the Responsible MAs as well as RW resulting in 3620 approximately 79 percent of the landscape being available to motorized recreation.

3621 Recommended Wilderness Areas 3622 Key Indicator – Total acres in RW.

3623 Alternative O recommends 15,955 acres as wilderness, the least amount of any action alternative. 3624 Motorized and mechanized uses would be maintained at current levels in these areas until Congress 3625 makes a decision on wilderness designation for the RW management areas.

3626 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 3627 The Alternative O plan components for watershed, riparian and aquatic resource management; desired 3628 conditions, the definition of RMAs, standards and guidelines, and objectives are the same as the Proposed 3629 Action. The primary difference between both Alternative O and the Proposed Action compared to 3630 Alternatives R and P is a greater reliance on guidelines than standards; there is not an additional desired 3631 condition for TES fish there is no specific direction for managing AIS species, or a standard for 3632 minimizing the disruption of hydrologic processes due to roads and trails. Alternative O incorporates the

115

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3633 same Key Watershed network and key watershed objectives as Alternatives R and P which encompasses 3634 more land than the Proposed Action.

3635 Forest Service Contribution to MIS/Focal Species Viability. 3636 Implementation of Alternative O contributes to the MIS/Focal Species Viability to a greater degree than 3637 the No Action and Alternative B. The Alternative O contribution to viability for the three MIS/focal 3638 species is less than Alternatives R and P and similar to the Proposed Action (Table 26 in the No Action 3639 Alternative).

3640 A positive aspect of Alternative O is the same Key Watershed network as in Alternatives R and P. 3641 Alternative O is not expected to contribute to MIS/focal species viability to the same degree as 3642 Alternative R due to no road density desired conditions and little land allocated to RW. Most 3643 subwatersheds on the Forest are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for watershed condition. 3644 Little overall improvement would be expected under Alternative O by maintaining the transportation 3645 system at the current levels resulting in watershed conditions that generally do not support strong fish 3646 populations.

3647 Effects

3648 Old Forest Management and Timber Production 3649 Alternative O includes two MAs that emphasize vegetation management, the Restoration Zone and the 3650 Responsible Management Zone. The two MAs are very similar to the Restoration and Active 3651 Management MAs in Alternative B as are the anticipated affects to watershed, aquatic and riparian 3652 resources. Both the Responsible MA and the Restoration MA allow use of timber harvest, prescribed fire, 3653 and thinning of stands to meet vegetation management objectives. Vegetation management in the 3654 Restoration Zone emphasizes enhancing the ecological integrity of forests by restoring late forest 3655 structure and natural processes and resiliency of the terrestrial vegetation landscape

3656 The emphasis in the Responsible Management MA is to provide a stable flow of forest products to the 3657 local economy and sustain forest products infrastructure while increasing the Forest’s resilience to insects, 3658 disease, and uncharacteristic fire. Even-aged management is allowed subject to guidelines for timber 3659 production. The road system would be retained in the active management areas to facilitate the flow of 3660 forest products. The risks to watershed, riparian and aquatic resources due to vegetation management are 3661 expected to be greater in the Responsible Management MA compared to the Restoration MA due to the 3662 greater emphasis on timber production.

3663 The fire regime and insect indicators of the AEC are functioning at risk or not properly functioning in 3664 many subwatersheds on the Forest. Vegetation management to improve the resiliency of forests to 3665 disturbance, such as uncharacteristically severe wildfire, may help improve watershed condition 3666 especially in the Restoration MA. The potential risks of adverse impacts on watershed and aquatic habitat 3667 are greater in the Responsible MA than the Restoration MA and the Focused and General Restoration 3668 MAs in the Proposed Action, Alternative R and Alternative P due to the emphasis on timber production. 3669 Also, unlike the Proposed Action, Alternative R, and Alternative P, overall watershed conditions are 3670 unlikely to improve in the either the Restoration or Responsible MA s as any benefit accrued by 3671 improving the Forest’s resiliency to disturbance may be off-set by maintaining the transportation system 3672 at current levels.

116

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3673 Motorized Trails and Access 3674 Alternative O allocates the greatest amount of land to backcountry recreation where motorized use is not 3675 allowed and there are to be no new roads. While some minor disruption of watershed processes may occur 3676 on hiking trails here would be no potential for accelerated sediment delivery or damage to riparian and 3677 aquatic due motorized recreation in the 174,300 acre Backcountry MA.

3678 Like all other alternatives, new road access would not be allowed in recommended or designated 3679 wilderness areas, backcountry motorized (trail access only) and non-motorized management areas, or 3680 research natural areas. Motorized recreation would be allowed on approximately 79 percent of the Forest, 3681 including within RW with the associated risk for accelerated sediment delivery to streams from the trails 3682 and use of the trails, as well as the potential for degrading riparian areas and stream habitat by off-trail 3683 use. The level to which the potential adverse impacts occur would depend upon the Forest’s ability to 3684 management the trail system given the expected increase in recreation use.

3685 Alternative O includes no road density desired conditions that would potentially improve watershed 3686 conditions. There may be some reduction in road densities within the Restoration MA but access would 3687 be maintained within the Active Management Area to facilitate the flow of forest products. Most 3688 subwatersheds are functioning at risk or not properly functioning for the road and riparian road density 3689 attributes of the AEC. Overall the current level of 4,000 road miles on the Forest is to be maintained and 3690 therefore little improvement in watershed conditions are expected.

3691 Recommended Wilderness 3692 Alternative O recommends just under 16,000 acres as potential new wilderness. RW is considered to 3693 protect watershed processes, aquatic, and riparian habitat as no roads are to be built or other management 3694 activities occur other than recreation. Under Alternative O however, existing motorized use would be 3695 allowed to continue until Congress decides on wilderness designation. Therefore the risks to watershed, 3696 riparian and aquatic resources due to sediment from the trail system would remain..

3697 Riparian and Aquatic Resource Management 3698 Alternative O incorporates the same ACS as the Proposed Action with a greater reliance on guidelines 3699 than standards than in Alternatives R and P. Like the Proposed Action, Alternative O does not include the 3700 desired conditions for TES fish or the standards for managing AIS that are included in Alternatives R and 3701 P. Unlike the Proposed Action, Alternative O does include the same Key Watershed network as 3702 Alternatives R and P that includes 25 subwatersheds compared to 22 in the Proposed Action, primarily 3703 providing extra protection for interior redband trout. The riparian and aquatic resource effects are the 3704 same as described in the Proposed Action, other than the effects of the Key Watershed network. While 3705 there may be some reduction in road density and the effects to watershed and aquatic habitat from the 3706 existing roads may be reduced due to focused watershed restoration efforts, the benefits of key watershed 3707 designation are expected to be less than either Alternative R or P as there are no desired conditions for 3708 road densities.

3709 Cumulative Effects 3710 The information regarding cumulative effects common to all alternatives was discussed in the Past, 3711 Present and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. The Alternative O 3712 cumulative effects are similar as Alternative B. The activities outside the influence of the CNF, such as 3713 the aquatic habitat improvement work associated with hydroelectric projects and the transportation system

117

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3714 managed by other entities are common for all alternatives. The activities associated with the Northeast 3715 Washington Forest Vision 2020 project would now be guided by the Alternative B restoration direction.

3716 The watershed condition and status of most of the MIS/focal species’ populations are functioning at risk 3717 or not properly functioning although there is some indication of slow improvement in aquatic habitat 3718 condition. Even with the same Key Watershed network as Alternatives R and P the ACS that is felt to be 3719 more complete than INFISH in Alternative B, and the continued implementation of the Northeast 3720 Washington Forest Vision 2020 Project watershed conditions and fish population status are not expected 3721 to significantly improve. Maintaining the current miles of road on the Forest combined with the 2,500 3722 miles of road managed by other entities would result in road densities that would keep most 3723 subwatersheds in a functioning at risk or not properly functioning status. Such road densities generally do 3724 not provide the conditions for strong fish populations.

3725 Climate Change 3726 The overall effects of climate change applicable to all alternatives were presented in the Past, Present and 3727 Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis section. Under Alternative O, the CNF 3728 aquatic resource management direction for managing for stronghold populations that may contribute to 3729 the focal species persistence under different climate change scenarios is contained in the ACS direction 3730 including Key Watersheds. Although Alternative O includes a more comprehensive ACS, including a 3731 broader Key Watershed network than Alternative B, the effects of climate change are expected to be 3732 similar to those described for Alternative B. The Key Watershed network may provide some potential to 3733 rebuild populations and improve habitat to allow the MIS/focal species the opportunity to adapt to climate 3734 change, especially in the East Fork and West Fork Le Clerc Creeks and Ninemile Creek which are Focus 3735 watersheds.

3736 The viability of the MIS/focal species on the Forest is threatened by low population numbers, population 3737 isolation and fragmentation. The high road densities that would result in subwatersheds to continue to be 3738 functioning at risk or not properly functioning and would probably not provide the habitat conditions 3739 necessary to recover for strong fish populations. The status of the fish populations, combined with 3740 degraded watershed and habitat conditions and the wide distribution of non-native fish may exacerbate 3741 the effects of a warming climate.

3742 Monitoring Recommendations 3743 The monitoring program is common to all alternatives.

3744 Summary of the Effects of the Alternatives on Aquatic Resources 3745 The current viability of the three MIS/focal species, WSCT, interior redband trout and bull trout is at risk 3746 within all subbasins on the Forest. The viability of the MIS/focal species on the Forest is generally 3747 threatened by poor watershed conditions, low abundance of the species and a lack of connectivity 3748 between habitats and populations both on and off the Forest. The MIS/focal species are also threatened by 3749 the widespread distribution of non-native fish including brook trout, coastal rainbow trout and past 3750 introductions of non-native subspecies of cutthroat trout. The No Action Alternative would continue 3751 current management programs, including the INFISH aquatic strategy. There are indications that aquatic 3752 habitat conditions may be slowly improving under current management the overall AEC for most 3753 subwatersheds on the Forest would likely continue to be functioning at risk or not properly functioning as 3754 little change in overall road densities on the Forest is expected, there is no additional protection afforded 3755 to aquatic resources through RW, and more of the land base is open to relatively intense timber harvest

118

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3756 than under the action alternatives. Of all alternatives, the No Action Alternative provides the least Forest 3757 Service contribution to the viability of the MIS/focal species.

3758 The Proposed Action is expected to contribute to the viability of the MIS/focal species to a greater extent 3759 than continued management under the No Action Alternative. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the 3760 Proposed Action includes more lands in RW, backcountry and backcountry motorized allocations that are 3761 generally considered to be “protective” of watershed processes and aquatic habitat. The Proposed Action 3762 includes more lands that are considered to have a “moderate” level protection in the Focused and General 3763 Restoration MAs. While timber harvest is allowed as a tool in the two MAs, the emphasis for vegetation 3764 management is to restore terrestrial vegetation structure and composition. The Proposed Action also 3765 includes a significantly larger network of Key Watersheds than the No Action Alternative providing 3766 greater potential benefits to not only bull trout but also WSCT and interior redband. RMAs are also 3767 expanded to give extra consideration to intermittent streams than in the No Action Alternative. The 3768 contribution to MIS/focal species viability though is less than Alternatives R and P however primarily due 3769 to desired road densities in the General Restoration MA that are higher than the road densities generally 3770 associated with properly functioning watersheds capable of supporting strong fish populations.

3771 Alternative R provides the greatest contribution to MIS/focal species viability of all alternatives. 3772 Alternative R is expected to provide the greatest Forest Service contribution to the viability of WSCT and 3773 interior redband of any alternative and the expected contribution to bull trout viability is similar to 3774 Alternative P. Both Alternatives R and P include more Key Watershed acres than the Proposed Action 3775 providing additional benefits to WSCT and interior redband trout. Alternative R also includes the second 3776 most amount of land allocated to RW of all alternatives. Both Alternative R and P include the Focused 3777 and General Restoration MAs where the desired road densities of 1.0 mile/square mile and 2.0 3778 miles/square mile are more within the range of road densities generally associated with strong fish 3779 populations and properly functioning watersheds. The major differences between Alternative R and P are 3780 Alternative P includes more land within the General Restoration MA. Both Alternatives R and P include 3781 aquatic conservation direction similar to the Proposed Action but include more standards and guidelines 3782 to direct management within RMAs.

3783 Alternative B is expected to contribute the least towards the MIS/focal species viability than any action 3784 alternative as the alternative includes the same Key Watershed network as the No Action Alternative, 3785 hence significantly less than the other action alternatives. Alternative B also maintains the current road 3786 network. The watershed and stream channel conditions within most subwatersheds on the Forest are 3787 currently considered to be functioning at risk or not properly functioning and would likely remain so 3788 under Alternative B.

3789 Similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative O may be expected to contribute towards the viability of 3790 MIS/focal species to a greater degree than Alternative B and the No Action Alternative but less so than 3791 Alternatives R and P. While Alternative O includes the same Key Watershed network as Alternatives R 3792 and P, Alternative O does not include the Alternative R and P road density desired conditions.

3793 Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted 3794 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

3795 US Fish and Wildlife Service

3796 Department of Ecology

119

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3797 Acronyms 3798 ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy

3799 AEC Aquatic Ecological Condition

3800 AIS Aquatic Invasive Species

3801 ARCS Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

3802 BT Bull Trout

3803 CNF Colville National Forest

3804 DEIS Draft Environmental Impact statement

3805 ESA Endangered Species Act

3806 INFISH Inland native fish strategy environmental assessment decision notice and finding 3807 of no significant impact: interim strategies for managing fish-producing 3808 watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and 3809 portions of Nevada (INFISH).

3810 IRT Interior redband trout

3811 PACFISH Decision notice/decision record, FONSI, environmental assessment, and 3812 appendices for the implementation of interim strategies for managing 3813 anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, 3814 Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH)

3815 RW Recommended Wilderness

3816 RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

3817 RMA Riparian Management Area

3818 SOC Species of Concern

3819 SOI Species of Interest

3820 TES Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive species

3821 WCF Watershed Condition Framework

3822 WSCT Westslope cutthroat trout.

3823

3824

120

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3825 References 3826 3827 Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B. Roper, and E. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the status and trends of physical stream 3828 habitat in headwater streams within the interior Columbia River and upper Missouri River basins 3829 using an index approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1041–1059. 3830 Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B Roper, E.K. Archer, and S. Miller 2011. Quantifying the Extent of and Factors 3831 Associated with the Temporal Variability of Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Streams in the 3832 Interior Columbia River Basin', Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140: 2, 399 – 3833 414. 3834 Anonymous 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. Federal guide to watershed analysis. 3835 Version 2.2. Revised August 1995. Regional Ecosystem Office. Portland, Oregon. 26 p 3836 Archer, E., R. Al-Chokhachy, J. Heitke, P. Ebertowski, R. Leary, T. Romano and B. B. Roper. 2009. 3837 PACFISH INFISH biological opinion effectiveness monitoring program for streams and riparian 3838 areas 2009 Annual Summary Report. Logan, Utah, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 3839 Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit: 48 p. 3840 Archer, E. 2014. Understanding the relationship between livestock disturbance, the protocols used to 3841 measure that disturbance and stream conditions. Presentation by Eric Archer, PacFish/Infish 3842 Biological opinion Monitoring Program (PIBI) to the Colville National Forest plan revision 3843 interdisciplinary team. January 28, 2014. Powerpoint presentation available from the Colville 3844 National Forest. 3845 Baldwin, K. 2006. Colville National Forest temperature and bacteria total maximum daily load. Water 3846 quality implementation plan. Water Quality Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. 3847 Olympia, WA. Publication Number 06-10-059. October 2006 3848 Benda, L., D. Miller, P. Bigelow and K. Andras. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire on channel environments, 3849 Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 105-119. 3850 Benjamin, J.R. and C.V. Baxter. 2010. Do nonnative salmonines exhibit greater density and production 3851 than the natives they replace? A comparison of nonnative brook trout with native cutthroat trout. 3852 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:641-651. 3853 Behnke, R. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free Press. New York, New York. 359p 3854 Bengeyfield, P. 2006. Managing cows with streams in mind. Rangelands: February 2006. 28: 3-6. 3855 Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 In 3856 W.R. Meehan, ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 3857 habitats, American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19 3858 Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Cowley. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator 3859 monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. 3860 BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737+REV. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 3861 National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155 pp 3862 Clary, W.P. and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. Journal 3863 of Range Management 53: 562-573.

121

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3864 Davis, C., Karrer, M., Kovalchik, B., Lillybridge, T., and C. Narsico, 2004. Landtype associations of 3865 north central Washington: Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests. USDA Forest 3866 Service, Wenatchee, WA. 118pp 3867 Day, K. 2014. Watershed function, water quality, and water uses. Report prepared for the Colville 3868 National Forest forest plan revision March 2, 2015. 3869 FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 3870 ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management 3871 Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-071. U.S. Government Printing 3872 Office for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, 3873 Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service; U.S. 3874 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National 3875 Marine Fisheries Service; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3876 3877 Gregory, S.V. F.T. Swanson, W.A. McKee, K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian 3878 zones. Bioscience 41:540-551 3879 3880 Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest roads: a 3881 synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. 3882 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p. 3883 Haak, A.L. and J.E. Williams. 2012. Spreading the risk; native trout management in a warmer and less- 3884 certain future. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:387-401. 3885 Hessburg, P.F. and J.K. Agee. 2003. An environmental narrative Inland Northwest United states forests, 3886 1800-2000. Forest Ecology and Management 178 23-59 3887 Hilderbrand, R.H. and J.L. Kershner. 2000. Conserving inland cutthroat trout in small streams: how much 3888 habitat is enough? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:513-520. 3889 Isaak, D.J., C.H. Luce, B.E. Rieman, D.E. Nagel, E.E. Peterson, D.L. Horan, S. Parkes, and G. Chandler. 3890 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat 3891 in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications 20:1350-1371. 3892 ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia Basin fish 3893 and wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report ISAB 2007-2 to for the Northwest Power and 3894 Conservation Council. Portland, Oregon May 11, 2007. Accessed at: 3895 http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/31247/isab2007_2.pdf. March 6, 2014. 3896 Kershner, J.L., E.K. Archer, M. Coles-Ritchie, E.R. Cowley, R.C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C.M. Quimby, 3897 D.L. Turner, L.C. Ulmer and M.R. Vinson. 2004. Guide to effectiveness monitoring of aquatic 3898 and riparian resources. Gen, Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 3899 Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p. 3900 Lanigan, Steven H.; Gordon, Sean N.; Eldred, Peter; Isley, Mark; Wilcox, Steve; Moyer, Chris; 3901 Andersen, Heidi. 2012. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 years (1994–2008): watershed 3902 condition status and trend. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-856. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 3903 Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 155 p. 3904 Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, J. E. Williams, and others. 1997. Broadscale 3905 Assessment of Aquatic Species and Habitats. Pages1057-1496 in S. J. Arbelbide, editor. An 3906 Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the

122

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3907 Klamath and Great Basins: Vol. III. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR- 3908 405. 3909 Leopold, L. 1994. A view of the river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA: 298pp. 3910 Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and 3911 summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in 3912 Washington State. Climate Change 102:187-223. 3913 May, B. 2009. Westslope cutthroat trout status update summary 2009. Wild trout Enterprises, LLC. 3914 Bozeman, MT. 33 p. 3915 May, B., B.J. Writer, and S. Albeke. 2012. Redband trout status update summary 2012. Wild Trout 3916 Enterprises, LLC. Bozeman, MT. 36 p. 3917 McMahon, T.E., A.V. Zale, F.T. Barrows, J.H. Selong and R.J. Daney. 2007. Temperature and 3918 competition between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. 3919 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1313-1326. 3920 Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 3921 habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 3922 Meredith, C., E.K. Archer, R. Scully, A. Van Wagenen, J.V. Ojala, R. Lokteff and B. Roper. 2012. PIBO 3923 effectiveness monitoring program for streams and riparian areas. USDA Forest Service 2012 3924 Annual Summary report (available at: 3925 http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/feu/pibo/2012_PIBOEM_AnnualReport9_12_2013u 3926 pdate.pdf (March 20, 2014) 3927 Meredith, C., B, Roper and E. Archer, 2014. Reductions in instream wood in streams near roads in the 3928 Interior Columbia River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:493-506 3929 Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes, classification and response. Pages 13- 3930 42 in R.J. Naiman & R.E. Bilby (eds.) River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific 3931 Coastal Ecoregion. Springer. New York, New York 3932 Muhlfield, C.C., T.E. McMahon, M.C. Boyer and R.E. Gresswell. 2009. Local habitat, watershed, and 3933 biotic factors influencing the spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and 3934 introduced rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 1036-1051. 3935 Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. O'Connor, 3936 P. L. Olson and E. A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in 3937 the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: Watershed Management, Balancing Sustainability 3938 and Environmental Change. R. Naiman, ed. New York. McGraw-Hill: 127-188. 3939 Ouren, D.S., C. Hass, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and 3940 Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land 3941 Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and 3942 internet resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1353. 3943 Peterson, D.P., K.D. Fausch, and G.C. White. 2004. Population ecology of an invasion: effects of brook 3944 trout on native cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications 14: 754-772 3945 Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. pp. 389-424 in Meehan, ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland 3946 Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Soc., Bethesda, 3947 Maryland. 751 p.

123

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3948 Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 3949 Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and great basins: volume III. Gen.Tech.Rep. 3950 PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 3951 Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 3952 Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based 3953 ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionary significant 3954 units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 3955 17:334-349. 3956 Reiss, K. Yuki, K. Gallo, P.Dawson, D. Konnoff, and L. Croft. 2008. Process for evaluating the 3957 contribution of national forest system lands to aquatic ecological sustainability. A regional pilot 3958 process conducted on the Okanogan-Wenatchee and Colville National Forests. USDA Forest 3959 Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Region 6. Portland, Oregon. June 5, 2008 . 3960 Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull 3961 trout. General technical Report INT-302. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 3962 Service, Intermountain Research Station. 38 p. 3963 Rieman, B., D. Lee, G. Chandler and D. Myers. 1995. Does wildfire threaten extinction for salmonids? 3964 Responses of redband trout and bull trout following recent large fires on the Boise National 3965 Forest. Proceedings-Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitat Conference. Coeur 3966 d’ Alene, Idaho. November 13-16, 1995. 3967 Rieman, B., D. Lee, D. Burns, R. Gresswell, M. Young, R. Stowell, J. Rinne, and P. Howell. 2003. Status 3968 of native fishes in the western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. Forest 3969 Ecology and Management 178: 197-211. 3970 Rieman, B. E., J. T. Peterson, and D. L. Myers. 2006. Have brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced 3971 bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? 3972 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:63–78. 3973 Rieman, B.E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate 3974 warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the interior Columbia basin 3975 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1552-1565. 3976 Rodtka, M.C. and J.P. Volpe. 2007. Effects of water temperature on interspecific competition between 3977 juvenile bull trout and brook trout in an artificial stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries 3978 Society 136: 1714-1727. 3979 Roni, P. G. Pess, T. Beechie, and S. Morley. 2010. Estimating changes in coho salmon and steelhead 3980 abundance from watershed restoration: how much restoration is needed to measurably increase 3981 smolt production? North American Journal of fisheries Management 30:1469-1484 3982 Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied river Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Co. 390 p. 3983 Sestrich, C.M., T.E. McMahon and M.K. Young. 2011. Influence of fire on native and nonnative 3984 salmonid populations and habitat in a Western Montana basin. Transactions of the American 3985 Fisheries Society 140: 136-146. 3986 Snover, A.K, G.S. Mauger, L.C. Whitely Binder, M. Krosby, and I. Tohver. 2013. Climate Change 3987 Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers. State of 3988 Knowledge Report prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Climate Impacts 3989 Group, University of Washington, Seattle.

124

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

3990 Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 3991 salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, to 3992 National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Portland, Oregon (Project TR- 3993 4501-96-6057). 3994 Staab, B., M. Safeeq, G. Grant, D. Isaak, C. Luce, M. Kramer, D. Konnoff, J. Chatel, and J. Capurso. 3995 2014. Climate change vulnerability assessment Resources for national forests and grasslands in 3996 the Pacific Northwest- Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 3997 Northwest Region Portland, Oregon 3998 Trotter, P., B. McMillan, N. Gayeski, P. Spruell, and A. Whitely. 2001. Genetic and phenotypic catalog 3999 of Native resident trout of the interior Columbia River Basin. Prepared for Northwest Power 4000 Planning Council. Funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA report DOE/BP- 4001 00004575-1). Portland, Or. May 1, 2001. 4002 USDA Forest Service 1995. Inland native fish strategy environmental assessment decision notice and 4003 finding of no significant impact: interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in 4004 eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH). 4005 (Place of publication unknown): Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. 39 p. 4006 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments 4007 to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents in the range of the 4008 northern spotted owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late- 4009 successional and old growth forest related species. (Place of publication unknown). 74 p. (plus 4010 Attachment A: standards and guides) 4011 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision notice/decision record, 4012 FONSI, environmental assessment, and appendices for the implementation of interim strategies 4013 for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, 4014 and portions of California (PACFISH). (Place of publication unknown). 305 p. 4015 USDA Forest Service 2008. Aquatic and riparian conservation strategy (ARCS). USDA Forest Service, 4016 Region 6. Portland, Oregon. August 13, 2008. 4017 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1995. Biological Opinion for the effects to bull trout from 4018 continued implementation of land and resource management plans and resource management 4019 plans as amended by the Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern 4020 Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH), and the 4021 Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 4022 Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). 4023 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. A framework to assist in making Endangered Species 4024 Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation 4025 watershed scale. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (adapted from the National 4026 Marine Fisheries Service). February 1998; Revised 6/11/99. (Place of publication unknown). 45 4027 p. 4028 4029 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Chapter 23, Northeast Washington Recovery Unit, 4030 Washington. 73 p. In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft 4031 Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. Accessed March 6, 2014 at: 4032 http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/RP/Chapter_23%20Northeast%20Wash.pdf

125

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

4033 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5 year review: 4034 summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 55 p. Accesses May 4035 3, 2008 at: 4036 http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/Bull%20Trout%205YR%20final%20signed%20042508 4037 .pdf. 4038 4039 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012 Endangered Species Act – section 7 consultation. 4040 Biological opinion. Consultation for Boundary Hydroelectric Project Commission No. 225-013) 4041 pend Oreille County, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reference number: 13410- 4042 2011-F-0199. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Washington Field Office. Spokane, WA. 4043 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Revised draft recovery plan for the coterminous United 4044 States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xiii + 151 pp. 4045 Wegner, S.J., D. J. Isaak, J.B. Dunham, K.D. Fausch, C.H. Luce, H.M. Neville, B.E. Rieman, M.K. 4046 Young, D.E. Nagel, D.L. Horan and G.L. Chandler. 2011. Role of climate and invasive species in 4047 structuring trout distributions in the interior Columbia River Basin, USA. Canadian Journal of 4048 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 988-1008. 4049 Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, W.T. Colyer. 2009. Potential consequences of climate change to 4050 persistence of cutthroat populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 533- 4051 548 4052 Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep.RMRS-GTR- 4053 47. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 4054 Station. 49 p 4055 Wipfli, M.S. and C. Baxter. 2010. Linking ecosystems, food webs, and fish production: subsidies in 4056 salmonid watersheds. Fisheries 35: 373-387 4057 Wondzell, S. m. and J. G. King. 2003 Postfire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky 4058 Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 75-87.

4059 WWW Riparian Areas

4060 USDA Forest Service

4061 2012 Annual Summary Report

126

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Appendices

Appendix 1. Aquatic Direction Comparison Table for the Colville NF 6/22/2015 Plan components under ARCS-modified reflect the numbering system in the 6/10/2015 version of the Draft Forest Plan. To make comparison between aquatic and riparian resources across alternatives, the order of plan components presented in this table follows what was in the 2008 Proposed Action. Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) General Watershed Desired Conditions Riparian Goal (7) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-01. Natural Disurbance restore riparian and aquatic Lands contribute to: Regime of Aquatic and Riparian Systems habitats necessary to foster the National Forest System lands contribute to unique genetic fish stocks that Aquatic Ecosystems the distribution, diversity, and resiliency of evolved within the specific DC watershed and landscape-scale features, geoclimatic region. The distribution, including natural disturbance regimes, of diversity, and the aquatic, riparian, and wetland complexity of watershed ecosystems to which plant and animal and landscape-scale species, populations, and communities are features, including adapted. Subbasin scale is used for Forest natural disturbance planning and 5th field watershed or regimes, of the aquatic subwatershed scale is used for project and riparian ecosystems planning. to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. Subbasin scale for both Forest planning and project planning. National Forest System FW-DC-WR-02. Hydrologic and Aquatic Lands contribute to: and Riparian Habitat Connectivity National Forest System lands contribute to Aquatic Ecosystems uninterrupted physical and biological DC processes within and between watersheds. Spatial connectivity Floodplains, wetlands, groundwater- within and between dependent ecosystems, upslope areas, watersheds. Lateral, headwater tributaries, and intact habitat longitudinal, and refugia provide lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network drainage network connections. These connections include network connections provide chemically floodplains, wetlands, and physically unobstructed routes to areas upslope areas, headwater critical for fulfilling life history requirements tributaries, and intact of aquatic, riparian-dependent, and many

127

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) habitat refugia. These terrestrial species of plants and animals. network connections Subbasin scale is used for Forest planning provide chemically and and 5th field watershed or subwatershed physically unobstructed scale is used for project planning. routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic, riparian-dependent, and many upland species of plants and animals. For Forest planning, spatial connectivity is between watersheds at the subbasin scale. For project planning, spatial connectivity is between subwatersheds at the watershed scale. Riparian Goal (8) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-03. Self-Sustaining Native restore habitat to support Lands contribute to: and Aquatic and Riparian-Dependent populations of well distributed Species native and desired non-native Aquatic Ecosystems- National Forest System lands contribute to plant, vertebrate, and DC habitat and ecological conditions that are invertebrate populations that Habitat and ecological capable of supporting self-sustaining contribute to the viability of conditions capable of populations of native aquatic and riparian- aquatic-dependent supporting self- dependent plant and animal species. communities. sustaining populations Subbasin scale is used for Forest planning of native and desired and watershed or subwatershed scale is used non-native, riparian- for project planning. dependent plant and animal species. Subbasin scale for Forest planning; watershed or subwatershed scale for project planning. National Forest System FW-DC-WR-04. Physical Integrity of Lands contribute to: Aquatic and Riparian Habitat National Forest System lands contribute to Aquatic Ecosystems- the physical integrity of the aquatic system DC and riparian habitat, including, banks, and The physical integrity of floodplains. 5th field watershed scale is used the aquatic system and for Forest planning and 5th field watershed riparian habitat, or subwatershed scale is used for project including shorelines, planning.

128

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) banks, and bottom configurations. Watershed scale for Forest planning; subwatershed scale for project planning.

Riparian Goal (1) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-05. Water Quality restore water quality, to a Lands contribute to: National Forest System lands contribute to degree that provides for stable water quality necessary to support healthy and productive riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems- riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. aquatic ecosystems; DC Water quality is within the range that Water quality necessary maintains the biological, physical, and to support healthy chemical integrity and benefits survival, riparian, aquatic, and growth, reproduction, and migration of wetland ecosystems. individuals composing aquatic and riparian Water quality is within communities. Subbasin scale is used for the range that maintains forest planning, and 5th field watershed or the biological, physical, subwatershed scale is used for project and chemical integrity of planning. the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. Watershed scale for both forest planning and project planning.

Riparian Goal (2) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-06. Sediment Regimes restore stream channel Lands contribute to: National Forest System lands contribute to integrity, channel processes, the sediment regime within the natural and the sediment regime Aquatic Ecosystems- range of variability. Elements of the (including the elements of DC sediment regime include; the timing, timing, volume, and character The sediment regime volume, rate, and character of sediment of sediment input and within the natural range input, storage, and transport. Fifth field transport) under which the of variability. Elements watershed scale is used for Forest planning, riparian and aquatic ecosystems of the sediment regime and 5th field watershed or subwatershed developed; include the timing, scale is used for project planning. volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. Watershed

129

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) scale for both Forest planning and project planning. Riparian Goal (3) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-07. In-stream Flows restore instream flows to Lands contribute to: National Forest System lands contribute to support healthy riparian and in-stream flows sufficient to create and aquatic habitats, the stability Aquatic Ecosystems- sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland and effective function of DC habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, stream channels, and the ability In-stream flows nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, to route flood discharges sufficient to create and magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution sustain riparian, aquatic, of peak, high, and low flows functions in and wetland habitats and concert with local geology, valley types, to retain patterns of soils and geomorphology. Subbasin scale is sediment, nutrient, and used for Forest planning, and 5th field wood routing. The watershed or subwatershed scale is used for timing, magnitude, project planning. duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows are retained. Watershed scale for both Forest planning and project planning.

National Forest System FW-DC-WR-08. Floodplain Innundation Lands contribute to: National Forest System lands contribute to the timing, variability, and duration of Aquatic Ecosystems- floodplain inundation that are within the DC natural range of variation. Fifth field The timing, variability, watershed or subwatershed scale is used for and duration of both Forest and project planning. floodplain inundation is within the natural range of variability. Subwatershed scale for both Forest planning and project planning.

Riparian Goal (4) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-09. Wetlands, Seeps, restore natural timing and Lands contribute to: Springs, and Other Groundwater- variability of the water table Dependent Systems elevation in meadows and Aquatic Ecosystems- National Forest System lands contribute to wetlands; DC the timing, variability, and water table The timing, variability, elevation in wetlands, seeps, springs, and

130

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) and water table elevation other groundwater dependent systems. in wetlands, seeps and These features are within or moving toward springs is within the proper functioning condition. Subwatershed natural range of scale is used for both Forest and project variability. planning. Subwatershed scale for both Forest planning and project planning. Riparian Goal (6) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-10. Native Plant restore riparian vegetation, to: Lands contribute to: Communities a) provide an amount National Forest System lands contribute to and distribution of Aquatic Ecosystems- the species composition and structural large woody debris DC diversity of native plant communities in characteristic of The species composition riparian management areas (including natural aquatic and and structural diversity wetlands). These contribute to adequate of native plant summer and winter thermal regulation, riparian ecosystems; communities in riparian nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of b) provide adequate management areas surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel summer and winter including wetlands to migration; and supply amounts and thermal regulation provide adequate distributions of coarse woody debris and within the riparian summer and winter fine particulate organic matter sufficient to and aquatic zones; thermal regulation, sustain physical complexity and stability. c) and help achieve nutrient filtering, Subbasin scale is used for Forest planning, rates of surface appropriate rates of and 5th field watershed or subwatershed erosion, bank surface erosion, bank scale is used for project planning. erosion, and channel erosion, and channel migration migration, and to supply amounts and characteristic of distributions of coarse those under which woody debris and fine the communities particulate organic developed. matter sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Watershed scale for Forest planning; subwatershed scale for project planning. Riparian Goal (5) maintain or National Forest System FW-DC-WR-11. Aquatic Invasive and restore diversity and Lands contribute to: Non-Native Species productivity of native and Aquatic invasive species do not occur as a desired non-native plant Aquatic Ecosystems- component of lake, stream and other communities in riparian zones. DC riparian related ecosystems or compete with Native assemblages of native species for critical resources.

131

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) riparian dependent Subbasin scale is used for Forest planning. plants and animals free Fifth field watershed or subwatershed scale of persistent non-native is used for project planning. species. Watershed scale for both Forest and project planning.

FW-DC-WR-12. Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species National Forest System lands contribute to the recovery of federally threatened and endangered fish species and conservation of Regional Forester’s sensitive fish species. Aquatic habitat supports spawning, rearing and other key life history requirements. Subbasin scale is used for Forest planning, and 5th field watershed or subwatershed scale is used for project planning. FW-DC-WR-13. Water Quality Standards in Source Water Protection Areas NFS lands in ground and surface source water protection areas provide water of sufficient quantity that meets or exceeds state water quality standards for drinking water with appropriate treatment. FW-DC-WR-17. Focus and Priority Watershed Network Focus and priority watersheds contribute to the sustainability of aquatic and riparian systems and species and provide resilient, productive habitat, high water quality, and instream flows sufficient to protect and preserve beneficial uses. Key Watershed Desired Conditions No specific “DC” were Key Watersheds DC: FW-DC-WR-14. Key Watershed incorporated into INFISH for Networks of watersheds Network Priority/Key WA with good habitat and Networks of watersheds with functional functionally intact habitat and functionally intact ecosystems ecosystems contribute to contribute to and enhance conservation and and enhance recovery of specific threatened, endangered conservation and and/or sensitive fish species and high water recovery of specific quality and natural flow regimes. The

132

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) threatened or networks contribute to short-term endangered fish species, conservation and long-term recovery at the fish species of concern, Recovery Unit or other appropriate and fish species of population scale. interest, and high water quality and quantity. The networks contribute to short-term conservation and long- term recovery at the ESU/Recovery Unit or other appropriate population scale. Key Watersheds DC: FW-DC-WR-15. Roads in Key Roads in key watersheds Watersheds do not present Roads in key watersheds are not a risk to substantial risk to the function of soil and water resources. aquatic resources. Roads do not disrupt hydrologic or aquatic habitat function or threatened and endangered species biological and behavioral attributes. Key Watersheds DC: FW-DC-WR-16. Key Watershed Key Watersheds have Integrity high watershed integrity Key watersheds have high watershed and provide resilient integrity and contribute to resilient aquatic aquatic and riparian and riparian ecosystems, provide water of ecosystems. high quality, and provide instream flows sufficient to protect and preserve beneficial uses. Riparian Management Area Desired Conditions Riparian Management MA-DC-RMA-01. Composition Area DC Riparian management areas include the Riparian management desired composition of native flora and areas within any given fauna and provide physical, chemical, and watershed reflect a biological conditions appropriate to support natural composition of proper function. native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance regimes affecting the area.

133

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) Riparian Management MA-DC-RMA-02. Key Riparian Area DC Processes Key riparian processes Key riparian processes and conditions and conditions, (including slope stability and associated including slope stability vegetative root strength, capture and and associated partitioning of water within the soil profile, vegetative root strength, wood delivery to streams and within the wood delivery to riparian management areas, input of leaf streams and within the and organic matter to aquatic and terrestrial RMAs, input of leaf and systems, solar shading, microclimate, and organic matter to aquatic water quality) are operating consistently and terrestrial systems, with local disturbance regimes. solar shading, microclimate, and water quality, are operating consistently with local disturbance regimes.

MA-DC-RMA-03. Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing of riparian herbaceous vegetation retains sufficient plant cover, rooting depth and vegetative vigor to protect stream bank and floodplain integrity against accelerated erosional processes, altered stream heating and cooling processes and allows for appropriate deposition of overbank sediment. MA-DC-RMA-04. Roads Roads located in or draining to RMAs do not present a substantial risk to soil or hydrologic function. Roads do not disrupt riparian and aquatic function. General Water Resources Objectives FW-OBJ-WR-01. Aquatic Invasive Species Within the next 15 years, implement aquatic invasive species prevention measures at all developed recreation sites providing direct and/or indirect access to water bodies, such as boat ramps and other campgrounds, and day use areas that provide portal zones for hand carried watercraft. Implement aquatic invasive species prevention measures as

134

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) part of all aquatic survey and inventory procedures and other management activities which pose high potential for invasion vectors to occur.

-For guidance on invasive riparian plants, see Vegetation Desired Condition section FW-OBJ-WR-02. Aquatic Invasive and Non-Native Species Within the next 15 years, implement aquatic invasive species control and eradication at 10 sites where such invasions have become established and prevent attainment of listed fish recovery plan goals and/or effects to social, economic, and ecological systems.

FW-OBJ-WR-03. General Watershed Function and Restoration Within the next 15 years, decrease sediment delivery from management activities on 1,000 acres including but not limited to roads, trails, unauthorized off-highway vehicle use, vegetation management, dispersed and developed campsites, and livestock. Restore hydrologic, aquatic and riparian processes through activities that stabilize stream bank erosion, and other accelerated channel destabilizing processes (i.e., headcutting), improve lateral and vertical hydrologic connectivity, and improve stream channel and floodplain function on 10 miles of streams. FW-OBJ-WR-04. Fish Habitat Improvement Within 15 years restore or aquatic organism passage for all life stages of native species at 45 road/stream crossings and man-made instream structures such as water diversions and dams outside of key watersheds. Culverts and other passage improvements are to be designed to restore and maintain hydrologic and aquatic habitat function and stream channel resiliency to a range of flows

135

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) through natural channel design and other acceptable treatment measures.

FW-OBJ-WR-10. Watershed Restoration in Focus and Priority Watersheds Over 15 years implement the watershed condition framework through completion of essential projects outlined in watershed action plans in existing focus and priority watersheds to improve watershed condition class. Focus watersheds designated at the 5th field watershed scale include, Upper Sanpoil, Chewelah Creek-Colville River, and LeClerc Creek-Pend Oreille River watersheds. Priority watersheds designated at the subwatershed scale include Ninemile Creek, East Branch LeClerc Creek, and West Branch LeClerc Creek subwatersheds. Key Watershed Objectives Water Resources, Key FW-OBJ-WR-05. Key Watershed Watersheds Objective - Restoration Prioritization 1 Management in key watersheds focuses on Le Clerc Creek – Pend restoration or preservation of watershed, Oreille River, Upper aquatic, and riparian function and recovery San Poil, Chewelah of threatened and endangered species. Creek – Colville River Improve watershed condition class in key watershed restoration watersheds that are a priority for (Colville) restoration within 15 years of forest plan Reduce the road- implementation. Key watersheds that are a generated sediment priority for restoration include: production and delivery over the next 15 years. East Branch LeClerc Creek, West Branch Acceptable methods LeClerc Creek, Deadman Creek, Barnaby include culvert removal Creek, Harvey Creek, North Fork Deadman or replacement, Creek, North Fork Sullivan Creek, Sullivan livestock crossing Creek, Ruby Creek, Tonata Creek, Upper armoring, stream Sherman Creek, and South Fork Sherman crossing surfacing Creek subwatersheds. (placing crushed rock on road surface Additional key watersheds that are a approaches), installing priority for restoration would be drainage crossings, road identified, as appropriate, through the life of the plan.

136 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) storm damage risk reduction measures, road maintenance level reduction, road decommission followed by riparian vegetation restoration, and riparian fencing. Methods to improve the stream channel and riparian habitat include, but are not limited to, culvert replacement or removal to provide upstream fish passage, road relocation and/or decommission, reducing the impacts of or closing and rehabilitating dispersed recreation sites, riparian fencing and planting, and instream structure placement.

Water Resources, Key FW-OBJ-WR-06. Key Watershed Road Watersheds Objective - Treatments 2 Reduce road-hydrologic connectivity and All other key watersheds sediment delivery on roads through storm (Colville) damage risk reduction treatments, full In the most important hydrologic decommissioning, and other places for threatened, accepted treatment measures on 78 miles endangered and of hydrologically connected road within 15 sensitive fish and water years of forest plan implementation. quality, prioritize restoration opportunities Restore or maintain aquatic organism within Riparian passage and improve hydrologic and Management Areas that aquatic habitat function at 50 road/stream improve riparian crossings for all native aquatic species, processes and water seasons, flows, and life stages within 15 quality. years of Forest plan implementation through culvert replacement or crossing Reduce road-generated improvement and natural channel design sediment on 436 acres of

137

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) road prism over the next or other acceptable treatment measures 15 years. Acceptable that provide for natural stream channel methods can include function at all flows. culvert removal, stream crossing surfacing (placing crushed rock on

road surface

approaches), installing drainage crossings, road storm damage risk reduction measures, road maintenance level reduction, and road decommission followed by riparian vegetation restoration, and riparian fencing.

Methods to improve channel and riparian habitat include, but are not limited to, culvert replacement or removal to provide upstream fish passage, road relocation and/or decommission, reducing the impacts of or closing and rehabilitating dispersed recreation sites, riparian fencing and planting, and instream structure placement.

FW-OBJ-WR-07. Key Watershed Range Infrastructure Improvements Improve hydrologic and aquatic function through range infrastructure improvements, including riparian fencing, movement and improvement of watering troughs, and other acceptable treatments on 250 acres within 15 years of plan implementation.

138

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) FW-OBJ-WR-08. Upland Vegetation Structure in Riparian Management Areas in Key Watersheds Move upland vegetation within riparian management areas in key watersheds toward historic range of variability on 1,200 acres within 15 years of plan implementation.

FW-OBJ-WR-09. Stream Restoration in Key Watersheds Restore hydrologic, geomorphic, and riparian process and function on 76 miles of stream within 15 years of forest plan implementation through activities including streambank stabilization, restoration of lateral and vertical hydrologic connectivity and improvement of stream channel and floodplain function. Riparian Management Area Objectives

139

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) Pool Frequency (kf)- Varies Riparian Management MA-OBJ-RMA-01. Improve Riparian by Channel Width (all systems) Areas (Colville) Function at Dispersed and Developed • Wetted with in feet: Objective - 2 Recreation Sites … Modify grazing Over the next 15 years, restore riparian • Number pools per practices in key processes and balance need for occupancy mile: … watersheds with active and access to water at 50 dispersed and grazing allotments in developed recreation sites, through riparian management Water Temperature (sf) No education, enforcement, and engineering areas to move conditions measurable increase in where recreational use results in bank toward the desired maximum water temperature damage, reduction in water quality, and/ or conditions for riparian (7-day moving average of daily a reduction in stream shade. management areas. maximum temperature MA-OBJ-RMA-02. Restoration of measured as the average of the Riparian Management Riparian Habitat and Process on Roads maximum daily temperature of Areas (Colville) Restore hydrologic and riparian habitat the warmest consecutive 7-day Objective - 3 period). Maximum water function within RMAs in non-key Over the next 15 years, temperatures below 59°F watersheds by reducing road-related within the Riparian within adult holding habitat impacts on 30 miles of road within 15 Management Areas, and below 48°F within years. restore riparian spawning and rearing habitats. processes at dispersed MA-OBJ-RMA-03. Restoration of Late recreation sites with the Large Woody Debris Forest Structure priority being those sites (sf)(forested systems) Move upland vegetation within riparian where recreational use management areas outside of key results in bank damage, East of Cascade Crest in watersheds toward historic range of a reduction in water Oregon, Washington, Idaho, quality, and/ or a variability on 500 acres within 15 years of Nevada and western Montana. reduction in shade over plan implementation. >20 pieces per mile; >12 inch the stream. Consolidate diameter; >35 foot length. access trails to the

remaining dispersed Bank Stability (sf)(non- campsites. forested systems) - > 80 percent stable Riparian Management

Areas (Colville) Lower Bank Angle (sf)(non- Objective - 4 forested systems) - >75 percent Over the next 15 years, of banks with <90 degree angle consolidate user-created (i.e. undercut) access routes in Riparian

Management Areas onto Width/Depth Ratio (sf)(all stable locations that systems) - <10, mean wetted minimize disturbance to width divided by mean depth riparian processes and water quality. Restore

140

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) excess user-trails within Riparian Management Areas.

Riparian Management Areas (Colville) Objective - 5 Over the next 15 years, provide upstream fish passage at road crossings on the following fish bearing streams within the following key watersheds:

General Water Resources Standards and Guidelines FW-STD-WR-01. Aquatic Invasive Species—In-Water Work Implement prevention measures for in- water projects to decrease the potential for aquatic invasive species transference into non-infested water bodies. FW-STD-WR-02. Construction of New Roads, Trails and Developed Recreation Sites New roads and trails would be designed to minimize disruption of natural hydrologic processes at perennial and intermittent stream crossings, valley bottoms, valley approaches and other over land drainage features. New roads, trails and developed recreation sites would integrate features, such as, but not limited to, rocked stream

141 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) crossings, drain dips, sediment filtration, cross drains and crossings that minimize unnatural stream constriction, bank erosion, channel incision, sedimentation, or disruption of surface and subsurface flow paths. FW-GDL-WR-01. Aquatic Invasive Species—Wildfire Suppression Equipment During wildfire suppression, cross contamination between streams and lakes from pumps, suction, and dipping devices should be avoided. Dumping water directly from one stream or lake into another should be avoided. Water storage and conveyance components of water tenders, engines, and aircraft should be disinfected prior to use on a new on-forest incident. FW-GDL-WR-02. Aquatic Invasive Species—Aquatic Resource Sampling Aquatic sampling equipment should be disinfected prior to use in new stream or lake locations. FW-GDL-WR-03. Aquatic Invasive Species—Early Detection and Rapid Response Principles and processes of Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) to find, identify and quantify new aquatic invasive species occurrences should be utilized. EDRR should be coupled with other integrated activities to rapidly assess and respond with quick and immediate actions to eradicate, control, or contain aquatic invasive species.

FW-GDL-WR-04. Watershed Restoration Restoration methods that maximize the use of natural ecological processes for long- term sustainability and minimize the need for long-term maintenance should be used.

142

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) FW-GDL-WR-05. Hydrologic Function of Roads, Trails, and Developed Recreation Sites Roads and trails should be maintained to minimize disruption of natural hydrologic processes at perennial and intermittent stream crossings, valley bottoms, valley approaches and other over land drainage features. Roads and trails should integrate features, such as, but not limited to, rocked stream crossings, drain dips, sediment filtration, cross drains and crossings that minimize unnatural stream constriction, bank erosion, channel incision, sedimentation, or disruption of surface and subsurface flow paths.

Key Watershed Standards and Guidelines Standard KW FW-STD-WR-03. Road Construction and There shall be no net Decommissioning in Key Watersheds increase at any time in There shall be no net increase (i.e., for each the mileage of Forest mile of new road constructed, at least one roads in any key mile of road must be decommissioned) at watershed unless doing any time in the mileage of National Forest so results in a reduction System roads in any key watershed unless in road-related risk to doing so results in a reduction in road- watershed condition. No related risk to watershed condition. The net increase means that decommissioned road shall be in a for each mile of new hydrologically stable and self-maintaining road constructed, at least condition. Priority for decommissioning one mile of road must be would be given to roads that pose the decommissioned to greatest relative ecological risks to riparian hydrologically stable, and aquatic function. self-maintaining conditions. Priority should be given to roads that pose the greatest relative ecological risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Standard KW FW-STD-WR-04. Hydroelectric and Hydroelectric and other Other Water Development

143 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) water development Authorizations in Key Watersheds authorizations shall Hydroelectric and other water include requirements for development authorizations shall include in-stream flows and requirements for in-stream flows and habitat conditions that habitat conditions that maintain or restore maintain or restore native fish and other desired aquatic native fish and other species populations, riparian dependent desired aquatic species resources, favorable channel conditions, populations, riparian and aquatic connectivity. dependent resources, favorable channel conditions, and aquatic connectivity. Standard KW FW-STD-WR-05. New Hydroelectric New hydroelectric Facilities and Water Developments facilities and water New hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not developments shall not be located in a key be located in a key watershed unless it can be demonstrated watershed unless it can they have minimal risks and/or no adverse be demonstrated they effects to fish and water resources for which have minimal risks the key watershed was established. and/or no adverse effects to fish and water resources for which the key watershed was established. Riparian Management Area Standards and Guidelines MA-SU-RMA-01. Suitable Uses Suitable uses see Table 1. Guideline RA MA-STD-RMA-01. Aquatic and When RMAs are Riparian Conditions properly functioning29, When riparian management areas are

29 Proper functioning condition is a concept used to assess natural habitat forming processes of riparian and wetland areas (Pritchard et al. 1998). Systems in a proper functioning condition are dynamic and resilient to disturbance to structure, composition and processes of their biological and physical components. Primary elements typically include hydrologic characteristics, physical structure/form, vegetative characteristics, water quality and quantity, and aquatic/riparian biological community characteristics. The general methodology to assess properly functioning condition provides an integrated measure of condition and can be used at a variety of scales from individual reaches to watersheds. This basic approach is used to assess a wide range of process-based, riparian and aquatic conditions. The current R6 process to assess watershed condition, which uses the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) model, and the R4 PFC Rapid Assessment Process are examples of this technique, used

144

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) project activities should properly functioning1, project activities maintain those shall maintain those conditions. conditions. When riparian management areas are not When RMAs are not properly functioning, and to the degree that properly functioning, management activities would drive or and to the degree that contribute to improper function, project project activities would activities shall be implemented to improve drive or contribute to those conditions. improper function, Project activities in riparian management project activities should areas shall not result in long-term improve those degradation to aquatic and riparian conditions. conditions at the 5th field watershed scale. Project activities in Limited short term or site-scale effects from RMAs should not result activities in riparian management areas may in long-term degradation be acceptable when they support, or do not to aquatic and riparian diminish, long-term benefits to aquatic and conditions at the riparian resources. watershed scale. Limited short term or site-scale effects from activities in RMAs may be acceptable when they support, or do not diminish, long-term benefits to aquatic and riparian resources. RMA Guideline RF: MA-GDL-RMA-08. Fish Passage Fish passage barriers Barriers should be retained where Consider retaining fish passage barriers they serve to restrict where they serve to restrict access by access by undesirable undesirable non-native species and are non-native species and consistent with restoration of habitat for are consistent with native species. restoration of habitat for native species RMA Guideline RF: See MA-GDL-RMA-18 Protect fish habitat and water quality when withdrawing water for administrative purposes

at the sub-watershed and watershed scales. This general methodology has also been used for salmonid systems by the NMFS (1996) and as a tool in salmon conservation and recovery planning (e.g., Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model (EDT) described by Lestelle et al. 2004).

145

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) RA-4. Prohibit storage of fuels MA-GDL-RMA-01. Fuel Storage and other toxicants within Storage of fuel or other toxicants in RMAs Riparian Habitat Conservation should be avoided. Areas. Prohibit refueling within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas unless there are no other alternatives. Refueling sites within a Riparian Habitat Conservation Area must be approved by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management and have an approved spill containment plan. RA-3 Apply herbicides, Standard RA MA-STD-RMA-02. Chemical pesticides, and other toxicants, Apply herbicides, Application and other chemicals in a insecticides, piscicides Apply herbicides, insecticides, piscicides, manner that does not retard or and other toxicants, and and other toxicants, other chemicals, and prevent attainment of Riparian other chemicals only to biological agents only to maintain, protect, Management Objectives and maintain, protect, or or enhance aquatic and riparian resources avoids adverse effects on enhance aquatic and and/or native plant communities. inland native fish. riparian resources or to restore native plan communities.

RA-2 Trees may be felled in Guideline RA MA-GDL-RMA-02. Felling Trees Riparian Habitat Conservation Generally retain, on site, When trees are felled for safety, they should Areas when they pose a safety trees needed to maintain, generally be retained onsite (channels and risk. Keep felled trees on site protect, or enhance adjacent floodplains), to maintain, protect, when needed to meet woody aquatic and riparian or enhance aquatic and riparian resources debris objectives. resources that are felled unless otherwise determined that such trees for safety. pose a new risk to administrative or developed recreation sites. TM-1 Prohibit timber harvest, RMA Guideline TM MA-STD-RMA-04. Timber harvest and including Timber harvest and Thinning fuel wood cutting, in Riparian thinning should occur in Timber harvest and thinning can occur in Habitat Conservation Areas, RMAs only as necessary riparian management areas only as except as described below. to maintain, restore, or necessary to move vegetation in RMAs enhance conditions that toward historic range of variability, which a. Where catastrophic are needed to support maintains, restores, or enhances conditions events such as fire, aquatic and riparian needed to support aquatic and riparian flooding, volcanic, dependent resources. dependent resources.

146

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) wind, or insect RMA Standard TM: MA-STD-RMA-03. Personal Fuelwood damage result in Fuelwood cutting shall Cutting not be authorized in the Personal fuelwood cutting shall not be degraded riparian 30 conditions, allow active floodplain or authorized within RMAs or source areas for salvage and fuel within primary source large woody debris. areas for large woody wood cutting in debris. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas only where present and future woody debris needs are met, where cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives, and where adverse effects can be avoided to inland native fish. For priority watersheds, complete watershed analysis prior to salvage cutting in RHCAs.

b. Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Apply silvicultural practices in a manner that does

30 Active floodplain is the area bordering a stream that is inundated by flows at a surface elevation defined by two times the maximum bankfull depth (i.e., bankfull depth measured at thalweg).

147

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) not retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and that avoids adverse effects on inland native fish. RF-1 Cooperate with federal, RMA Guideline TM: MA-GDL-RMA-03. Landings, Skid Tribal, state and county New landings, Trails, Decking, and Temporary Roads agencies and cost-share designated skid trails, Landings, designated skid trails, staging or partners to achieve consistency staging or decking decking should not occur in riparian in road design, operation and should not occur in management areas, unless there are no maintenance necessary to attain RMAs, unless there are other reasonable alternatives, in which Riparian Management no alternatives, in which case they should: Objectives case they should: • Be of • Be of minimum size minimum size, • Be located outside the • Be located active floodplain outside the active • Minimize effects to large floodplain, and wood, bank integrity, Minimize effects to temperature, and sediment large wood, bank levels integrity, temperature • Not result in unnatural and sediment levels. modification of flow paths • Impacted site(s) to be reclaimed as soon as practicable. Existing infrastructure may be reused with intent of removal and restoration of riparian function as soon as practicable.

RF-2. For each existing or RMA Guideline TM: MA-STD-RMA-05. Yarding Activities planned road, meet the • Yarding Yarding activities, if crossing streams, shall Riparian Management activities achieve full suspension over the active Objectives and avoid adverse should achieve channel. effects to inland full suspension

148

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) native fish by: over the active channel31. a). Completing watershed RMA Guideline RF: MA-GDL-RMA-04. Road Construction analyses prior to construction Generally avoid new Construction of permanent or temporary of new roads or landings in road construction in roads in riparian management areas should Riparian Habitat Conservation RMAs except where be avoided except where necessary for: Areas within priority necessary for stream watersheds. crossings. • stream crossings b.) Minimizing road and • stream, wetland or riparian landing locations in RHCA’s restoration

• mine reclamation c.) – included on page28 of this table • employee, contractor, or public safety d.) avoiding sediment delivery to streams from the road surface. RMA Standard RF: MA-STD-RMA-06. Road Construction Avoid side-casting and Maintenance 1. Outsloping of the (placement of No sidecasting, placement of fill in riparian roadway surface is unconsolidated earthen management areas. Snowplowing activities waste materials resulting preferred, except in shall include measures to prevent runoff from road construction from roads in locations where it could cases where or maintenance) in deliver sediment to streams. outsloping would RMAs. increase sediment RMA Standard RF: Consolidated into MA-STD-RMA-09 delivery to streams Avoid placing fill or where outsloping material on organic is infeasible or debris in RMAs. unsafe. RMA Guideline RF: MA-GDL-RMA-05. Road 2. Route road drainage Wetlands and unstable Construction—Wetlands and Unstable away from areas should be avoided Areas potentially unstable when reconstructing Wetlands and unstable areas should be stream channels, fills existing roads or avoided when reconstructing existing roads and hillslopes constructing new roads or constructing new roads and landings. and landings. Minimize Impacts should be mitigated where impacts where e.) Avoiding disruption of avoidance is not possible. avoidance is not natural hydrologic flow paths practical f.) Avoiding sidecasting of soils or snow. Sidecasting of road material is prohibited on

31 Active channel is the bankfull width of flowing perennial or intermittent streams.

149

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) road segments within or abutting RHCA’s in priority watersheds.

RF-3. Determine the influence RMA Standard RF: MA-STD-RMA-07. Road Construction at of each road on the Riparian New or replaced Stream Crossings Management Objectives. Meet permanent stream New or replaced permanent stream Riparian Management crossings would crossings would accommodate at least the Objectives accommodate at least 100-year flood, including associated and avoid adverse effects on the 100-year flood, bedload and debris. Use natural channel inland native fish by: including associated design techniques. bedload and debris a. reconstructing road and drainage features that do not meet design criteria or operation and maintenance standards, or that have been shown to be less effective than designed for controlling sediment delivery, or that retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, or do not protect priority watersheds from increased sedimentation. b. prioritizing reconstruction based on the current and potential damage to inland native fish and their priority watersheds, the ecological value of the riparian resources affected, and the feasibility of options such as helicopter logging and road relocation out of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. c. closing and stabilizing or obliterating, and stabilizing roads not needed for future management activities.

150 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) Prioritize these actions based on the current and potential damage to inland native fish in priority watersheds, and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected. RF-4 Construct new, and RMA Standard RF: MA-STD-RMA-08. Road Construction- improve existing, culverts, In fish bearing streams, Fish Passage bridges, and other stream construction or In fish bearing streams, construction or crossings to accommodate a reconstruction of stream reconstruction of stream crossings would 100-year flood, including crossings would provide provide and maintain passage for all native associated bedload and debris, and maintain passage fish species at all life stages. where those improvements for all fish species and would/do pose a substantial all life stages of fish risk to riparian conditions. Substantial risk improvements include those that do not meet design and operation maintenance criteria, or that have been shown to be less effective than designed for controlling erosion, or that retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, or that do not protect priority watersheds from increased sedimentation. Base priority for upgrading on risks in priority watersheds and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected. Construct and maintain crossings to prevent diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure. RF-5. Provide and maintain RMA Guideline RF: MA-GDL-RMA-07. Road fish passage at all road Construction or Construction—Passage for Riparian— crossings of existing and reconstruction of stream Dependent Species potential fish-bearing streams. crossings should allow Construction or reconstruction of stream passage for other crossings should allow passage for other riparian dependent riparian dependent species where species where connectivity has been identified as an issue.

151 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) connectivity has been identified as an issue RMA Guideline RF: Generally minimize hydrologic connectivity and delivery from roads. This includes roads inside and outside of RMAs RMA Guideline RF: MA-GDL-RMA-06. Road Road drainage should be Management—Road Drainage routed away from Road drainage should be routed away from potentially unstable potentially unstable channels, fills, and channels, fills, and hillslopes. hillslopes. This applies to both inside and outside of RMAs. RF-2. For each existing or RMA Standard GM MA-STD-RMA-09. Recreational and planned road, meet the New livestock handling, Permitted Grazing Management- Riparian Management management, or Livestock Handling, Management, and Objectives and avoid adverse watering facilities shall Water Facilities effects to inland be located outside of Locate new livestock handling, native fish by: RMAs, except for those management, or watering facilities outside that inherently must be of riparian management areas, except for c.) initiating development and located in an RMA and those that inherently must be located in a implementation of a Road those needed for riparian management area and those that are Management Plan or a resource protection needed for resource protection. Transportation Management Plan. At a minimum, address the following items in the plan: 1. Road design criteria, elements, and standards that govern construction and reconstruction. 2. Road management objectives for each road. 3. Criteria that govern road operation, maintenance, and management. 4. Requirements for pre-, during-, and post-storm

152

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) inspections and maintenance. 5. Regulation of traffic during wet periods to minimize erosion and sediment delivery and accomplish other objectives. 6. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring plans for road stability, drainage, and erosion control. 7. Mitigation plans for road failures.

GM-2. Locate new livestock RMA Guideline GM MA-GDL-RMA-09. Permitted Grazing handling and/or management Within green-line Management—Greenline Vegetation facilities outside of Riparian vegetation area adjacent Areas4 Habitat Conservation Areas. to all watercourses32: Within greenline vegetation areas adjacent For existing livestock handling to all watercourses34 measured in facilities inside the Riparian Do not exceed 20 designated monitoring areas: Habitat Conservation Areas, percent streambank assure that facilities do not alteration; • Streambank alteration prevent attainment of Riparian should not exceed 25 Management Objectives. Do not exceed 40% percent Relocate or close facilities utilization of mean where these objectives cannot annual vegetative • Utilization of available be met. production on woody mean annual vegetative vegetation; production on woody vegetation should not Maintain at least 4-6 exceed 40 percent inches or do not exceed • Residual stubble height of 40% utilization of mean at least 6 to 8 inches annual vegetative production on should be maintained and herbaceous vegetation33 no more than 40 percent of

32 National Forests can modify the numeric values in these guidelines to more effectively achieve desired conditions. Rationale for these changes should be documented. 33 Sampling and assessment of these parameters is intended to portray the general condition of banks and riparian vegetation along an individual stream reach within each pasture. It is assumed that there would be some variability in conditions within the reach, including occasional, limited area of concentrated animal use, such as water gaps or crossings.

153 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) mean annual vegetative production on deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation should be utilized as determined by plant community type

RMA Guideline GM MA-STD-RMA-10. Permitted Grazing During allotment Management—Allotment Management management planning Planning consider removal of During allotment management planning, existing livestock negative impacts to water quality and handling or management aquatic and riparian function from existing facilities from RMAs livestock handling or management facilities located within riparian management areas shall be minimized to allow conditions to move towards the desired condition or eliminated.

GM-1. Modify grazing RMA Guideline GM MA-GDL-RMA-10. Recreational and practices (e.g., accessibility of Livestock trailing, Permitted Grazing Management— riparian areas to livestock, bedding, loading, and Livestock Handling Activities length of grazing season, other handling activities Livestock trailing, bedding, loading, and stocking levels, timing of should be avoided in other handling activities should be avoided grazing, etc.) that retard or RMAs in riparian management areas, except for prevent attainment of Riparian those that inherently must occur in a Management Objectives or are riparian management area. likely to adversity affect inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objectives. GM-3. Limit livestock RMA Guideline GM MA-STD-RMA-11. Recreational and trailing, bedding, watering, Generally avoid Permitted Grazing Management—Fish salting, loading, and other trampling of federally Redds handling efforts to those areas listed threatened or Prohibit livestock access to federally-listed

34 Numeric values in this guideline may be modified to effectively achieve desired conditions. Rationale for these changes must be documented. This guideline can be applied solely or in combination as appropriate to site specific conditions. Sampling and assessment of these parameters is intended to portray the general dcon ition of banks and riparian vegetation along an individual stream reach within each pasture after the grazing season. It is assumed that there would be some variability in geomorphic, hydrologic and vegetation conditions within designated monitoring areas, including occasional, limited areas of concentrated animal use, such as water gaps or crossings.

154 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) and times that would not retard endangered fish redds by threatened or endangered fish redds. or prevent attainment of livestock Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native fish. GM-4. Adjust wild horse and RMA Guideline RM MA-GDL-RMA-11. Recreation burro management to avoid Generally avoid placing Management—New Facilities and impacts that prevent attainment new facilities or Infrastructure of Riparian Management infrastructure within New facilities or infrastructure should not Objectives or adversely affect expected long term be placed within expected long-term inland native fish. channel migration zone. channel migration zones. Activities that Where activities inherently occur in riparian management inherently must occur in areas (e.g., road stream crossings, boat RMAs (e.g. road stream ramps, docks, and interpretive trails) should crossings, boat ramps, be located to minimize impacts on riparian- docks, interpretive dependent resource conditions (e.g., within trails), locate them to geologically stable areas, avoiding major minimize impacts on spawning sites). riparian dependent resource conditions (e.g., within geologically stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites). RM-1. Design, construct, and RMA Guideline RM MA-GDL-RMA-12. Recreation operate recreation facilities, Consider removing or Management—Existing Facilities including trails and dispersed relocating existing Consider removing or relocating existing sites, in a manner that does not recreation facilities that recreation facilities that are not meeting retard or prevent attainment of are causing unacceptable desired conditions in riparian management the Riparian Management impacts in RMAs. areas or are in active floodplains. Objectives and avoids adverse MA-GDL-RMA-23. Administrative and effects on inland native fish. Developed Recreation Facilities Complete watershed analysis New administrative and developed prior to construction of new recreation facilities should be located recreation facilities in Riparian outside of RMAs unless they are needed for Habitat Conservation Areas resource protection or must inherently be within priority watersheds. For located within the RMA. existing recreation facilities inside Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure that the facilities or use of the facilities would not prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native

155

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) fish. Relocate or close recreation facilities where Riparian Management Objectives cannot be met or adverse effects on inland native fish can not be avoided.

RM-2. Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native fish. Where adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific site closures are not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objectives and avoiding adverse effects on inland native fish, eliminate the practice or occupancy. RM-3. Address attainment of RMA Guideline MM MA-GDL-RMA-13. Mineral Riparian management Adverse effects to Management—Operations in Riparian Objectives and potential effect aquatic and other Management Areas on inland native fish in Wild riparian dependent Operators should take all practicable and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness resources from mineral measures to maintain, protect, and and other Recreation operations should be rehabilitate water quality and habitat for Management Plans. minimized or avoided. fish and wildlife, and other riparian- For operations in a dependent resources that may be affected by riparian management operations occurring in the riparian area ensure operators management area. take all practicable measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate water quality, and habitat for fish and wildlife and other riparian dependent resources which may be

156

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) affected by the operations. MM-1. Minimize adverse RMA Guideline MM MA-GDL-RMA-14. Minerals effects to inland native fish Structures and support Management—Structures and Support species from mineral facilities should be Facilities operations. If a Notice of Intent located outside RMAs. Structures and support facilities should be indicates that a mineral Where no alternative to located outside riparian management operation would be located in a siting facilities or roads areas. Where no alternative sites exist for Riparian Habitat in RMAs exists, locate facilities or roads outside of riparian Conservation Area, consider them in a way to management areas, work with Operators to the effects of the activity on minimize adverse effects locate them in a way to minimize adverse inland native fish in the to aquatic and other effects to aquatic and other riparian- determination of significant riparian dependant dependent resources. Existing roads should surface disturbance pursuant to resources. Existing roads be maintained to minimize damage to 36 CFR 228.4. For operations should be maintained to aquatic and riparian-dependent resources in a Riparian Habitat minimize damage to in the riparian management areas. Conservation Area ensure aquatic and riparian operators take all practicable dependent resources in measures to maintain, protect, the RMAs. and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations. When bonding is required, consider (in the estimation of bond amount) the cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of operations. MM-2. Locate structures, RMA Standard MM MA-GL-RMA-15. Minerals support facilities, and roads Locate mine waste with Management—Mine Waste outside Riparian Habitat the potential to generate Forest mineral administrators would work Conservation Areas. Where no hazardous material (per with mine Operators, within the Plan of alternative to siting facilities in CERCLA) outside of Operations review process, to store mine Riparian RMAs. If no reasonable waste with the potential to generate Habitat Conservation Areas alternative to locating hazardous material (per CERCLA - exists, locate and construct the these facilities in RMAs Comprehensive Environmental Response, facilities in ways that avoid exists, then locate and Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) impacts to Riparian design the waste outside of riparian management areas. Habitat Conservation Areas facilities using best and streams and adverse effects conventional techniques If no reasonable alternative to locating on inland native fish. Where no to ensure mass stability these facilities in riparian management alterative to road construction and prevent the release areas exists, Forest mineral administrators exists, keep roads to the of acid or toxic would work with mine Operators, within minimum necessary for the materials. the Plan of Operations review process, to

157

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) approved mineral activity. design the waste facilities using best Close, obliterate and conventional techniques to ensure mass revegetate roads no longer stability, neutralize waste materials to the required extent practicable, and prevent the release for mineral or land of acid or toxic materials. management activities. Forest mineral administrators would work with mine Operators, within the Plan of Operations review process, to reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and physical stability and revegetation to avoid adverse effects to inland native fish.

MM-3 Prohibit solid and RMA Guideline MM MA-GDL-RMA-16. Minerals sanitary waste facilities in Where possible, adjust Management—Operating Plans for Riparian Habitat Conservation the operating plans for Existing Activities Areas. If no alternative to existing activities to Forest mineral administrators would work locating mine waste (waste minimize adverse effects with mine Operators, within the Plan of rock, spent to aquatic and riparian Operations review process, to locate or ore, tailings) facilities in dependent resources in relocate mine operations and facilities Riparian Habitat Conservation the RMAs. outside riparian management areas to Areas exists, and releases can minimize adverse effects to aquatic and be prevented and stability can riparian dependent resources. be ensured, then: a. analyze the waste material using the best conventional sampling methods and analytic techniques to determine its chemical and physical stability characteristics. b. locate and design the waste facilities using the best conventional techniques to ensure mass stability and prevent the release of acid or toxic materials. If the best conventional technology is not sufficient to prevent such releases and ensure stability over the long term, prohibit such facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

158

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) c. monitor waste and waste facilities to confirm predictions of chemical and physical stability, and make adjustments to operations as needed to avoid adverse effects to inland native fish and to attain Riparian Management Objectives. d. reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and physical stability and revegetation to avoid adverse effects to inland native fish, and to attain the Riparian Management Objectives. e. require reclamation bonds adequate to ensure long-term chemical and physical stability and successful revegetation of mine waste facilities.

MM-4 For leasable minerals, prohibit surface occupancy within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas for oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and development activities where contracts and leases do not already exist, unless there are no other options for location and Riparian Management Objectives can be attained and adverse effects to inland native fish can be avoided. Adjust the operating plans of existing contracts to (1) eliminate impacts that prevent attainment of Riparian

159

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) Management Objectives and (2) avoid adverse effects to inland native fish MM-5. Permit sand and gravel mining and extraction within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas would occur only if no alternaties exist, if the action(s) would not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management O bjectives and adverse effects to inland native fish can be avoided. MM-6. Develop inspection, RMA Guideline FM MA-GDL-RMA-17. Fire and Fuels monitoring and reporting Temporary fire facilities Management—Temporary Fire Facilities requirements for mineral (e.g., incident bases, Temporary fire facilities (e.g., incident activities. Evaluate and apply camps, wheelbases, bases, camps, staging areas, helispots, and the results of inspection and staging areas, helispots other centers) for incident activities should monitoring to modify mineral and other centers) for be located outside riparian management plans, leases, or permits as incident activities should areas. When no practical alternative exists, needed to eliminate impacts be located outside all appropriate measures to maintain, that prevent attainment of RMAs. When no restore, or enhance aquatic and riparian- Riparian Management practical alternative dependent resources should be used. Objectives and avoid adverse exists, all appropriate effects on inland native fish. measures to maintain, restore, or enhance aquatic and riparian dependent resources should be used. FM-2. Locate incident bases, RMA Guideline FM MA-GL-RMA-18. Water Drafting Sites camps, helibases, staging areas, Water drafting sites Water drafting sites should be located and helispots, should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on and other centers for incident managed to minimize stream channel stability and in-stream flows activities adverse effects on needed to maintain riparian resources, outside of Riparian Habitat stream channel stability, channel conditions, and fish habitat. Conservation Areas. If the only sedimentation, and in- suitable location for such stream flows needed to activities is within the Riparian maintain riparian Habitat Conservation Area, an resources, channel exemption may be granted conditions, and fish following a review and habitat recommendation by a resource advisor. The advisor would prescribe

160 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) the location, use conditions, and rehabilitation requirements, with avoidance of adverse effects to inland native fish a primary goal. Use an interdisciplinary team, including a fishery biologist, to predetermine incident base and helibase locations during pre- suppression planning. RA-5 Locate water drafting RMA Standard FM MA-GDL-RMA-20. Non-Emergency sites to avoid adverse effects to Pumps shall be screened Pump and Dipping Equipment Cleaning inland native fish and instream at drafting sites to Suction devices and dipping apparatus flows, and in a manner that prevent entrainment of should be cleaned and pumps should be does not retard or prevent native and desired non- de-contaminated between water sources to attainment of Riparian native fish and shall prevent the spread of aquatic invasive Management Objectives. have one-way valves to species. Pumping should be done in prevent backflow into accordance with current Washington streams. Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic project approval.

RMA Standard FM *MA-STD-RMA-13. Fire and Fuels Portable pump set-ups Management—Portable Pumps shall include Portable pump set-ups shall include containment provisions containment provisions for fuel spills and for fuel spills and fuel fuel containers shall have appropriate containers shall have containment provisions. Park vehicles in appropriate containment locations that do not allow entry of spilled provisions. Vehicles fuel into streams. should be parked in locations that avoid entry of spilled fuel into streams RMA Guideline FM MA-GDL-RMA-19. Fire and Fuels Generally locate and Management—Fire Line Construction configure fire lines to Fire lines should be located and configured minimize sediment to minimize sediment delivery to streams delivery, creation of new and to minimize creation of new stream stream channels and channels and unauthorized roads and trails. unauthorized roads and trails RMA Standard FM *MA-STD-RMA-12. Fire and Fuels Use Minimum Impact Management—Minimum Impact

161

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) Suppression tactics Suppression Tactics (MIST) during fire Use minimum impact suppression tactics suppression activities in (MIST) during fire suppression activities in RMAs (NWCG 2006) riparian management areas.

FM-1. Design fuel treatment RMA Guideline FM Standards for fire retardant are now covered and fire suppression strategies, Aerial application of by national direction (FEIS Nationwide practices, and actions so as not chemical retardant, Aerial Application of Fire Retardant on to prevent attainment of foam, or other fire National Forest System Land 10/2011). Riparian Management chemicals and petroleum Objectives, and to minimize should be avoided disturbance of riparian ground within 300 feet of cover and vegetation. waterways. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could perpetuate or be damaging to long term ecosystem function or inland native fish. FM-3. Avoid delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additives to surface waters. An exception may be warranted in situations where overriding immediate safety imperatives exist, or, following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor and a fishery biologist, when the action agency determines an escape fire would cause more long- term damage to fish habitats than chemical delivery to surface waters. FM-4. Design prescribed burn projects and prescriptions to contribute to the attainment of the Riparian Management objectives. FM-5. Immediately establish RMA Standard LH MA-STD-RMA-14. Lands and Special an emergency team to develop Authorizations for all Uses Authorizations

162

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) a rehabilitation treatment plan new and existing special Authorizations for all new and existing to attain Riparian Management uses including, but not special uses (including, but not limited to objectives and avoid adverse limitied to water water diversion, storage or transmission effects on inland native fish diversion or facilities [e.g., pipelines, ditches], energy whenever Riparian Habitat transmission facilities transmission lines, roads, hydroelectric and Conservation Areas are (e.g, pipelines, ditches), other surface water development significantly damaged by energy transmission proposals) shall result in the re- wildfire or a prescribed fire lines, roads, establishment, restoration, or mitigation of burning out of prescription. hydroelectric and other soil and habitat conditions and ecological surface water processes identified as being essential for development proposals, the maintenance or improvement of shall result in the re- habitat conditions for fish, soil, water, and establishment, other riparian-dependent species and restoration, or mitigation resources. These processes include in- of habitat conditions and stream flow regimes, physical and ecological processes biological connectivity, water quality, and identified as being integrity and complexity of riparian and essential for the aquatic habitat. maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions for fish, water and other riparian dependent species and resources. These processes include in- stream flow regimes, physical and biological connectivity, water quality, and integrity and complexity of riparian and aquatic habitat. LH-3. Issue leases, permits, RMA Standard LH MA-STD-RMA-15. Hydroelectric—New rights-of way, and easements to Locate new support Support Facilities avoid effects that would retard facilities outside of Locate new support facilities outside of or prevent attainment of the RMAs. Support facilities riparian management areas. Support Riparian Management include any facilities or facilities include any facilities or Objectives and avoid adverse improvements improvements (workshops, housing, effects on inland native fish. (workshops, housing, switchyards, staging areas, transmission Where the authority to do so switchyards, staging lines, etc.) not directly integral to the was retained, adjust existing areas, transmission lines, production of hydroelectric power or leases, permits, rights-of-way, etc) not directly integral necessary for the implementation of and easements to eliminate to the production of prescribed protection, mitigation, or effects that would retard or hydroelectric power or enhancement measures.

163

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) prevent attainment of the necessary for the Riparian Management implementation of Objectives or adversely affect prescribed protection, inland native fish. If mitigation or adjustments are not effective, enhancement measures. eliminate the activity. Where the authority to adjust was not retained, negotiate to make changes in existing leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements to eliminate effects that would prevent attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives or adversity affect inland native fish. Priority for modifying existing leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements would be based on the current and potential adverse effects on inland native fish and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected. LH-2 Locate new hydroelectric RMA Guideline LH MA-GDL-RMA-22. Hydroelectric—Existing ancillary facilities outside If existing support Support Facilities Riparian facilities are located Existing support facilities that are located Habitat Conservation Areas. within the RMAs, they within riparian management areas should For existing ancillary facilities should be operated and be operated, maintained, or removed to inside the RHCA that are maintained to restore or restore or enhance aquatic and riparian- essential to proper enhance aquatic and dependent resources. management, provide riparian dependent recommendations to FERC to resources. At time of assure that the facilities would permit reissuance, not prevent attainment of the consider removing Riparian Management support facilities, where Objectives and that adverse practical. effects on inland native fish are avoided. Where these objectives cannot be met, provide recommendations to FERC that such ancillary facilities should be relocated. Locate, operate, and maintain hydroelectric facilities that

164

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) must be located in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas to avoid effects that would retard or prevent attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives and avoid adverse effects on inland native fish. LH-1 Require instream flows and habitat conditions for hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals that maintain or restore riparian resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage, reproduction, and growth. Coordinate this process with the appropriate State agencies. During relicensing of hydroelectric projects, provide written and timely license conditions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that require fish passage and flows and habitat conditions that maintain/restore riparian resources and channel integrity. Coordinate relicensing projects with the appropriate State agencies. LH-4. Use land acquisition, Watershed Restoration See FW-STD-WR-02. Watershed Restoration exchange and conservation Guideline - 1 easements to meet Riparian Watershed restoration Management Objectives and projects should be facilitate restoration of fish designed to maximize stocks and other species at risk the use of natural of extinction. ecological processes as a tool in meeting and maintaining restoration objectives WR-1. Design and implement Watershed Restoration FW-STD-WR-02. Watershed Restoration watershed restoration projects Guideline- 2 in a manner that promotes Watershed restoration

165

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) long-term ecological integrity projects should be of ecosystems, conserve the designed to minimize genetic integrity of native the need for long-term species, and contributes to maintenance. attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

WR-2. Cooperate with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, and private landowners to develop watershed-based Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMPs) or other cooperative agreements to meet Riparian Management objectives. FW-1. Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement activities in a manner that contributes to attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives. FW-2. Design, construct and operate fish and wildlife interpretive and other user- enhancement facilities in a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of the Riparian Management objectives or adversely affect inland native fish. For existing fish and wildlife interpretative and other user-enhancement facilities inside Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure that Riparian Management objectives are met and adverse effects on inland native fish avoided or relocate or close such facilities. FW-3. Cooperate with federal, tribal, and state wildlife management agencies to

166

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Proposed Action No Action and B and O R and P Alternatives Alternative Alternative INFISH (1995) ARCS (2008) ARCS-modified (2015) identify and eliminate wild ungulate impacts that prevent attainment of the Riparian Management objectives or adversely affect inland native fish. FW-4. Cooperate with federal, tribal, and state fish management agencies to identify and eliminate adverse effects on native fish associated with habitat manipulation, fish stocking, fish harvest and poaching.

167

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Riparian Management Areas Suitable uses Table from the LMP:

Table 37. Suitable uses for Riparian Management Area Activity or Use May Authorize May not authorize Facilities, administrative Those needed for resource protection or those that X inherently must be in RMAs. Facilities, developed recreation Those needed for resource protection or those that X inherently must be in RMAs. Federal Energy Regulation Commission licenses or permits Recommend against Fire, planned ignition X Fire, use of unplanned ignition X Forest products, commercial use (non-timber harvest) X Forest products, firewood, commercial use X Forest products, firewood, permitted personal use X Forest products, personal use X Grazing, permitted X Infrastructure, above ground infrastructure associated with special use permits, such as communication sites, energy X developments, and/or utility lines. Mechanized recreational use, summer X Minerals, leasable – surface occupancy X Minerals, saleable X Motorized recreational use, summer, trails or play areas X X play areas not authorized Motorized recreational use, winter, trails or cross-country X Non-motorized recreational use, summer X Non-motorized recreational use, winter X Road construction, permanent X Road construction, temporary X Special use permits, recreational X Timber harvest as a tool X Timber harvest, scheduled production X Utility corridors X

168

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Appendix 2 Objectives and Projected Improvements in Key Watersheds – Priorities for Active Restoration

Table 38. Proposed Action— Objectives and projected improvements in Key watersheds that are active priorities for restoration Key Road Treatments Range Riparian Stream Watershed Road Aquatic Infrastructure Vegetation Restoration Prioritization Improvement Organism Improvement Structure (miles) (miles)* Passage (acres) Improvement Improvement (acres) (# of crossings) East Branch 3 5 20 0 10 LeClerc Creek West Branch 3 1 20 0 10 LeClerc Creek Deadman 5 1 30 75-150 3 Creek Barnaby 5 5 30 75-150 4 Harvey Creek 10 2 0 0 4 North Fork 5 1 30 75-150 3 Deadman Creek North Fork 15 1 0 0 20 Sullivan- Sullivan Creek Tonata Creek 4 4 50 75-150 3 Ruby Creek 3 4 30 75-150 3 Treatments in 15 6 30 75-150 10 additional key and/or priority watersheds (estimate addition 3 subwatersheds) Total for the 68 miles 30 crossings 240 acres 450-900 acres 70 miles life of the plan (essential projects completed for 12 key watersheds)

169

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Table 39. Alternatives R,P,O - Objectives and projected improvements in Key watersheds that are active priorities for restoration Key Watershed Key Watershed Objective 7: Key Watershed Key Key Objective 6: Road Treatments Objective 8: Watershed Watershed Key Watershed Range Objective Objective Prioritization Infrastructure 9: Riparian 10: Stream Improvements Vegetation Restoration Structure Management in Reduce road- Restore or Improve Move upland Restore key watersheds hydrologic maintain hydrologic and vegetation in hydrologic, focuses on connectivity and aquatic aquatic function riparian geomorphic, restoration or sediment delivery organism through range management and riparian preservation of on roads through passage at infrastructure areas toward process and watershed, storm damage risk road/stream improvements, HRV (acres) function aquatic, and reduction crossings for including through riparian treatments, full all native riparian fencing, activities function and hydrologic species, movement and including recovery of decommissioning, seasons, improvement of streambank threatened and and other accepted flows, and life watering stabilization, endangered treatment stages troughs, and restoration of species. measures on through other acceptable lateral and Improve hydrologically culvert treatments(acres) vertical watershed connected road replacement hydrologic condition class (miles) or installation connectivity, in key and and watersheds that improvement improvement are a priority for of hydrologic of stream restoration. Key and aquatic channel and watersheds that habitat floodplain are a priority for function and function restoration resiliency to a (miles) include: range of flows through natural channel design and other acceptable treatment measures (# of crossings) East Branch 3 miles 5 20 0 10 LeClerc Creek West Branch 3 miles 1 20 0 10 LeClerc Creek Deadman Creek 5 miles 1 30 75-150 3 Upper Sherman 5 miles 5 0 75-150 2 Creek South Fork 5 miles 9 0 75-150 4 Sherman Creek Barnaby 5 miles 5 30 75-150 4 Harvey Creek 10 miles 2 0 0 4 Tonata Creek 4 miles 4 50 75-150 3 North Fork 5 miles 1 30 75-150 3 Deadman Creek North Fork 15 miles 1 0 0 20 Sullivan-Sullivan Creek

170

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Key Watershed Key Watershed Objective 7: Key Watershed Key Key Objective 6: Road Treatments Objective 8: Watershed Watershed Key Watershed Range Objective Objective Prioritization Infrastructure 9: Riparian 10: Stream Improvements Vegetation Restoration Structure Ruby Creek 3 miles 4 30 75-150 3 Treatments in 15 miles 6 30 75-150 10 additional key and/or priority watersheds (estimate addition 3 subwatersheds over 15 years) Total for the life 78 miles 44 crossings 240 acres 600-1200 76 miles of the plan acres (essential projects completed for 14 subwatersheds)

171

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Appendix 3 South End OHV Monitoring Plan

The proposed action uses adaptive management to implement a system of routes for OHVs that provide long rides, create loops, connect communities, and are accessed directly from campsites. Implementation Team The South End implementation team is composed of 3 representatives from each district (at least 1 rec, 1 resource). They will meet semi-annually. The spring meeting will include current year actions, environmental education, and publicity. The fall meeting will include monitoring, reporting, and out year planning. The team is responsible for entering all projects and potential projects into the Watershed Improvement Tracking (WIT) Database.

1. Adaptive Management and Monitoring The proposed action would address off-road travel areas with an adaptive management and monitoring strategy that includes engineering, education, and enforcement. Monitoring would be used to determine whether the proposed action is working. This project proposes a more systematic monitoring protocol than used in the 1988 Forest Plan. Elements described in FSM 7717.1 (Monitoring and Revision of Designations) and 36 CFR 212.55 would be monitored. These documents direct the responsible official to monitor: 1. the effects of motor vehicle use on an administrative unit on a regular basis (36 CFR 212.57); 2. effects to wildlife, soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; 3. conflict between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest system lands or neighboring Federal lands; 4. conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; 5. consistency with the applicable land management plan and compliance with travel management decisions, including any required mitigation measures Monitoring results would be reviewed annually by the South End Implementation Team, the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) coordinating committee, 35 and the engineering group that develops the annual program of work for road maintenance and improvements. The results of the monitoring will be used to develop work plans for the next year and adjust the MVUM. “Mixed Use” and “Highway Vehicle Only” routes, motorized trails, trailheads, and dispersed recreation sites would be monitored for off-road vehicle travel. The South End Implementation team will review the monitoring results and provide recommendations to the MVUM coordinating committee and rangers. Steps would be taken to reduce unauthorized off-road OHV travel identified in monitoring. The first step at an unauthorized site would be a mix of education, enforcement, and engineering. A sign would be placed to mark the unauthorized trail and explain why travel is not allowed on it. The site would receive increased monitoring. If traffic continues on the site, physically blocking the off-road access with a small rail fence or other methods mentioned further in this document would occur.

35 Annually, usually in the late fall or early winter, a coordinating committee meets to discuss any changes and revisions in the MVUM. These changes include roads that may be temporarily closed due to road work, roads that were temporarily open for firewood cutting or timber harvest, but are now closed, etc. This standing committee typically includes the District Rangers and representatives from engineering, recreation, timber management, natural resource specialists and law enforcement. Also see FSM 7713 for more discussion of monitoring under the MVUM.

172 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

If, through our initial efforts, we are unable to stop traffic on an unauthorized route, the South End Implementation team will make recommendations on what to do with the site and possibly the mixed use route, highway vehicle only route, dispersed site, trailhead, or motorized trail from which the use is initiated. These recommendations may include changing the designation of the route or trail from which use is initiating to a “Highway Vehicles Only” route, closing the campsite or trailhead, providing an alternate route, or engineering a solution such as boulder placement. Each situation is unique, so response to unauthorized use would be based on road maintenance level, location, degree of use, and severity of damage. The South End Implementation team will make recommendations based upon past monitoring results with the goal of no unauthorized use off of the mixed use routes and OHV trails. Year Expected – Annually at least 1/3 of the open roads and trails will be monitored. All designated camping, trailheads, and mixed use roads will receive an annual monitoring review. Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who – Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees /recreation staff

Table E-38. South End OHV Monitoring Plan Why When How Road and Continually Employees turn in “Facility Damage Reports” to document observations trail of road and trail problems such as water drainage, culvert conditions, conditions road surface and tread conditions, gullies, ruts, deposition, sloughing, and slides. The forms are submitted to the head of the transportation group as completed. Information from these forms are used to develop the annual road maintenance plan. The annual road maintenance plan lists the jobs to be completed by the Forest Service Road crew. Resource Continually Employees turn in “Facility Damage Reports” to document observations Impacts such as sediment delivery and noxious weeds. New OHV Annually Install inductive wire loops in the road prism of selected closed roads routes that would be opened to OHVs only. Use traffic counters plugged into the wire loops to periodically monitor OHV traffic on these routes. Monitoring could disclose which route types are most used by OHV riders (ex. loop routes, routes close to towns, routes which access viewpoints), the period of most intensive use (ex. summer holidays, hunting season), and overall annual use. Such baseline data could inform the design of similar projects in the future. Look for Annually This task would be assigned to an individual or the Forest Damage evidence of after Labor Response Team by the MVUM coordinating committee. They would off-road Day review known off-road portal areas. Visually observe evidence of off- travel at road travel. Document whether off-road travel has occurred. Report known findings on a road-by-road basis to the MVUM coordinating committee portals and share with appropriate cooperators and volunteer groups. Look for Annually This task would be assigned to an individual or the Forest Damage evidence of after Labor Response Team by the MVUM coordinating committee. They would off-road Day review all dead end roads with Mixed Use designation. Visually observe travel along evidence of off-road travel. Document whether off-road travel has dead-end occurred. Report findings on a road-by-road basis to the MVUM roads coordinating committee and share with appropriate cooperators and volunteer groups.

173 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Why When How Look for Throughout Using a GPS and associated database, note evidence of observed off- evidence of the road travel. This would be done primarily by the recreation personnel, off-road recreation but may also be done by others. Annually, the GPS data would be travel at other season aggregated by a GIS specialist. The GIS specialist would provide the locations aggregated data to the appropriate District Ranger, law enforcement personnel, and zone recreation, hydrology, fish and soil personnel; and share with appropriate cooperators and volunteer groups. Look for Throughout Using a GPS and associated database, note evidence of vehicle travel on evidence of the closed roads. This may be done by the recreation or wildlife personnel. vehicle travel recreation Annually, the GPS data would be aggregated by a GIS specialist. The on closed season GIS specialist would provide the aggregated data to the appropriate roads District Ranger, law enforcement personnel, and zone recreation, hydrology, fish and wildlife personnel; and share with appropriate cooperators and volunteer groups. Each District Ranger, in conjunction with the Forest and District recreation staff, would identify who would be primarily responsible for collecting this data; currently this data is collected by wildlife, hydrology and soils personnel on the Newport- Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts and the Three Rivers Ranger District. Continually All employees may document travel on closed roads using the “Facility Damage Report” form. The forms are submitted to the head of the transportation group as completed. These forms are used to identify road closure work for the annual road work plan. Look for Annually, The team will request from Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties, reports evidence of prior to the for vehicle accidents occurring on NFS roads and trails. Combine with unsafe MVUM vehicle accident reports from NFS law enforcement agents. Report conditions coordinating findings on an incident-by-incident basis to the MVUM coordinating committee committee and share with appropriate cooperators and volunteer groups. meeting Conflicts Continually Recreation and law enforcement would record reported conflicts and the and/or during the average use occupancy at trailheads observed during routine stops at crowding at summer each of the trailheads. trailheads Look for Annually Photograph each campsite upon completion of restoration and evidence of after Labor designation (photo-point recommended). Annually re-photograph each problems in Day site. Observe and document any areas of ‘campsite creep’ or evidence of the areas vehicle use outside of designated areas. Report findings to the where appropriate District Ranger, zone recreation, hydrology, fish and soil campsites are personnel. Annual photography may be done by the recreation crews in designated conjunction with periodic maintenance, or by hydrology, fish or soil personnel. To document When Forest Using a GPS and associated database, note each time a campsite is the use and Service cleaned up and any new campsites observed. Annually report these condition of crews clean- findings to the appropriate District Ranger, zone recreation staff, both existing up dispersed hydrology, fish and soil personnel. and new campsites dispersed campsites

174 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Why When How To look for Annually by Monitoring for user created trails and negative impacts to streams for 5 evidence of the east years after construction of the connector trail to FR 3520 (Boyer Mtn increased off- zone Road). trail use recreation along the specialist, existing hydrologist, Middle Fork or wildlife OHV trail biologist for system 5 years To look at Annually by FR 4300471 is in poor condition due to rutting and ineffective drainage. whether the the east After the majority of the open roads are designated for all vehicle types, connection of zone monitor OHV use of the 470 and 471 roads to determine if the connector FR 4300470 recreation is warranted. If it is not warranted, it will not be implemented. and 4300471 specialist, is needed hydrologist, or wildlife biologist for 3 years

Engineering / Design Block off-road travel portals. Blocking may be done with a variety of techniques – earthen barriers, fences, rocks, logs, root wads, subsoil with slash, etc. Sign some off-road travel portals to remind riders that it is not a legal route. Year Expected – Annually as reported Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who - Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees / Engineering

Unauthorized Use Closure / Rehabilitation Methods:

Sign Post only Single sign posts are placed as a first attempt to stop access. It is mainly used on an area where there has not been extensive use and vegetative recovery is expected to be rapid. This has been used in meadows, trails, and berms. The success rate on these is 85% based on 2012 monitoring. Flattening ruts, removing signs of vehicle tracks, slash placement, and revegetation is incorporated where needed.

175 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Sign Post and wooden fence Sign posts and wooden fences are placed to block access. This treatment is for areas that received long term use and the site needs time to recover. This has been used on meadows, hill climbs, trails, and roads. The success rate on these is 94% based on 2012 monitoring. Flattening ruts, removing signs of vehicular tracks, slash placement, and revegetation is incorporated where needed.

Exclosures Exclosures are placed around wetlands or wet areas to block access. Wildlife friendly fencing is used. The success rate on these is 85% based on 2012 monitoring. Flattening ruts, removing signs of vehicular tracks, slash placement, and revegetation is incorporated where needed.

Rock barricades

176

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Rock barricades are used to define camping places or block unauthorized use routes. The objective is to reduce the area affected by vehicles. The success rate on these is 90% based on 2012 monitoring. Flattening ruts, removing signs of vehicular tracks , decompaction, slash placement, and revegetation is incorporated where needed.

Earthen Berms In 2012, a road closure effectiveness survey was done in the Vision 2020 area36. Ninety one closed roads were visited. Closure type and effectiveness calls were made. Not effective means that tire tracks were found past the closure device. Closure types included berms (49), gates (9), and no closure device (33), but listed on the MVUM as closed. Berms were the most effective (80%), followed by gates (67%). Berms with rocks incorporated into the design were 100% effective. Having no closure device was not an effective means of closure with 85% of the roads showing use. Using this information, the Forest would incorporate better designs for road closures. For the South End area, these structures would be used when other methods have failed or berms are determined to be the best method.

Debris placement Debris placement is done in conjunction with other methods. In some cases it is used alone where traffic is very light. Debris placement is used to camouflage the entrance to a trail. Debris placement is also used to provide microsite habitat for plants.

Unauthorized Trail Rehabilitation

36 Vision 2020 is an accelerated landscape restoration project targeted at increasing watershed restoration by 20% over the next 3 years while supporting jobs and increasing annual forest products to local mills. The work is planned for the Three Rivers and Republic Ranger Districts.

177

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Ruts left behind from unauthorized use may be viewed as a trail by other users. Continued use of these sites does not allow recovery. A quick response to these areas allows the damaged vegetation to recover and no additional seeding is needed. The crew rakes the area flat. In some cases, ramps have been created by users. These ramps are flattened. Only 2 muddy areas that have been flattened have had repeated damage occur. Most of the sites revegetate and people do not notice there was ever a trail created.

Revegetation On all of the sites, revegetation is a major component. The sites are roughened, seeded, and weed free native straw is placed over the tracks. Sometimes the crew will plant shrubs in the tracks. On wet sites, revegetation is almost 100%. On dry sites, revegetation is slow, since the track is usually down to mineral soil and is compacted. We do not have enough data to give a success rate. Native seeds and plants are used in the revegetation of sites.

Wet site: This site was raked flat and planted with shrubs.

Dry site: This site was allowed to revegetate naturally.

178 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Education The Forest would begin the implementation process with an increase in public education regarding OHV travel and dispersed recreation. Establishment of an OHV Ambassador Program will facilitate a sense of community among OHV users, improve educational outreach practices, and maintain channels of communication with the Colville NF. Using a multi-faceted, multimedia approach, we will educate users about open routes and resource impacts. The tools recommended to improve educational opportunities, as funds and technological capability permit, include signs to show open routes on the ground; maintaining current MVUM information on the Colville National Forest website; signs, brochures, website information educating users about resource impacts; and developing a digital version of the open road system for use by a GPS37 device. We will provide education and outreach to local high schools about resource impacts and enforcement consequences. We are in the process of establishing an OHV Ambassador Program with Eastern Washington ATV Association and the Tri-County Motorized Recreation Association. These ambassadors would provide a presence on OHV routes, reminding riders of the rules. This program would improve educational outreach practices and facilitate a spirit of community between OHV riders and the Forest. We are increasing our presence at local fairs and events, and including more information about the MVUM. We already provide resource education and outreach to schools, including the high schools. We intend to add education about the resource impacts and enforcement consequences of illegal OHV riding. Year Expected – Initiate program development for an OHV Ambassador Program expected to be in year 1 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who - Recreation Year Expected – Education and Outreach Annually Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who – South End Implementation Team, Recreation, Law Enforcement, Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees, Volunteers

37 GPS = global positioning system

179 Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Enforcement Conduct periodic saturation patrols in the high-use off-road travel areas and portals. Pursue funding for OHV rangers during the high-use periods. Additional law enforcement presence (e.g., OHV rangers) would be provided through successful grants. Year Expected –Annually and during high use periods such as holidays and hunting season. Funding – Forest Funding, grants Who –Law Enforcement, Recreation, Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees

2. Designation of Mixed Use Roads The following roads are included in the South End Projects proposed action for additional evaluation by a qualified engineer prior to being designated on the MVUM. All roads would be evaluated by a qualified engineer using the Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads (EM-7700-30) before being placed on the MVUM. The process of designating a road as mixed use would take at least a year before it could be put on the MVUM. By the spring of each year, a system of roads would be identified for the next year’s MVUM. Each road would be visited and all unauthorized use blocked or otherwise mitigated. A follow-up monitoring trip would be held in the fall to verify success of the barriers or mitigation. If all unauthorized trails have not had use, then the road would be placed on the MVUM provided the engineering analysis and all other criteria below are complete for the road.

2600200 3128439 9517425 9522072 2600210 3520000 9517430 9522076 2600350 3530000 9517439 9522078 2600440 3540000 9517464 9522150 2600441 3540521 9521000 9522153 2600442 4300015 9521030 9522158 2600629 4300104 9521099 9522160 2600638 4300150 9521100 9535000 2600649 4300166 9521120 9535090 2700003 4300300 9521130 9535168 2700004 4300311 9521139 9535180 2700005 4300468 9521160 9545000 2712000 4300470 9521164 9545900 3100001 4300471 9521168 9545901 3116000 4342000 9521255 3116072 4342400 9521285 3116073 4347000 9521290 3116177 9517000 9521500 3128035 9517300 9522000 3128036 9517320 9522050 3128050 9517410 9522070

180

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

The following roads require additional work prior to designation for mixed-use. 3520 – Would be designated after the trail on DNR is constructed. 2600638 and 9521030 – Would be designated after adjacent unauthorized routes are closed. Year Expected – Year 5 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who - Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees / Recreation Phillips Lake - 9521100, 9521120 and 9521130 routes would be designated for “Mixed Use” Year Expected – Year 9 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who - Recreation

3. OHV Trails Open 4342650, 9545901, 9521017 – The trails would be opened by removing vegetation currently blocking access. The closure devices would need to be rebuilt to allow OHVs to pass, but exclude larger vehicles. Design Year – Year 1, 2 Design Implementation Year – year 3,4 Year Expected Open – year 5 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners Who – Recreation These roads would not be open until the connecting trail segments are constructed.

4300121 430016638 43003114 43004704 4342650 9521017

95211684 95212554 95350904 9545360 95459014

Table E-39. Proposed Action – adopted OHV routes Location Description Miles Near Addy Butte From FR 9535180 to the overlook. 1.4 North Fork Connects FR 9521139 and FR 9545901. Provides a connection from the 0.5 Chewelah Creek Drummond area to the Phillips Lake area. area Cottonwood Divide Connects FR 4300300 and FR 4342. Part of a larger route that connects 0.3 area the Chewelah Creek area to the Calispell Creek area. Middle Fork OHV Loop connecting trails 313/314 to 3520. Part of a larger route that would 1.2 Trail System area39 connect the Middle Fork OHV Trails to FR 3520 (Boyer Mtn). Phillips Lake area Loop connecting FR 9521120 and FR 9521130. Provides a short loop. See 1.0 Phillips Lake adaptive management. This would not be implemented till

38 A portion of this road would be designated as mixed use, and a portion would be designated as OHV trail. 39 This is an existing loop that is well-used and appears to have been maintained by the Forest Service in the past.

187

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Location Description Miles the restoration is successful. Added to MVUM when they meet standard, 1 route per year Design Implementation Year – Year 2-4 Infra #, create a Travel Management Objective (TMO) – Year 5 Year Expected Open – Year 5 – If trail meets standard. Year 7 for improvements to be implemented Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / grants Who – Recreation

Table E-40. Proposed Action – construct new OHV trails Location Description Miles Leslie Creek area Connects FR 9521500 and FR 9535090. Provides a connection from 0.3 Leslie Creek to the Iron Mountain area. Wilson Mountain Connects FR 9517439 and FR 9517320. Provides a connection allowing a 0.04 area loop ride around Wilson Mountain. Six Mile – Flowery Connects FR These are part of a connector system between 0.6 Trail area 4300121 and FR Chewelah and Calispell Creeks. They connect the 4300311. Six Mile Road to Flowery Trail, and provide an acceptable crossing of Flowery Trail. The 300 road Flowery Trail Connects FR 0.1 4300311 and FR continues to the Cottonwood Divide Road. 4300300. Drummond Creek Connects FR 9521255 and FR 9545360. Creates an alternative loop route. 0.2 area Gletty Creek area Connects FR 4300470 and FR 4300471. Creates an alternative loop route. 0.3 (last one) Middle Fork OHV Completes the connection between the Middle Fork OHV Trail system 0.4 Trail System and FR 3520, creating a large loop route. 1.94 Design Implementation Year – Year 1-3 Create Trail log Infra #, create a TMO – Year 4 Year Constructed – Year 3-7 for construction to be implemented at least 1 per year Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / grants Who – Recreation

4. Trailheads Three Trailheads would be created including one in each of the following areas, North Fork Chewelah, Tacoma Creek, and Middle Fork Calispell. These sites are located on the maps in appendix A. Design Year – Survey and design Year 2-3 Year – At least one every 5 years starting in year 3 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / grants Who – Recreation

188

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

5. Dispersed Camping Designation of Campsites would be made with Signs only. Portal signs, campsite signs, and/or info boards, would be installed to inform the public of the designations. Press release – Year one Website up to date Year Expected on MVUM and implementation – Year 1 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who – Recreation Construction at closed or open campsites with rock barriers, parking areas identified, gravel, decompaction, streambank rehabilitation. The goal is to have a project every year at least in one drainage. For the larger areas, this may mean multiple-year implementation. Timeframe would be until those campsites identified with the South End Projects decision are restored and/or designated. Design Year – Year 1 – 3 (develop a prioritized list of project areas) Design Implementation Year – Year 1 through Year 14 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / Grants Who – Recreation, Fisheries, South End Implementation Team

Resource damage is occurring from unrestrained dispersed camping. The proposed action would limit camping along certain roads – roads that currently have a lot of camping and roadways that are near streams. The maps in appendix A show the roads where dispersed camping would be limited to designated sites. Along these roads, individual campsites would be designated. Vehicles would remain on the main roadway, or on the designated route to the campsite. Parking for all vehicles, including trailers, would be identified; and vehicles must remain in designated parking areas. In total, dispersed camping would be controlled along about 47 miles of road, including both NFS and County Roads. About 174 dispersed campsites are located along these roads. The proposed action would designate 130 campsites, close 46 campsites, and develop 17 new campsites. Camping in other areas would not be affected. People would still be able to go up to 300 feet from center line of open roads for the purpose of dispersed camping. The proposed actions include – • Parking areas and access routes would be identified on the ground. For certain sites, they would be graveled to define the sites/routes, and to reduce erosion and sediment. Some boulder placement would occur to define parking. • Individual campsites would be marked with a sign or other identifying marker (e.g., carsonite post). Metal fire rings may be installed to further identify the site. As needed, barriers such as large rocks, logs, root wads, earthen berms, fencing, etc., would be placed to define the camping area, protect resources (e.g., streams, vegetation) and limit ‘camping creep’. Some sites would require additional restoration. Restoration would generally move the camping area farther from streams and wetlands. Restoration actions include scarifying and/or ripping compacted areas and seeding/planting vegetation. Where streambanks have been degraded, rocks, logs or root wads would

189

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

be placed to protect the bank and enhance fish habitat. Wood chips may be used to protect roots from human traffic. Campsites to be closed would be ripped or scarified, seeded and planted. Rocks and other barriers may be installed to prevent future camping. New sites would be located in dry areas and away from streams. Sites where soil and site productivity have already been compromised (e.g., old roadbed, old landing) were preferentially selected. More detailed maps of the areas of designated camping are located in appendix A.

Twelvemile Creek There are currently 4 dispersed campsites along the lower portion (2.8 miles) of FR 9535300, where it is adjacent to Twelvemile Creek. All four campsites would be designated with few changes.

North Fork Chewelah Creek This area includes the North Fork Chewelah Creek, the lower part of Drummond Creek, Calispell Basin, and the lower part of Hartill Creek (CR 2998 on National Forest System lands, and all or parts of Forest Roads 9521, 9521015, 9521099, 9521120, 9521149, 9521160, 9521164, 9521168, 9521185, 9521198, 9521260, 9545365 and 9545900). About 29 dispersed campsites are located along these roads. The proposed action would keep 20 of the existing campsites. Thirteen would require minor modifications, while 7 would require more extensive restoration. Nine sites would be closed to further use, and about 12 new sites would be developed. Most of the new campsites would be located in the drier portions of the meadows. As described in the Phillips Lake Adaptive Management section, the campsite at Phillips Lake would be closed initially until restoration is accomplished. After restoration, 1 or 2 campsites would be designated.

Calispell Creek This area includes the Middle Fork Calispell Creek, the North Fork Calispell Creek, and the area known as the Bartlett Road (all or parts of County Roads 2022, 2030 and FR 3520, 3540, 4370020, 4370447, and 4370510). About 66 dispersed campsites are found along these roads. The proposed action would keep 42 of the existing campsites. Eighteen would require minor modifications, while 24 would require more extensive restoration. Twenty-four sites would be closed to further use, and about 3 new sites would be developed. With the implementation of the Power Lake EA, 14 sites along CR2022 would be closed and rehabilitated when the road is decommissioned. Until the road is decommissioned, 4 of the 14 sites along this road section would be closed and 10 sites would remain open.

Winchester Creek There are only 2 campsites along the Winchester Creek road. Both of these campsites are located in riparian areas, but both appear to be located on private land. The proposed action would not designate any campsites along Winchester Creek. The existing campsites would continue “as is” because they are outside the agency’s jurisdiction.

Tacoma Creek This area is the Tacoma Creek road and parts of some side roads (all or parts of County Road 2389 and FR 2600010, 2600301, 2600326, 2600346, and 2600350). About 41 dispersed campsites are located along these roads. The proposed action would keep 32 of the existing campsites. Thirteen would require minor modifications, while 19 would require more extensive restoration. Nine sites would be closed to further

190

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

use; 5 of these sites appear on the Forest inventory of dispersed campsites but are very seldom used. Two new sites would be developed.

Cusick Creek This area is the Cusick Creek road and parts of some side roads (all or parts of County Road 2389 and FR 2600010, 2600301, 2600326, 2600346, and 2600350). About 15 dispersed campsites are located along these roads. The proposed action would keep 13 of the existing campsites. Eight would require minor modifications, while 5 would require more extensive restoration. Two sites would be closed to further use40.

Ruby Creek This is FR 2700004 and the bit of 2700003 near Ruby Creek. Four dispersed campsites are located along this road. The proposed action would keep all four sites. One would require minor modifications, while the other 3 would require more extensive restoration.

6. Phillips Lake Adaptive Management Area The proposed action would close the road to Phillips Lake about 0.15 miles from the lake. The closure would be a gate or barrier, so that people and equipment can access the site for restoration. Campers and fishermen would be able to walk to the lake. Signing Year – Year 1 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / grants Who – Recreation, Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees

Restoration actions include – • Scarifying and seeding some of the compacted area near the lake. • Planting riparian vegetation along the shoreline. • Blocking the OHV play area, and seeding and planting the disturbed areas. • Placing gravel and barriers (e.g., rocks, logs, etc.) to form a parking area and prevent people from driving and parking elsewhere. • One or two campsites would be designated at Phillips Lake.

Year – Year 2-3 Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / grants Who – Recreation, Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees

Once the improvements have been made, and the riparian conditions have improved (estimate 2 – 3 years), the gate would be opened. Forest Roads 9521100 and 9521120 would be designated for “Mixed Use”. An existing OHV route extending from the end of 9521120 to 9521130 would be adopted. When the OHV trail is completed, 9521130 would be designated for “Mixed Use”, creating a small loop trail. Year – by year 10 if restoration goals are met.

40 One of these sites has not been used in several years.

191

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Funding – Forest Funding / Partners / grants Who – Recreation, Forest Damage Response Team or other equivalent forest employees

7. Practices that Apply to the Proposed Action The following are accepted practices that have proven effective in avoiding, minimizing, reducing, eliminating, or rectifying the effects of management activities (40 CFR 1508.22). Best management practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices selected by the interdisciplinary team to meet nonpoint-source erosion control needs. All the practices are based on Forest Plan direction, Forest Service policy, Best Management Practices or other pertinent laws or regulations. 1. To meet motorized mixed use safety requirements:: a. Implement safety mitigations recommended through the motorized mixed use analysis process. This may include brushing, blading, signing, or other standard safety mitigations. b. Standard engineering, trailhead design, trail design and construction practices apply. See FSH 2309.18 - Trails Management Handbook, 7709.55 – Road Planning Handbook, and 7709.57 – Road Construction Handbook, the 2007 Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook, (Hesselbarth, et al., 2007) and the 2007 Wetland Trail Design and Construction (Steinholz, et al., 2007). c. Where need is determined by the motorized mixed use analysis, install signs, including warning signs, according to Forest Service Sign and Poster Guidelines (EM 7100-15) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (USDOT Federal Highways Administration, 2009) 2. To meet Forest Plan standards and INFISH guidelines for water quality, fish habitat and soil erosion41 (Hydrology and Fish Report, project file): a. Roads and Trails i. The proposed action was designed to avoid impacts to streams, lakes and wetlands. New trails are located to avoid streams and wetlands. ii. Trails would be designed utilizing the ‘lay of the land’ to provide appropriate drainage and minimize cut and fill slopes. iii. Trails would be designed and constructed with dewatering devices (e.g., waterbars, rolling dips, etc.) as needed. iv. Trails would be constructed with aggregate surfacing and/or geotextiles to reduce erosion on some steeper grades, near water, and in areas of soft soil. v. Standard practices would be used to keep people on the trail, and to prevent trail widening. These practices would include: 1. Fencing or placing large rock. 2. Where large puddles form on trails where impacts to water quality in nearby streams could occur, improve drainage and/or use standard trail construction practices to lift the trail out of the water (e.g., aggregate over a porous geobase product). vi. Trails would be designed to avoid long sustained grades that would erode easily, vii. Practices to restore unauthorized trails to more natural conditions include fencing, placing large rocks, decompacting, reshaping, planting and seeding. b. Dispersed campsites i. Parking areas would be designated. Existing parking areas would be moved away from water and, where possible, would generally be more than 200 feet from streams. Every effort would be made to place new parking areas more than 200

41 The Best Management Practices for the Protection of Water Quality are located in the analysis file.

192

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

feet from streams. If the parking area is within 200 feet of a stream or wetland, the final location would be approved by the fish biologist or hydrologist. All vehicles, including trailers and off-highway vehicles, must stay in the designated parking area. ii. If objects such as fire rings are installed, locate them away from water. If they are located within 150 feet of water, the final location would be approved by the fish biologist or hydrologist. Discourage tent camping near streams through environmental education and signs. iii. New access routes must be as direct as possible, but avoid sensitive soils and steep slopes greater than 5%. Aggregate would be used in areas of soft soil. iv. Campsites within or immediately upstream from TMDL42 stream reaches are a priority for restoration and designation. Close these campsites within 5 years of decision notice if site modifications are not completed (e.g. delineated site and parking boundaries, sufficient bank stabilization). If funding and/or workforce becomes available to restore campsites following closure (after the 5-year time frame), the sites could be restored and re-opened. v. At the North Fork Chewelah Camping Area (the area between FR 9521099 and the creek), the existing campsites along North Fork Chewelah would be rehabilitated and new campsites would be located on the stream side of FR 9521099. New sites would be designated with rocks. Vehicles would be restricted to designated parking spurs and campsite amenities (table, grill, fire ring, etc.) would be adjacent to the parking spur to limit human impacts adjacent to the stream. Impacted areas between the sites and the creek would be restored. vi. At the North Fork Calispell Camping Area (lower bridge) – The area between the FR 3520 (Power Lake) road and North Fork Calispell Creek would be rehabilitated. Sites between the 9521 road and the 9521099 road would be developed. Sites adjacent to the creek would be closed and restored. vii. Campsites would be restored following the guidelines in the Wilderness and Backcountry Site Restoration Guide (Therrell, et al., 2006). viii. Close sites where excessive wear on vegetation cannot be mitigated, and consider putting some sites on a rotation schedule to let them recover. c. Trailheads i. Trailheads would be designed to disperse runoff or to collect runoff into bioswales. d. General i. Reduce improper disposal of human waste especially in high-use areas near streams. Possible techniques include: increased signage, installation of vault toilets, rental of temporary toilet facilities (e.g., porta-potties), talking to nearby businesses about selling human waste disposal products (e.g., wag bag, biffy bag). ii. Develop a user education program such as the Respect the River program along North Fork Chewelah, Tacoma, and Calispell Watersheds. Topics should include “do not chop trees,” “pack in pack out,” “Do not dam the stream,” and “properly dispose of human and animal waste” signs. iii. Erosion control devices and techniques would be selected and implemented with consideration for the Erosion Control Selection Guide (Rivas, 2006). 3. To minimize conflict between authorized grazing and OHV use (Range specialist report, project file):

42 Total Maximum Daily Load

193

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

a. If drift is occurring on Forest Road 9521017 and the permittee is not able to keep the cattle on the allotment by moving the cattle from this area, an allotment boundary fence would need to be constructed to stop the drift. A cattleguard would also be required in the roadway if fencing is needed. b. An OHV cattleguard would be needed on the trail between FR 9545901 and FR 9521139. c. Replace the gate on FR 9545900 with a cattle guard to prevent drift while allowing easy access for vehicles to the road. d. If cattle drift becomes a problem on the connector trail between FR 4300470 and FR 4300471, fencing would need to be constructed, including an OHV cattle guard where the fence would cross the trail. 4. To minimize or reduce spread of noxious weeds (Noxious Weed specialist report, project file): a. Seeding disturbed areas according to the direction in the Colville National Forest Guide to Seeding and Planting Vegetation (USDA Forest Service, 2000). b. Continuing to monitor and treat infestations under the 1998 Colville National Forest Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment and the 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Environmental Impact Statement. 5. To protect uses authorized under special use permits (Special Use specialist report, project file): a. Protect all authorized improvements through avoidance. Special Use authorizations shall serve as written permission to holders for operation of motorized vehicles on roads that otherwise be shown as closed to the general public for operation of motorized vehicles. b. Monitor dispersed camping use along Cottonwood Divide Road to determine whether any portion of the snow course is being used. If use occurs that has potential to measurably impact vegetation within and immediately adjacent to the snow course (felling of mature trees, live or dead), exclude the Chewelah #2 Snow Course from any area where dispersed camping is allowed. 6. To meet Forest Plan management direction, the following elements would be implemented as part of the proposed action to meet threatened, endangered, sensitive and management indicator species habitat requirements (Biological Evaluation and MIS specialist report, Appendix G):

Table E-41. Alternative 3 Project Specific Practices for Terrestrial Wildlife Target Design Management Project design criteria species element framework forest seasonal road USDA 1988 Existing seasonal road closures would apply to OHVs on carnivores, closures any new mixed-use routes. New OHV only routes which big game originate from a seasonally closed road would have the same closure period as the parent road.

194

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

Target Design Management Project design criteria species element framework forest new OHV Ruediger et al. Weed infestations on these routes would be the highest carnivores, routes on 2000, priority to treat with the forest’s annual weed spraying big game, existing USDI et al. contract(s). all MIS closed roads, 1986 Prior to allowing OHV use on existing closed roads, assess user-created the potential for OHVs to leave the road prism onto old trails temporary roads or logging skid trails. Effectively block these routes with boulders, earthen berms, slash, plantings, or other means. Design the entrance of new OHV only routes so that the routes are only accessible to vehicles 50” wide or less. On closed roads, this would normally require replacing the gate with large (3-4+ foot wide) boulders “ice-berged” into the road prism. forest new When siting new trails, avoid the following special habitats carnivores, motorized to the extent feasible; big game, trails - wetlands and other riparian areas, marten, large - rock features such as outcrops, talus, caves, raptors, - meadows, landbirds, dusky - open, berry-producing shrubfields, grouse - heavy concentrations of down logs (log jackpots), - known nest, roost, den, or other wildlife activity sites.

forest unauthorized Continue to block / restore unauthorized trails with fencing, carnivores, trails boulder placement, de-compaction, shaping, plantings, etc. big game, all MIS forest roadside USDA 1988, Hiding cover is defined as vegetation capable of concealing carnivores, hiding cover USDI et al. 90 percent of an elk at a distance of 200 feet. When big game 1986 designing new vegetation management projects on NFS lands in the project area, give special attention to roadside hiding cover. Where the opportunity exists, retain sufficient vegetation in strips or patches to provide hiding cover along all open motorized routes.

8. Required Mitigation for TES and Other Wildlife Species 1. Protect TES Species and Wildlife Activity Sites - If a TES species or an active den, nest, roost, rendezvous site, etc. is found in a project work area, consult a biologist as to measures required to protect the species or site.

195

Colville National Forest - Forest Plan Revision Project Fisheries Report

10. Route Designation Process The following outlines a general process that would be followed to evaluate routes for designation on the Colville National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The time frames listed are approximate and may vary from year to year based upon available resources, competing priorities, and by the time actually needed to implement restoration and safety needs.

Table E-42. Route Designation Process Time Frame Activity

March – April MVUM coordinating committee selects route(s) from the South End decision that would be considered for inclusion on following year’s MVUM.

April - August Qualified engineer evaluates43 selected routes for motorized mixed-use.

April - July Each selected route would be visited by Forest Service personnel or partners and all unauthorized use blocked or otherwise mitigated.

May - September Any required restoration work (as listed in Appendix E) for the selected route would be implemented.

On-going A follow-up monitoring trip would be held to verify success of the barriers or mitigation.

On-going Any safety items required by the engineering evaluation would be implemented.

October - January MVUM coordinating committee reviews field data and engineering evaluation to determine effectiveness of restoration, mitigation and safety considerations.

January - February Based on recommendation of MVUM coordinating committee, Forest would update status of selected routes on current year MVUM.

This process may be adjusted based efficiency and effectiveness review of the process, monitoring results from implementation, resource conditions, and resources available.

43 Evaluation uses the Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads (EM-7700-30)

196