Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

United States Department of Environmental Agriculture

Forest Assessment Service

Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning Project

Wenatchee River Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Chelan County, Washington

Township 25N, R17E, R18E, R19E and Township 26N, R19E and Township 21N, R18E, T22N, R18E, R17E, T23N, R18E, R17E, T24N, R17E, W.M.

For information contact: Greer Maier Wenatchee River Ranger District 600 Sherbourne St. Leavenworth, WA 98826 (509) 548-2577; [email protected] http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=35254

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... 3 Summary ...... 4 Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 5 Document Structure ...... 5 Background ...... 5 Desired Conditions ...... 9 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 9 Proposed Action ...... 10 Adaptive Management ...... 11 Decision Framework ...... 11 Management Direction ...... 12 Public Involvement and Consultation ...... 17 Issues ...... 17 Chapter 2 - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 21 Alternatives ...... 21 Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria ...... 31 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 33 Chapter 3- Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences ...... 35 Introduction ...... 35 Soil, Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources ...... 37 Wildlife Resources ...... 57 Botanical Resources ...... 65 Forest Health and Vegetation Management (Silviculture) ...... 68 Fire Management ...... 77 Recreation ...... 83 Special Uses ...... 86 Transportation ...... 88 Heritage Resources ...... 91 Specifically Required Disclosures ...... 93 Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination ...... 95 Chapter 5 - References ...... 96 APPENDIX A - Road Treatment Definitions, Photos, and Methods ...... 108 APPENDIX B - Broadscale Trends of Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 110

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

SUMMARY

The Wenatchee River Ranger District is proposing to treat, through decommissioning or conversion to trail, 63.8 miles of U.S. Forest Service roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds over the next 7-10 years. The purpose and need for the project is the restoration of watershed health and fisheries and wildlife habitat through removal of roads that are redundant or no longer needed for management. Many of these roads are currently unmaintained, but some are currently open. The Peshastin watershed contains 336 miles of roads and road densities are greater than 2.5 mi./sq. mi. Chumstick watershed contains 281 miles with road densities over 3.6 mi./sq. mi. These roads contribute to chronic habitat degradation and have failed, or have the potential to fail in the future. Such conditions have led to watershed degradation through such impacts as chronic and landslide- induced sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, hydrologic disconnection, loss of floodplain and riparian forest, and degraded water quality.

The proposed project targets roads throughout the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Peshastin and Chumstick Creeks are tributaries to the Wenatchee River. Peshastin Creek enters the Wenatchee downstream of the town of Peshastin at approximately River Mile (RM) 20. Chumstick Creek enters upstream from Peshastin Creek near the town of Leavenworth (RM 23). This action is needed to: Reduce impacts to water quality and hydrologic function. Improve habitat conditions for listed salmon and trout. Reduce road density to improve terrestrial habitat connectivity. Reduce overall road maintenance costs to a level that is more in-line with current and projected funding levels. The proposed action would directly restore 155 acres of road and benefit terrestrial and aquatic habitat as well as hydrologic function in 113,560 acres of watershed to the Wenatchee River. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to decommission roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick road systems and whether to convert roads and road segments in the Etienne road system (7322 system) to an ATV trail.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the modified proposed action. The document is organized into four parts: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternative that follows. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Wenatchee River Ranger District Office in Leavenworth, Washington. Background ______The U.S. Forest Service manages over 375,000 miles of system roads that have been built on federal lands to facilitate resource extraction, recreation, and management. In 2001, the USFS set forth a national long-term objective for managing their roads in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner that will meet resource management and recreational needs. This strategy seeks to “right- size” the USFS road system to the appropriate size for land management and stewardship. The 2005 Travel Management Rule required each National Forest to designate roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and time of year. As part of this strategy the Okanagan Wenatchee National Forest is undergoing comprehensive travel planning at the forest and district scale.

While roads often provide important access and transportation, their presence can also influence the habitat quality, hydrology, geomorphology, and ecosystem processes of watersheds. Roads can substantially alter hillslope hydrology, overland flow can cause geomorphic changes, including

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning chronic erosion, extended channel systems, and increased risk of landslides. Roads also influence the ecology of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems through direct habitat loss, fragmentation, and associated human impacts as a result of increased access.

Aquatic systems are primarily affected by roads through the associated increase in peak stream flows, interception of overland flow, and addition of sediment from road surfaces. Increases in flow as a result of roads can cause stream bank cutting and channel destabilization. Too much sediment can embed fish spawning gravels and suffocate developing fish eggs that are laid there. The primary mechanism for the transfer of water and sediment is from roadside ditches; many of which feed directly into live streams. Fill failures at stream crossings, and the subsequent landslide associated with it, can contribute substantial amounts of sediment to streams. It can take decades for this material to be flushed out of the channel through normal stream flows.

Roads also cause negative impacts to terrestrial habitat and wildlife including displacement or avoidance where animals alter their use of habitats (Gaines et al. 2003). Disturbance at a specific site is common and includes disruption of animal nesting, breeding, or wintering areas. Collisions between animals and vehicles occur to a variety of species from large mammals to amphibians. Finally, edge effects associated with roads or road networks constructed within habitats, especially late-successional forests, lead to lower habitat quality and increased predation and competition.

Road decommissioning activities have been in the forefront for watershed restoration projects over the last decade. Monitoring has shown it to be effective at reducing surface erosion and mass failure risk while increasing water infiltration rates and vegetative ground cover (e.g. Foltz et al. 2007; Cook and Dresser 2007). It can also have positive effects on wildlife from a reduction in habitat fragmentation and human disturbance (Switalski et al. 2007).

Currently, the Wenatchee River Ranger District (WRRD) has approximately 1,390 miles of National Forest System Roads (NFSR) and the Peshastin watershed contains 336 miles of roads with road densities greater than 2.5 mi./sq. mi. Chumstick watershed contains 281 miles with road densities greater than 3.6 mi./sq. mi. Portions of the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds have been heavily managed for timber production and these roads were constructed to provide access to harvestable areas. USFS system roads were engineered and built to allow for long term use. Metal culverts were installed at stream crossings. Main haul routes had gravel surfaces and lesser used routes were either graveled or had a native (dirt) surface. The costs associated with maintaining the road system at current maintenance levels has become impractical under current funding levels and a large backlog of road maintenance and improvements. The USFS is currently only able to maintain 20% or less of its road system each year.

Starting in 2010 the Wenatchee River RD started the process of conducting what is called a Minimum Roads Analysis (MRA) in each of its seven major watersheds. The first of these analyses was in Peshastin watershed. During the same time period the District completed the Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment which included a similar type of Roads Analysis for the Chumstick watershed. The MRA and Road Analysis included recommended measures to correct or reduce road-related impacts and risks to watershed and natural resources. Recommendations for decommissioning of roads were evaluated by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and were used to develop a proposed action for restoration and cost reduction. Most of the roads recommended for decommissioning were previously closed spur roads that had a moderate to high risk to natural resources and watershed function.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

The proposed project targets roads throughout the Peshastin watershed (except in the roadless Ingalls Creek subbasin) and in several subwatersheds of the Chumstick watershed. Peshastin Creek is a tributary to the Wenatchee River, entering the Wenatchee downstream of the town of Peshastin at approximately River Mile (RM) 20. Chumstick Creek is also a tributary of the Wenatchee River, entering upstream from Peshastin Creek near the town of Leavenworth (RM 23). The legal description of this project area includes roads in Township 21N, R18E, T22N, R18E, R17E, T23N, R18E, R17E, T24N, R17E, W.M. in the Peshastin watershed and Township 25N, R17E, R18E, R19E and Township 26N, R19E in the Chumstick watershed (Figure 1).

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 1. Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project area.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

This chapter describes the future desired condition for the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds and the purpose of and need for the proposed decommissioning. This chapter also outlines legislative and environmental documents to which this environmental analysis is tiered, reviews the decisions that will be made based on the analysis and summarizes scoping and public involvement for the project. Issues associated with the proposed action and measurements selected as indicators for each issue are defined. Preliminary issues that were considered but not carried through the analysis are also reviewed. Desired Conditions ______The following summarize the desired conditions for the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds based on the Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan, as amended, and based on the Peshastin and Chumstick Watershed Assessments.

The transportation system allows safe access through the Forest where appropriate for land management, recreation, and other uses, and it is carefully designed and maintained to minimize impacts to natural resources.

Habitats provide for viable populations of existing native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species well distributed throughout their current geographic range within the National Forest System. Landscapes contain a diversity of habitats. Watersheds have hydrologic and sediment regimes that function within the range of natural variability. They contain a network of healthy riparian areas and streams and forest vegetation is resilient to disturbance. Streams provide a diversity of aquatic habitat for fish and other stream-dwelling organisms. They offer sufficient quantities of large woody material; they have clean and abundant spawning gravel; and they have stable banks that are well vegetated and have cool water. Riparian areas contain plant communities that are diverse in species composition and structure. They provide summer and winter thermal regulation; nutrient filtering; and have appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration. Purpose and Need for Action ______The need for this project is evident when the above desired conditions are compared to existing site- specific conditions in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds where roads continue to fail, streams are confined, fine sedimentation rates are high, and habitats are degraded and disconnected. The primary purpose of the project is the restoration of watershed health and fisheries and wildlife habitat through removal of roads identified as unnecessary. The term unnecessary in this document does not imply that there are not potential needs or uses for a road or that it is not used for recreation. Unnecessary means that the road is not currently vital to U.S. Forest Service operations and does not access primary recreation destinations. It means that any limited potential motorized uses do not warrant the fiscal cost or resource risk of keeping the road on the transportation system or on the landscape.

The need for this project arises from the number of unneeded roads on the Wenatchee River Ranger District that have not been maintained or repaired. Together the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds contain over 617 miles of roads. Almost 60% of the existing Peshastin road system is at a moderate

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning to high risk to aquatic habitat based on floodplain interaction, erosion potential, and road/stream connectivity (USFS 2010a). These roads have failed, or have the potential to fail in the future and contribute to chronic habitat degradation and fragmentation.

The purpose of this project is to: • Reduce impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats associated with unneeded roads. • Improve habitat conditions for fish, including threatened steelhead and bull trout, endangered spring Chinook, and other aquatic species. • Reduce road density to improve terrestrial habitat quality and utilization. • Reduce the spread of non-native invasive plants associated with unneeded roads. • Reduce road maintenance costs.

There is a need for action because: • There are miles of unneeded roads on the Forest that have not been maintained or repaired. Routine inspection of culverts and ditches on these roads is not always possible because of lack of access, personnel, and funding. If roads are not maintained or decommissioned in the near future, there is an increased risk for slope failure, surface erosion, gullying, and large- scale landslides. Such conditions result in increased sediment delivery to streams, thereby affecting water quality and aquatic habitat. • High open road densities are associated with habitat fragmentation and wildlife harassment. Decommissioning roads could allow for wildlife species to utilize more contiguous habitats with potentially less human interaction. • Roads serve as potential conduits for non-native invasive plants. Invasive plants displace native plants; reduce functionality of habitat and forage; increase potential for soil erosion; alter physical and biological properties of soil; reduce riparian area function; and degrade habitat for culturally significant plants. Invasive plants may spread, displacing native plants on adjacent lands. These factors can affect desired healthy native ecosystems. • Forest Service budgets for road maintenance have not kept pace with what it costs to maintain all roads so they function properly. With this trend of declining budgets expected to continue, the Forest’s backlog of roads needing maintenance will continue to impact hydrologic function.

Road decommissioning has been recommended in several previous assessments in these watersheds including the Assessments for Late Successional Reserves and Managed Late Successional Areas: Eastern Cascades Province (USFS 1997), Peshastin Watershed Assessment (USFS 1999a), Peshastin Minimum Roads Analysis (MRA) (USFS 2010a), Chumstick Watershed Assessment (USFS 1999b) and Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (USFS 2011). Proposed Action ______In response to the needs for action discussed above, this project would decommission approximately 52.1 miles of unneeded roads over 7-10 years, as implementation funding becomes available and management direction dictates. The project would also convert 11.7 miles of road currently used by ATVs to NF system ATV trail in order to improve management. A list and map of these roads is found in Chapter 2.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning out sloping, restoring natural drainage features, blocking, and removing from the classified road system. Decommissioning treatments would be site-specific and would involve using a variety of techniques including removal of culverts and fill at stream crossings, construction of new waterbars and dips, outsloping of road surfaces, pullback of sidecast material, recontouring or blocking of the road entrance, scarification of the roadway and ditches, placement of cleared vegetative material on disturbed areas, revegetation of select sites, and seed and/or mulching of disturbed areas.

Decisions made relative to the activities proposed in this analysis may require substantial investments to implement. Forest Service funding may not be adequate and additional funds would be sought for decommissioning. Decommissioning would be implemented when the necessary funds are secured. The proposed action is described in detail in Chapter 2. Adaptive Management ______This project will utilize the concept of adaptive management. The treatment strategy that is currently considered appropriate for each road segment was based on field visits and analysis. However, the exact treatment details and the priority for decommissioning a road may be adjusted at the time of implementation based on monitoring and assessment of factors such as:

Future weather events or landslides that cause road damage. Unauthorized uses by off-highway vehicles or other vehicles that were not observed during initial field visits may cause a need for more extensive entrance work. More information may become available that changes the initial assumptions about the level of work needed to hydrologically disconnect and stabilize the road. A short-term need may arise for the road that may delay decommissioning within the implementation schedule.

Before changes are made, an interdisciplinary team would review the change and make recommendations. The review would consider whether the change meets the purpose and need, would consider its cost effectiveness and would determine whether the scope of the change and the anticipated effects fall generally within the range of effects and benefits described in the EA. It would consider effects and benefits to threatened, endangered, sensitive or rare species of plants and animals. If necessary, a supplemental heritage resource report would be prepared. To analyze for the potential effects of this adaptive management strategy we designed our proposed action and analysis to capture the full range of potential effects that could occur as a result of implementation (see Chapter 3). Decision Framework ______Given the purpose and need, the deciding official for this project reviews the proposed action and the other alternative in order to make the following decisions: Whether to decommission the roads as proposed, including all associated project design criteria; To select and modify the alternative; or, To take no action at this time.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Management Direction ______This project implements (is tiered to) the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1990a) (the Forest Plan) as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994) and as subsequently amended in 2007 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USFS 2005a, 2005b).

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 2. Wenatchee Forest Plan Land Management Allocations as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan within the Peshastin project subarea.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 3. Wenatchee Forest Plan Land Management Allocations as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan within the Chumstick project subarea.

The Forest Plan established land management allocations for the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project area (Figure 2 and Figure 3; Table 1 and Table 2). Actual decommissioning activities would occur on roadways within the project area for which the following designations have been made: Matrix/General Forest- This is the largest allocation within the project area. The matrix is where most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted under the NWFP. The Forest Plan goals for this allocation are to provide for long-term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products at a high level of investment in silvicultural practices. Boundary Butte, Chiwawa, Deadhorse, and Swauk Late Successional Reserves (LSRs)- The Northwest Forest Plan amendment (USDA and USDI 1994) set

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

objectives for LSRs to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old- growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest species including the northern spotted owl. Sand and Eagle MLSAs- Managed Late Successional Areas (MLSAs) are similar to Late-Successional Reserves, but are identified for certain northern spotted owl activity centers on the eastside (Washington Eastern Cascade Province) where regular and frequent fire is a natural part of the ecosystem (USDA and USDI 1994; C-23). The objective for these areas is to produce and maintain an optimum level of late succesional and old growth stands on a landscape scale. The MLSA’s are designated to supplement the spotted owl reserve network (LSRs). Matrix/Key Deer and Elk Habitat- The Forest Plan (USFS 1990a) allocated portions of Chumstick watershed as Key Deer and Elk Habitat. The general management goal in these areas is to “manage deer and elk winter range to meet the habitat requirements for sustaining optimum carrying capacity.” The quality of the forage and the amount of cover combined with the amount of human disturbance are the important factors for determining carrying capacity. Matrix/Scenic Travel- Retention (ST-1)- For ST-1 allocations the goal is to retain or enhance the viewing and recreation experience along scenic travel routes. The general perception of the environment is to be one that is natural and has high scenic integrity. Teanaway Recreation Area (SI 1)- Was designated in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Land Management Plan (USFS 1981) as a Special Interest (SI1) Area (CFR 294.1) to be managed principally for dispersed recreation in a substantially natural condition. No roads were to be provided or maintained for travel by motorized vehicles intended for highway use. ORVs and snowmobiles were to be permitted in areas determined suitable. Alpine Lakes Adjacent Inventoried Roadless (RE 2A , RE 3)- Dispersed Recreation Un-roaded – Motorized (RE-2) and Dispersed Recreation Un-roaded – Non- Motorized (RE-3) LSR/Scenic Travel- Partial Retention (ST-2)- The goal statement for ST-2 lands is to provide a near natural appearing foreground and middle ground as viewed from designated roads and trails. The foreground of use routes will generally have some large trees in the overstory with an uneven-aged understory. Foreground and middle ground will have the perception of a natural appearing to a slightly altered environment with Moderate Scenic Integrity. Riparian Reserves/Riparian-Aquatic Habitat Protection Zone (EW-2)- The purpose of these areas along streams, ponds, and other wetted areas, is to protect the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species. Riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis in these areas. Riparian Reserves vary in width from 100- 300 feet on each side of a stream, pond, or wetted area depending on the feature’s particular characteristics. These allocations overlay the designations mapped in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Table 1. Summary of the Wenatchee Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan Land Management Allocations within the Peshastin project subarea.

Northwest Forest Plan Amendment Wenatchee National Forest Plan Allocation Acres (%) Allocation Acres (%) Matrix 21,874 (39%) General Forest (GF) 19,929 (36%) Private 15,772 (28%) Private and Other 16,182 (32%)

Late Successional Reserve 9,825 (18%) Scenic Travel - Partial Retention (ST-2) 6,434 (12%) Administratively Withdrawn 6,154 (11%) Scenic Travel – Retention (ST-1) 5,785 (10%) (ADMWD) Allocation Pending 1,260 (2%) Special Interest – Scenic (SI-1) 3,952 (8%) Managed Late-Successional Area Dispersed Recreation Unroaded – 727 (1%) 1,562 (3%) (MLSA) Motorized (RE-2) Dispersed Recreation Unroaded – Non- 952 (2%) Motorized (RE-3) Allocation Pending 503 (1%) Special Interest – Ecological etc. (SI-2) 3 Wilderness 41 Total 55,655 Total 55,655

Table 2. Summary of the Wenatchee Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan Land Management Allocations within the Chumstick project subarea.

Northwest Forest Plan Amendment Acres Wenatchee National Forest Plan Acres Allocation (%) Allocation (%) Matrix 16,006 (35%) General Forest (GF) 17,447 (38%) Private 15,668 (34%) Private and Other 12,821 (28%)

Late Successional Reserve 11,588 (25%) Key Elk and Deer Habitat (EW-1) 9,750 (21%) Managed Late-Successional Area 2,742 (6%) Scenic Travel - Partial Retention (ST-2) 5,693 (12%) (MLSA) Unallocated National Forest 1,952 (4%) Scenic Travel – Retention (ST-1) 864 (2%) Special Interest – Ecological etc. (SI-2) 75 Developed Recreation (RE-1) 62 Special Interest – Scenic (SI-1) 8.5 Total 46,072 Total 46,072

Additional guidance for the project area is provided by the Peshastin Watershed Assessment (USFS 1999a), the Chumstick Watershed Assessment (USFS 1999b), the Assessments for Late-Successional Reserves and Managed Late-Successional Areas Eastern Washington Cascades Province (USFS 1997a), Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Road Analysis: Wenatchee Sub-basin (USFS

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

2003), Peshastin Minimum Roads Analysis (USFS 2010a), and the Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (USFS 2011). Public Involvement and Consultation ______The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on April 5, 2011. The SOPA is mailed to a variety of individuals, groups and government agencies, and is also available for public viewing on the Forest website. A more detailed proposal was mailed to the public and other agencies that have an interest in the project on June 9, 2011 for comment. A public meeting was held on July 6, 2011 in Leavenworth, Washington. A total of 35 participants attended this meeting and eight comment forms were collected or mailed in afterward along with three comment letters, ten email responses, and two verbal comments during the initial scoping period June 9 – July 8, 2011. Separate government to government consultation was conducted with the Yakama Indian Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Letters were sent on May 19, 2011. This consultation process did not result in the documentation of any specific concerns regarding project impacts on resources of tribal interest.

A consistency finding for threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species under the approved Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion for USFS Region 6 Forests (CY 2007-2012) was submitted for review to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on August 11, 2011. Determinations of “no effect” were made for listed plant species, marbled murrelet, and Canada lynx. Determinations of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” were made for the gray wolf , grizzly bear, northern spotted owl, Upper Columbia River spring Chinook, Upper Columbia River steelhead, Columbia River bull trout, and designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, steelhead, spring Chinook, and proposed for bull trout were made in the consistency form. Implementation of the projects proposed would have a short-term impact but would “not adversely affect” Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook and coho salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a letter of concurrence with these effects determinations on August 17, 2011. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a letter of concurrence with these effects determinations on September 9, 2011.

Surveys for cultural resources led to the determination of “NO Historic Properties Effected” and concurrence with the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800 was received on February 28, 2012.

Issues ______Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues that were raised concerning the Proposed Action. Issues are points of concern about environmental effects that may occur as a result of implementing the proposed action. Some are generated by the public in response to the proposed action. Other issues and concerns are already addressed as part of the project design, are outside the scope of the project, or are already decided by law or regulation or conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Documentation of comments received during scoping are summarized below or are contained in the project file. The following is a summary of issues that were raised during project development, scoping, and analysis.

Recreational Access: Recreationists (hikers, motorcyclists, mountain bikers, stock users) utilize roads as travel routes, even if they are no longer drive-able by a vehicle or if they have been closed.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Decommissioning these roads (open or closed) could restrict recreational access by making them impassable to hikers, motorcyclists, mountain bikers or stock users. Dispersed recreational use sites are generally informal campsites that are accessed by roads. Decommissioning these roads could restrict access to these sites by making them impassable to vehicles.

The following indicator was used to assess recreational access: - Miles of road decommissioned - Miles of currently open road decommissioned - Miles of decommissioned road where travel is not precluded. - Number of dispersed recreational sites as recognized by the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Travel Management Proposed Action (USFS 2009) that would lose road access.

Special Uses: Issues with mining claim access and communication site access were raised. Mineral claimants utilize road access to their claims for prospecting and mining operations. Decommissioning these open or closed roads could restrict access to these claims by making them impassable to vehicles. Communication Sites consist of large towers and antennas, often with propane tank fuel supplies that need road access to operate and maintain them. Decommissioning these roads could restrict access by making them impassable to vehicles. The following indicator was used to assess recreational access: - Miles of road decommissioned that lead to active mining claims - Number of communication sites that would lose road access. Wilderness Resources: Road decommissioning could restrict motorized access to wilderness areas which could increase wilderness values (such as reducing motorized incursions) or decrease access to users. Qualitative analysis will be used to evaluate effects on wilderness resources.

Road Maintenance: Road maintenance is a recurring cost that is directly related to the number of miles of road in the project area. For user safety, roads are maintained to their operational maintenance level according to the objective for the road. Not all roads are maintained at their operational maintenance level and therefore could pose a safety risk for users. Decommissioning would decrease the number of roads and therefore the cost of maintenance of roads. Costs for decommissioning would vary by the type and amount of treatment needed for each road to meet the Desired Condition.

The following indicator was used to assess road maintenance: - Number of miles of road requiring maintenance - Number of miles of unmaintained road - Number of miles decommissioned and at what level (active or passive)

Forest Health and Vegetation Management: Some road access may be required to design and implement projects to restore the sustainability and resiliency of forested ecosystems and reduce potential fire intensity and severity. Decommissioning roads has the potential to limit the ability to treat forest vegetation and fuels to improve forest health and could increase the cost of implementing projects.

The following indicator was used to assess forest health and vegetation/fuels management needs: - Miles of accessible road - Estimated loss of potential treatment acres accessible by road

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Commercial Timber Management Access: The Forest Plan identifies the majority of acres in these watersheds to provide for long term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products at a high level of investment in silvicultural practices. Decommissioning roads that were designed for long term forest management has the potential to limit access and economic viability due to low value material and yarding systems that require roads. The following indicator was used to assess road maintenance needs: - Estimated loss of board feet not available to offer

Fire Suppression and Evacuation: Roads can provide access to suppress unwanted wildfires. Decommissioning roads could delay or prevent access to fire areas. Roads can also provide evacuation routes for wildfire incidents. Decommissioning roads could delay or prevent evacuation from fire areas. The Proposed Action does not include any roads used as fire evacuation routes.

The following indicator was used to assess fire suppression: - Miles of accessible road

Restoration of Aquatic Habitat and Function: Implementing recommendations to decommission and hydrologically stabilize the proposed road segments could reduce detrimental sediment sources and restore hydrologic function to many areas of the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds while lessening the risks to aquatic habitat and fisheries in these areas. The following indicators were used to assess habitat and hydrologic impacts: - Road density - Number of road-stream crossings - Road proximity to streams Restoration of Wildlife Habitat: Implementing recommendations to decommission and effectively close the proposed road segments to motorized vehicles could increase the quality of habitat for wide-ranging carnivores in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. The following indicators were used to assess wildlife habitat quality: - Miles of open road and high-use trail - Road and high-use trail density - Amount of grizzly bear core area The following issues were considered, but eliminated from detailed study: Range Access: A permittee that grazes sheep on the National Forest utilizes roads to herd sheep on and to access bed-grounds with their vehicles. Decommissioning these roads (specifically Roads 7520-300 and 7520-330 in Van Creek) could restrict access by making them impassable to sheep and reducing the amount of forage available on the allotment. Because these road segments are generally flat, decompaction of the road surface would not preclude grazing use by the permittee as sheep are able to walk across rough surfaces. These rough surfaces would be seeded and would soon provide additional forage on the old road template. The camp area on 7520-330 will remain accessible to the permittee and other dispersed recreationists by not decommissioning the first 0.1 mile of the road.

The following issues were raised by the public, but are beyond the scope of the project: Road maintenance and stormproofing of needed roads: Several comments suggested that the focus should be toward maintaining roads that are needed in the analysis area rather than decommissioning those that are not. This analysis focuses specifically on roads that are no longer

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning needed to conduct land management activities. Road maintenance is outside the scope of this project as it has been categorically excluded from further analysis (FSH 1909.15, 31.12(4)). In addition, the need for road maintenance is dependent on the weather for any given year (storm events, precipitation) in combination with a variety of road design factors (location, slope, surfacing, etc.). Roads are identified for maintenance on an as-needed basis using these features. The roads that are not open to motorized use have been put into a maintenance-free condition (waterbars for drainage, overseeded with grass). Future projects may focus on improving the maintenance and condition of needed roads but that issue is not addressed here. Disposal of trash on Forest Service roads: A public comment mentioned a garbage dump along a Forest Road that needed to be picked up. This is outside the scope of this analysis.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives ______

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study Decommission the 7322480 series- The Interdisciplinary Team considered an alternative to decommission the 7322485, 7322480, and other associated spur roads in upper Etienne Creek. After receiving many comments on the importance of this area for recreation the team decided that the purpose and need could be met through conversion to trail. The intent was to provide for recreational access to the area but to decommission these as roads in order to reduce risks to natural resources. The option to convert these roads to trails and replace road culverts with trail bridges was adopted in the proposed action as the best strategy to achieve these goals.

Convert all proposed decommissioned roads into trails- One alternative that was considered but eliminated from analysis was the option to convert all proposed roads to trails rather than solely decommission them. Some comments suggested this as a way to ensure recreational access. Although the Interdisciplinary Team considered this option it was found that many roads proposed for decommissioning would be inappropriate for trail conversion, trail conversion would be cost prohibitive, and recreational access could be achieved through mitigation during implementation (e.g. decommissioning in a way that allows for continued non-motorized access). The one exception was the 7322480 series which was appropriate for trail conversion, was not cost prohibitive, and did require trail conversion status to achieve resource objectives given the current ATV use.

Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed actions would occur and the road system in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds would remain relatively unchanged. However, some resource management activities with implications for the road system are ongoing within the project area and current management plans would continue to guide management of the road system. The current situation that would continue is described below:

Current access would remain relatively unchanged with closed roads (roads that are bermed, gated, or overgrown) continuing to be inaccessible to motor vehicles and experiencing very little, if any, use for public or administrative needs. Roads that are currently open would remain open and available for access.

Current road restrictions are likely to change as a result of other management directives. Roads that are currently closed to motor vehicles would remain closed. Most roads that are currently open would likely remain open but some open roads would be closed in the future to motor vehicles by

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning travel planning that is currently underway across the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Some decommissioning would likely occur in association with future projects, but at a smaller scale.

Current road maintenance is minimal and would remain so. Closed roads that are not open to motorized use have been put into a maintenance-free condition (waterbars for drainage, overseeded with grass). Open roads receive the appropriate level of maintenance for use as needed and as funds are available (see Appendix A).

Current risks and impacts to natural resources would continue. Roads would continue to increase the risk of uncontrolled water runoff, surface erosion, fill failures and decreased slope stability. Leaving undersized culverts in place would increase the potential for future road failures. Road segments fragmented by failures would be difficult to decommission as access would be reduced (i.e. reaching the far end of a road with failures might not be possible). The No Action alternative has a higher risk of road failures and impacts to aquatic resources through sediment input than the Proposed Action alternative.

The No Action Alternative provides a basis for evaluating environmental effects and comparisons with the Proposed Action. It provides information on components of the environment that may be affected by the proposed action. It also provides information about how the absence of an action may affect the environment. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Under this alternative, the U.S. Forest Service would meet the project purpose and need by implementing the actions and treatments described below. Activities would be implemented through a combination of Forest Service and private contract work. Activities would occur from 2012 to approximately 2022.

The proposed action would meet the Purpose and Need by: 1) decommissioning 52.1 miles of road in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds; and 2) converting 11.7 miles of road to ATV trail in the Etienne drainage of Peshastin Creek (Figure 4 and Figure 5). It is anticipated that decommissioning and trail conversion activities would take 7-10 years to complete. Requests for Forest Service internal funds and external grants would be made to implement this alternative.

Currently, the Wenatchee River Ranger District (WRRD) has approximately 1,390 miles of National Forest System Roads and the Peshastin watershed contains 336 miles of roads with road densities greater than 2.5 mi./sq. mi. (>3.4 mi./sq. mi. outside the roadless Ingalls Creek subwatershed). Chumstick watershed contains 281 miles with road densities greater than 3.6 mi./sq. mi. The proposed project targets roads throughout the Peshastin watershed (except in the roadless Ingalls Creek subbasin) and in the Chumstick watershed. Peshastin and Chumstick Creeks are tributaries to the Wenatchee River. Peshastin Creek enters the Wenatchee downstream of the town of Peshastin at approximately River Mile (RM) 20. Chumstick Creek enters upstream from Peshastin Creek near the town of Leavenworth (RM 23).

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 4. Alternative 2, Proposed Action, Peshastin project subarea of the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 5. Alternative 2, Proposed Action, Chumstick project subarea of the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Road impacts and risks to watershed and natural resources in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds have been evaluated under several road analyses. These include the Peshastin Watershed Assessments (USFS 1999a), Peshastin Minimum Roads Analysis (MRA; USFS 2010a) and Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (USFS 2011). The MRA and Road Analysis included recommended measures to correct or reduce road-related impacts. Most of the roads recommended for decommissioning were closed spur roads that have a high risk to aquatic habitat and fisheries resources. These recommendations formed the basis for this proposed action.

Decommissioning of the proposed roads and road segments would mean they would be permanently closed, stabilized, and hydrologically disconnected, eliminating the need for maintenance and restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat (see Appendix A). Road decommissioning involves hydrologically restoring by out sloping, restoring natural drainage features, blocking, and removing from the classified road system. Decommissioning treatments would be site-specific and would involve using a variety of techniques including removal of culverts and fill at stream crossings, construction of new waterbars and dips, outsloping of road surfaces, pullback of sidecast material, recontouring or blocking of the road entrance, scarification of the roadway and ditches, placement of cleared vegetative material on disturbed areas, revegetation of select sites, and seed and/or mulching of disturbed areas.

Given the topography of the area, most of the roads would receive the following treatments unless identified otherwise. Active decommissioning entails intensive, mechanical treatment (e.g. culvert removal, outsloping, scarification/decompaction of road surface, revegetation) in order to achieve restoration objectives. Passive decommissioning does not entail major mechanical treatment because the road or road segment is already revegetated and it does not pose a hydrologic risk due to the slope or condition. For roads that are passively decommissioned the treatment would merely entail permanent blockage of the entrance to motor vehicles in order to allow the road to return to a more natural condition usually through revegetation of the roadbed.

The level of decommissioning has been classified for each road or road segment proposed in this project based on the most current information on its condition, slope, existing stream crossings, and unstable areas. Level a decommissioning entails intensive active treatment (e.g. culvert removal, outsloping, and decompaction of the road surface, revegetation) across most or all of the road or road segment in order to achieve restoration objectives. Level b decommissioning is for road or road segments that need only minor prescriptions (e.g. waterbars, small culvert removal, entrance blockage). Level c decommissioning is for passive decommissioning (no action or entrance blockage). In cases where little or no survey information existed we assumed the treatment could be active Level a decommissioning in our analysis. Conversion to trail on road series #7322400 in Etienne Creek will entail some trail work to stabilize the former road-bed and reduce erosion risks and aquatic impacts. Three stream crossings would be upgraded to trail bridges. In certain cases where the need has been identified by the public and the IDT, implementation of the decommissioning treatment would be done in such a way as to not preclude accessibility by certain un-motorized user groups (e.g. foot, horseback, bikes, stock). It was found that this measure would not impair our ability to meet the purpose and need for restoration on these roads. See the Mitigation Measures and Design Criteria for specific instances where this treatment will be applied.

In total, 63.8 miles on 95 roads are targeted, with most roads proposed for complete decommissioning and others proposed as having only short segments decommissioned or being proposed for conversion to trail (Table 3). In the Chumstick watershed a total of 11.8 miles of road 25

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning decommissioning is proposed on 18 different roads. A total of 40.3 miles are proposed to be decommissioned in the Peshastin watershed. In the Etienne Creek drainage of Peshastin Creek, 11.7 miles of road are proposed to be converted into designated ATV trail. The majority of decommissioning is proposed in the Upper Peshastin subwatershed (75% or 30 miles). Decommissioning would occur in all the major stream catchments of Peshastin Creek (Mill, Camas, Hansel, Ruby, Etienne, Shaser, Scotty, Tronson, and Peshastin). Road densities in Chumstick would be reduced by 6 percent to 3.4 mi./sq. mi. and road densities in Peshastin watershed would be reduced by 16 percent to 2.1 mi./sq. mi.

Several roads considered for decommissioning in the Peshastin project subarea are under the Cost Share Program with Longview Fibre. Longview Fibre was contacted in the spring of 2011 and agreed that some of the roads are no longer needed for their use on private lands and could be abandoned with this project. The roads included are: 7322206, 7320400, 7320260, and 7324310.

Implementation of road decommissioning would follow a general schedule to accommodate projects being planned for the near future. The Forest Service is currently undertaking an evaluation of landscape-level restoration potential in the Peshastin watershed under the Okanagan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy (USFS 2010b). We expect that a Peshastin Landscape Restoration project with restoration treatments will result from this analysis and that some of these projects may require short-term (5-7 years) use of these roads prior to long-term decommissioning. Other project may also require the short-term use of roads prior to their decommissioning. As described in the Adaptive Management Strategy, in these cases we may delay decommissioning treatments several years in order to accommodate short-term administrative needs for the road.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Table 3. Roads proposed for decommissioning or trail conversion in the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project subarea. Decommissioning 2 Road Number Miles Watershed Current Access1 Current Physical Condition Treatment 7200106 0.05 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially ripped and seeded. Passive- Level c 7200129 0.54 Lower Peshastin ML 2- Open Some vegetated areas and areas of active erosion. Active- Level b 7200137 0.05 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active- Level a 7201116 1.74 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active- Level a 7201117 0.57 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active- Level a 7201118 0.14 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially ripped and seeded. Active- Level b 7201137 0.07 Lower Peshastin ML 2- Open Overgrown. Passive- Level c 7201216 0.18 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active- Level a 7201224 0.08 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active- Level a 7201237 0.03 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active- Level a 7201411 0.18 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active- Level a 7201415 0.22 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active- Level a 7201516 0.16 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially subsoiled in 2009 and overgrown. Active- Level b 7204160 0.52 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Washed-out, slumping, and overgrown. Active- Level a 7204163 0.40 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Passive-Level c 7204166 0.33 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level b 7204182 0.42 Upper Peshastin ML 2- Open Open. Active-Level a 7204183 0.94 Upper Peshastin ML 2- Open Open. Active-Level a 7204186 0.21 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active-Level a 7204231 0.41 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active-Level a 7210000 0.61 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7224311 0.71 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Mostly functional but eroding. Active-Level b 7224111 0.43 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Mostly functional but eroding. Active-Level b 7224151 0.40 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7224171 0.65 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level b 7224175 0.22 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7224211 0.82 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level b 7224215 0.28 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Heavily overgrown. Passive-Level c 7224411 0.99 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Decommissioning Road Number Miles Watershed Current Access1 Current Physical Condition Treatment2 7224430 0.15 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level b 7227000 0.46 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown with washouts. Active-Level a 7227100 0.26 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown with washout. Active-Level a 7230111 0.79 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level b 7230216 0.91 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active-Level b 7230217 0.23 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active-Level b 7230411 0.20 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Passive-Level c 7245211 0.31 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown with existing culverts. Active-Level a 7245411 0.23 Upper Peshastin ML 2- Open Partially overgrown with some erosion. Active-Level a 7300320 1.19 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown with berms and some evidence of erosion. Active-Level a 7300400 0.47 Lower Peshastin ML 2- Open Open. Active-Level a 7300414 0.30 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active-Level a 7300555 0.36 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown but with active trail. Passive-Level c 7300570 0.49 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level a 7305515 0.53 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7305516 0.04 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7310100 0.63 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level b 7310210 0.43 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7310400 0.92 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown, inaccessible. Active-Level b 7312000 2.01 Upper Peshastin ML 2- Open Access limited by landslide. Passive-Level c 7312211 2.91 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Access limited by landslide. Passive-Level c 7320210 0.58 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7320260 0.59 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level a 7320320 0.36 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7320400 1.07 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7322206 0.20 Upper Peshastin ML 2- Open Overgrown. Active-Level b 7322400 9.16 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Functional ATV trail. Convert to Trail 7322440 0.50 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level a 7322460 0.29 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown with no drainage issues. Active-Level b 7322480 0.81 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Gated road used by ATV. Convert to Trail 7322485 1.71 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Gated road used by ATV. Convert to Trail 7324310 1.16 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Decommissioning Road Number Miles Watershed Current Access1 Current Physical Condition Treatment2 7324422 0.71 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level b 7324424 1.06 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level b 7324510 0.82 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown with active washout area. Active-Level a 7324635 0.15 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown with active erosion. Active-Level a 7324880 0.53 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Open. Active-Level a 7330000 0.31 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Mostly functional with some pavement. No vegetation. Active-Level a 7332000 2.72 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed (no access across Tronsen Creek). Active-Level a 7340511 1.05 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level b 7350110 0.25 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown but actively eroding. Active-Level a 7360000 0.50 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Asphalt with active flooding. Active-Level a 7200160-0.5R-1 0.12 Lower Peshastin Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7200160-0.6R-1 0.11 Lower Peshastin Closed Closed. Active-Level a 7201237-0.3R-1 0.22 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Passive-Level c 7305220-0.4L-1 0.10 Lower Peshastin Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7305233-0.2L-1 0.12 Lower Peshastin ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7320200-2.9R-1 0.70 Upper Peshastin ML 1- Closed Closed. Active-Level a

6106800 0.22 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Overgrown and slumping/eroding. Passive-Level c 7520300 1.66 Eagle ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown. Active-Level b 7520310 0.50 Eagle ML 1- Closed Eroding and ponded. Active-Level a Evidence of off-road use. Partially overgrown with evidence of Active-Level a 7520320 1.22 Eagle ML 1- Closed erosion and invasive plant species. Severe erosion with evidence of off-road use and dispersed Active-Level a 7520330 0.25 Eagle ML 2- Open camping. 7531120 0.37 Eagle ML 1- Closed Partially decommissioned with culverts pulled. Active-Level b 7531135 0.50 Eagle ML 2- Open Overgrown with small slumps and skid trails. Passive-Level c 7701270 1.04 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown and rutted/eroding. Active-Level a 7701325 0.45 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown with rutting and erosion. Active-Level b 7701450 0.25 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Overgrown and eroding. Active-Level b 7701500 0.49 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Partially overgrown with small hillslope failures. Active-Level a 7702215 1.57 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7801404 0.40 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7801670 1.14 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Overgrown and eroding. Active-Level a 7801673 0.21 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Multiple spur roads which are all partially overgrown. Passive-Level c

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Decommissioning Road Number Miles Watershed Current Access1 Current Physical Condition Treatment2 7804245 0.36 Chumstick ML 1- Closed Overgrown. Passive-Level c 7520000_3.1R 0.24 Eagle Closed Open. Active-Level a 7804200-0.4R 0.43 Chumstick Closed Overgrown, culverts present. Active-Level a 1ML=Maintenance Level 2 Level of Decommissioning: Level a - Intensive treatment (e.g. culvert removal, outsloping, scarification/decompaction, revegetation) in part or all of the road or road segment in order to achieve restoration objectives. Level b - Less intensive treatment across only part of the road or road segment (e.g. waterbars, small culvert removal, entrance blockage) to achieve restoration objectives. Level c – Passive restoration where little or no action needed (e.g. block entrance to motor vehicles) to achieve restoration objectives.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Mitigation Measures/Design Criteria ______In response to potential impacts the action alternative could cause, raised by the interdisciplinary team or public comments, the following mitigation measures and design criteria were developed. The following measures and criteria would apply to Alternative 2.

Soil, Water, and Aquatic/Riparian Resources Except as noted otherwise, the following project design criteria for Fish Passage/Road Treatments are from the Biological Opinion for Programmatic Aquatic Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington that Affect ESA-listed Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species and their Critical Habitats (FWS 2007).

1. All provisions and standards in the Memorandum of Understanding between Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (USFS and WDFW 2012) will be followed. 2. All conditions and requirements within the U.S. Forest Service Aquatic Restoration Program regional general permit (RGP-8) (USACE 2011) will be met. 3. All design criteria and conservation measures in the 2007-2012 Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinions (BiOps) for Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington will be met (NMFS 2007 and FWS 2007).

Botanical Resources 1. In order to prevent the spread of invasive plants, all equipment would be cleaned of dirt and weeds before entering National Forest System lands. This practice would not apply to service vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that would remain on the roadway. 2. Existing roadways would be used to minimize the impacts to riparian vegetation and function. Native vegetation in and around project activity would be retained to the maximum extent possible consistent with project objectives. 3. Soil disturbance that promotes invasive plant germination and establishment would be minimized to the extent practical (consistent with project objectives). 4. The contractor would be educated in simple techniques to avoid spreading weeds. 5. If a road is part of a proposed noxious weed treatment site or provides access to a site, then complete treatment before making the road unavailable. If a weed site is found that needs treatment, then complete treatment of the site prior to closing the road. Prior to initiating any decommissioning activities, a treated site should be monitored by a botanist in order to determine the effectiveness of treatment.

Recreation

6. Gates previously used to prevent vehicle access on roads to be decommissioned would be removed and the area around them made so that the road is inaccessible to vehicles (often with earthen berms).

7. Earthen berms constructed to restrict vehicle access on decommissioned roads would be built to blend with the landscape.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

8. Decommissioning treatments on Roads 7520-300, 7701-270, 7701-325, 7701-450, and 7701- 500 in Chumstick watershed and 7312-211 in Peshastin watershed would be done in such a way that does not preclude non-motorized travel by recreational users.

9. Existing motorized access to a dispersed camping site on south end of Road # 7520330 in Van Creek would be retained. 0.1 miles of this road would not be decommissioned.

10. Currently the Iron Mountain Road #7322-400 is managed for travel by non-motorized users or motor vehicles under 48” (ATVs and motorcycles), as directed by the Alpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan (1981). This road along with 7322-480 and 7322-485 would be converted to an ATV trail. The road template would be narrowed and culverts would be pulled and replaced with bridges. This new trail would meet Forest Service standards for trail construction as contained in the Forest Service manual and handbook. Conversion of this road to a trail would only occur if funding for the entire conversion project was available.

Special Uses

11. Road # 7520-330 would be decommissioned in such a way that would not preclude the use of this area by range permittees for grazing

12. Generally roads that access mining claims are not proposed for decommissioning. The exception is lower Etienne Creek where a previous road failure prevents any use or reconstruction of these roads. Decommissioning would be done in such a way as to not preclude future motorcycle or non-motorized access by mining claimants. Access into Upper Etienne Creek would be converted to an ATV trail as noted in Item 22.

Special Status Species (Plants and Wildlife) 13. Protect all known listed Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive species (PETS), and those discovered prior to or during implementation of project activities. Implementation activities, including contracts, would be modified or cancelled if protective measures proved inadequate, or a new species is listed that could be affected.

14. Restrict all activities creating noise above ambient forest conditions including use of chainsaws, excavators, dozers, and other heavy equipment within 400 meters (1/4 mile) of active northern spotted owl nests and nesting habitat not surveyed to protocol, from March 1 to July 31.

Heritage

15. If ground disturbing treatments are proposed on any of the 23 roads not yet inventoried for heritage resources, pedestrian survey will occur prior to decommissioning. An addendum to the 2011 Section 106 heritage resource report will be prepared prior to implementation and if any National Register eligible heritage resources are present, they would be avoided. Treatments near National Register eligible or potentially eligible heritage resources will be monitored by a cultural resource specialist. If avoidance of a heritage resource was not possible, mitigation would be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) for the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes. 16. If undocumented heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all work would cease pending review by a cultural resource specialist and as needed, in consultation

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) for the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes. Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 4 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 4. Comparison of alternatives.

Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2

(No Action) (Proposed Action) Number of miles of roads Peshastin- 336 mi. Peshastin- 284 mi. Chumstick- 281 mi. Chumstick- 270 mi.

Total Road density Peshastin- 2.5 mi./sq.mi. Peshastin- 2.1 mi./sq.mi. Chumstick- 3.6 mi./sq.mi. Chumstick- 3.4 mi./sq.mi.

Number of miles of USFS road Peshastin- 228 mi. Peshastin- 176 mi. Chumstick-234 mi. Chumstick- 223 mi.

Number of miles decommissioned Peshastin- 0 mi. Peshastin- 52 mi. Chumstick- 0 mi. Chumstick- 12 mi.

Number of miles of road open to Peshastin-322 mi. Peshastin- 307 mi. motorized traffic Chumstick- 279 mi. Chumstick- 278 mi.

Number of miles of open road Peshastin- 0 mi. Peshastin- 2.9 mi. decommissioned Chumstick-0 mi. Chumstick- 1.2 mi.

Number of miles of USFS road open Peshastin-124 mi. Peshastin- 109 mi. to motorized traffic Chumstick- 125 mi. Chumstick- 124 mi.

Open road Peshastin- 322 mi. Peshastin- 317 mi. & high-use trail Chumstick- 287 mi. Chumstick- 286 mi.

Open road Peshastin- 2.4 mi./sq.mi. Peshastin- 2.3 mi./sq.mi. & high-use trail density Chumstick- 3.6 mi./sq.mi. Chumstick- 3.5 mi./sq.mi.

Decommissioned road where travel is Peshastin-0 mi. Peshastin- 2.9 mi. not precluded Chumstick- 0 mi. Chumstick- 3.0 mi.

Roads decommissioned that lead to Peshastin-0 mi. Peshastin- 0 mi. active mining claims Chumstick- 0 mi. Chumstick- 0 mi.

Number of communication sites that Peshastin- 0 Peshastin- 0 would lose road access Chumstick- 0 Chumstick- 1

Number of dispersed recreation sites1 Peshastin- 0 Peshastin- 0 that would lose road access Chumstick- 0 Chumstick- 0

Number of miles of accessible road Peshastin- 332 mi. Peshastin- 280 mi. Chumstick- 281 mi. Chumstick- 270 mi.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Estimated loss of potential restoration treatment acres Peshastin –11,600 acres accessible by road 0 Chumstick - 1,800 acres

Potential loss of timber harvest Peshastin- 116 MMBF (MMBF) 0 Chumstick- 4.2 MMBF

Annual projected road maintenance Peshastin- $20,667 Peshastin- $18,167 costs to meet ML 2 standards2 Chumstick- $20,833 Chumstick- $20,667

Number of miles of unmaintained Peshastin- 99 Peshastin- 84 open ML 2 roads3 Chumstick- 100 Chumstick- 99

Peshastin- $365,290.00 Costs of decommissioning $0 Chumstick- $95,992.00 USFS Stream crossings density Peshastin- 135 crossings (0.47/mi.) Peshastin- 105 crossings (0.37/mi.) Chumstick- 128 crossings (0.41/mi.) Chumstick- 114 crossings (0.37/mi.)

USFS Road proximity to streams Peshastin- 57 mi. Peshastin- 45 mi. (within 300’) Chumstick- 109 mi. Chumstick- 105 mi.

Grizzly bear core area Peshastin- 49,942 acres Peshastin- 50,214 acres Chumstick- 92,826 Chumstick- 93,121 acres

1Sites recognized by the Okanagan-Wenatchee NF Travel Management draft proposed action (USFS unpublished). 2The projected road maintenance costs are with the assumption that all roads would receive needed maintenance at least every three to five years. 3Approximately 20% of the roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages are expected to receive maintenance to standard given trends in road maintenance budgets.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning CHAPTER 3- EXISTING CONDITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction This chapter presents information about current resource condition of the project area and the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of implementing each alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2.

The effects disclosed have considered the effectiveness of the mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 2. Each resource area discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for that resource area. The National Environmental Policy Act defines these effects as:

Direct Effects -are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place

Indirect Effects -are caused by the action but occur later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable

Cumulative Effects - are those that result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions

The project Interdisciplinary Team identified past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions that might have cumulative impacts with the proposed action early in the analysis process. These actions are described below. Each resource area considered different mixes of these actions, depending on the cumulative effects boundary for the resource area and resource affected.

Only those past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that overlap the geographic analysis area boundary for each particular resource area are considered, and only if those other actions are expected to have overlapping effects with the Peshastin Chumstick Road Decommissioning project. Some past actions may still be having effects on one resource, but not another.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the modified proposed action or adaptive management strategy. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Focusing on the impacts of past human actions would risk ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed 35

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The suite of present and reasonable foreseeable future action developed by the project Interdisciplinary Team and examined for overlapping effects for each resource in the Peshastin Chumstick Road Decommissioning project area are:

Present Actions Road maintenance including brushing (vegetation removal); may be by hand or by machinery Noxious Weed Treatments under the current Forest-wide Noxious Weed EA Prescribed burning (in Peshastin) under the current Lower Peshastin EA Fuels reduction projects under the current Chumstick HFRA Non-commercial thinning under the current District-wide Non-commercial thinning EA Timber harvest on nearby private land Road construction and maintenance (private and Forest Service) Grazing (in Chumstick) Firewood gathering, snag losses Recreation - snowmobiling, dispersed camping, horse riding, OHV use, mountain biking, Outfitter Guides (Eagle Creek Ranch in Chumstick) Development on private lands BPA (in Chumstick)/Chelan County PUD power line maintenance Fuels reduction projects on private lands

Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Potential future wildfires Prescribed burning (in Peshastin) in remaining units under the current Lower Peshastin EA Road closures post prescribed burning (in Peshastin) Non-commercial thinning under the current District-wide Non-commercial thinning CE Sheep grazing (in Chumstick) Timber harvest on nearby private lands as well as State-owned lands Longview Timberlands, LLC private land timber harvest or sale of industrial timberlands Canyons Hazardous Fuels Reduction project treatments such as commercial and non- commercial thinning and prescribed burning Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction project treatments such as commercial and non- commercial thinning and prescribed burning Fuels Reduction on private lands Ski Hill/Freund Trail Project Private land development Access and Travel Management Plan for motorized recreation (not snowmobiles) Noxious Weed Treatments under the Regional Invasive species EIS/Forest-wide Noxious Weed EIS Chelan County Old Blewett Bridge Replacement Scotty Creek and TipTop ERFO road repair work Peshastin Landscape Restoration Project 36

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning Soil, Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources______

Peshastin and Chumstick Creek are located in the center of the Wenatchee sub-basin and together contribute approximately 10 percent of the Wenatchee River’s annual flow. Upper and Lower Peshastin Creek (6th Field HUC 170200110501and 170200110503) make up the Peshastin project subarea and together have a total drainage area of 63,211 acres. The Peshastin Creek watershed also includes the Ingalls Creek subwatershed (HUC 170200110502) which was not included in the project area. Chumstick Creek and Eagle Creek subwatersheds (HUC 170200110704 and 170200110705) have a total drainage area of 50,349 acres and make up the Chumstick project subarea.

The section below summarizes the existing condition information along with the direct, indirect and cumulative effects from the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project, as analyzed in the Aquatic Resources Report by Greer Maier, District Aquatics Program Manager. Effects to aquatic resources are evaluated according to the following indices: Hydrology Soils and Sediment Yield Water Quality Aquatic Habitat Fish Species

Existing Condition Hydrology Peak Streamflow Peak streamflows have important effects on stream channel morphology, sediment transport, and bed material size. Peak streamflows can affect channel morphology through bank erosion, channel migration, riparian vegetation alteration, bank building, and deposition of material on floodplains. The vast majority of sediment transport occurs during peakflows as sediment transport capacity increases with discharge (Ritter 1978; Garde and Rangu Raju 1985). The ability of the stream to transport incoming sediment will determine whether deposition or erosion occurs within the active stream channel. The relationship between sediment load and sediment transport capacity will affect the distribution of habitat types, channel morphology, and substrate size (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Increased peakflows have been shown to cause rapid channel incision and a severe decline in fish habitat quality (Booth 1990). Another important consideration is the impact of bankfull flow, often described as the high flow during two out of three years (Dunne and Leopold 1978). If the bankfull flow is raised above the range of natural conditions, excess scouring can occur. If lower, the stream may not have the power to move its natural sediment load, causing sediment deposition within the watershed.

The Chumstick and Peshastin are within what is considered drier areas of the Wenatchee subbasin. The magnitude of 24 hour, 2 year frequency precipitation events is 1.5 inches for these types of sites. Dry sites are considered “flashy” compared to wet sites. On these sites 100 year peaks are 4-18 times greater than 2 year events and peak flow volumes range from 10-24 CSM (cubic feet per second per sq. mile). The watershed analysis for the Peshastin watershed (USFS 1999a) showed that roads may be playing a role in affecting average peak flows and stream responses and may be impeding the natural stream response to flood events. The analysis indicates there may be an increase in large peak flows within the watershed as a result of roads. Road densities in Chumstick creek suggest that roads are also playing a factor in influencing peak streamflows in this watershed. Elevated peak flows can lead to scour, erosion, bank instability, incision, and other negative impacts to stream function and aquatic habitat. 37

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Base Flows Base flows in both watersheds are impaired and both are listed on the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 303(d) list for impaired waterbodies due to instream flow concerns. Low instream flows in lower Peshastin and Chumstick creeks impeded upstream migration, reduce rearing habitat, and likely contribute to poor water quality. Low flows in both Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds typically occur in late summer around August or September. Low flows in Chumstick can be as low as a few cubic feet per second (cfs). Thin coarse textured soils and bedrock exposures result in little subsurface storage of precipitation. These soils and bedrock features along with relatively steep slopes concentrate surface runoff rapidly into first order drainages which contribute to flashy stream flows and low summer base flows. Domestic water withdrawals also contribute to low summer base flows.

Soils and Sediment Yield The Peshastin watershed is highly susceptible to erosion and slope failure as a result of past land uses and fires, roads, and underlying geology and basin characteristics. Predominate landtypes are dip slope/scarp slope complexes. These complex types have high surface erosion hazards, high sediment delivery hazards, and high surface runoff hazards. The hazards are high in part because of inherent erodibility of the Chumstick Formation sediments, bedding orientation, and the incised nature of channels in this landscape. A high percentage of the watershed exhibits hazards such as road failures, landslides, surface erosion, and runoff hazards. Failure-related landtypes make up for between 9-25 percent of the total subwatershed landtypes (USFS 1999a).

The Chumstick watershed exhibits a similar predisposition to sediment loading. The Chumstick watershed has fairly homogenous landtypes. Dominant landtypes are structurally controlled landtypes (dip slope/scar slope complexes, dip slopes, scarp slopes, cross slopes), while mass wasting, floodplains, alluvial fans, and high relief hillslope landtypes are found to a lesser extent (USFS 1999b). The predominant landtypes within the basin exhibit moderate to high shallow rapid failure hazards and moderate to high surface erosion hazards depending on the slope. Throughout the watershed are highly erosive soils that contribute to the high fine sediment loads in streams. Fines are delivered to downslope areas as a result of bedrock outcrops or other impermeable surfaces (roads, landings, etc.) that rapidly deliver water and associated sediment.

Natural sediment production and delivery within both watersheds contribute to the high sediment loading into streams however human-caused conditions related to roads have also increased sediment loading. The combination of topography, drainage density, and soil compaction allow surface erosion with high fine sediment delivery efficiencies. Natural events deliver sediment in discrete pulses that structure and maintain the aquatic system (Reeves et al. 1995; Yount and Niemi 1990). Roads can disrupt natural processes by contributing to slope instability which can lead to road-related slope failure. Lateral redistribution of runoff generated by roads (lateral to the natural hillslope) can greatly affect slope stability of small streams (e.g. Jones and Grant 1996; Wemple et al. 1996). These types of road-related events are common in the Peshastin watershed on Forest Service roads.

Chronic sedimentation can be related to natural geologic features but is often associated with road networks on the landscape (Reeves et al. 1995; Lake 2003). The proximity of roads to streams is an important factor controlling the potential for sediment delivery. A review of the effects of buffer strips in reducing impacts from forest practices suggest buffer strips on the order of 200-300 feet are generally effective at controlling non-channelized sediment (Belt et al. 1992). A more recent study of sediment delivery to headwater streams in Washington found buffer widths as narrow as 39 feet were effective at stopping the majority (>90%) of sediment sources from delivering to streams (Rashin et al.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

2006). We consider roads within 300 feet of streams to have the highest potential for contributing sediment in streams.

Monitoring shows that about one-third of active and inactive roads can deliver sediment to streams by ditch delivery (Skaugset and Allen 1998; ODF 1996). The nearly impervious nature of road surfaces makes them unique within forested environments and causes runoff generation even in mild rainfall events, leading to chronic fine sediment contributions of minor magnitude to water bodies. In some circumstances, much greater volumes of runoff can be generated by road cutslopes, which may play an important role in more severe erosion processes.

Water Quality Water quality concerns are a major threat to fish habitat in both the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Both streams are listed on the EPA 303(d) list for impaired waterbodies. Stream temperature is one of the major water quality concerns in both Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Peshastin Creek is currently listed on the EPA 303(d) list for impaired waterbodies due to temperature concerns. Temperatures in the Peshastin watershed routinely reach above 60o F and come close to 70o F in some areas. Between Etienne and Ingalls, the temperature is decreased due to the influence of the cooler water from Etienne Creek, but still exceeds the Forest Plan and State Water quality standards. Directly below Ingalls Creek the stream does not exceed the one day maximum of 61o F but does occasionally exceed the seven day maximum temperature. It is suspected that temperatures farther downstream, off Forest, also exceed the standard regularly. This is also true of the upper and headwaters streams that were above standards during stream surveys. Riparian areas on much of Peshastin and some of its tributaries have been managed heavily and supply little shade along the stream. Within the project area, stream shading is provided by alder, maples, conifers, and brush species. Many streams are primarily shaded by the steep terrain.

Chumstick Creek is also listed on the 303(d) list due to temperature concerns. Minimal temperature monitoring has occurred on Eagle Creek and sufficient data is lacking to determine temperature exceedances in the watershed. However, land practices, riparian conditions, and bathymetry suggest that shading is limited and that temperature is an issue throughout most of the watershed. Chumstick Creek also has water quality impairments and a 303(d) listing due to impaired pH levels, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform although these listings are likely due to localized impairments (USFS 2011).

Although no data exists on turbidity levels in the project watersheds, both sub-basins exhibit soil and hydrologic characteristics that would suggest high levels of turbidity. High concentrations of fine sediment have been observed in several streams within the Chumstick watershed including Chumstick, Eagle, and Van Creeks. Road densities and soil type suggest turbidity is likely a concern. Turbidity and suspended sediment loading is normally highest during spring flooding. Fall rains or rain-on-snow events can also contribute to high turbidity levels.

Aquatic Habitat Existing habitat for fish in Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds is severely degraded. Conversion of floodplain and riparian forest for transportation, farms, and residences has occurred along most streams and along the mainstem of Peshastin, Chumstick, and Eagle Creek. This has resulted in channel confinement, loss of off-channel habitat, reduced large wood, and degraded water quality and flows. Habitat is generally in poor condition with abundant fine sediment and a general lack of complex features.

Substrate Embeddedness

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

USFS has done some sediment monitoring and assessment in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Sampling in 2011 found a mean percent fines (<1 mm) in Peshastin Creek of 17.6% ± 2.29 with a geometric mean particle size of 5.15 mm (USFS 2012). The USFS standard for percent fines based on the Northwest Forest Plan is <20%. Because the calculated 95% and 80% confidence interval values exceed 20% Peshastin Creek may not meet WNF LRMP standards. Habitat assessments in Upper Peshastin in 2011 also found some level of substrate embeddedness due to high levels of fine sediment (USFS 2011 unpublished data). Tronsen and Scotty Creek were found to have high embeddedness with many pools (>50%) having high levels of fine sediment (>20% threshold). Shaser and the mainstem of Peshastin Creek were found to be less embedded. The Chumstick Watershed Assessment (USFS 1999b) found reaches within Chumstick Creek that were embedded with between 30-35% fines. Most sites that were surveyed were found to have an embedded substrate. Due to the soil profile in the watershed, Chumstick Creek may have a normally high level of fine sediment in the substrate. Habitat in the Eagle Creek drainage was noted as having abundant fine sediment although no data on embeddedness is noted.

Large Woody Material (LWM) According to 2011 habitat surveys, large wood abundance in Scotty, Tronsen, and Shaser Creek ranges from 26-44 pieces per mile with most pieces being small (>20’L, >6” diameter) in size (USFS unpublished data 2011). The mainstem of Peshastin Creek has a low amount of wood, mostly as a result of State Highway 97 and mining activity that has been active for over 100 years. At total of only 28 pieces of LWM (>20’ long and >6” diameter) were counted in a 2011 survey of the Peshastin Creek mainstem above Ingalls Creek. Most of this wood was of a small size class (<35’ length and <12” diameter) and was above the confluence with Tronsen Creek. Tributary streams have also been severely impacted by forest roads, mining and riparian harvest. Only one piece of LWM in the large size class (>35’ length and >20” diameter) were found in major tributaries (Scotty, Tronsen, and Shaser Creeks) and the majority of LWM (104 of 133 pieces per mile or 78%) counted was of the small size class. LWM per mile ranged from a low of 17 to a high of just 46 pieces per mile in these tributaries. Those areas that have "reasonable" amounts of wood are directly correlated with areas that have not been harvested or have little to no roading. Also of note is that processes for the delivery of woody debris have been interrupted either through harvest or through numerous road crossings that prevent the transport of this woody debris downstream. Most of the large class LWM is limited to old, remnant pieces with very little potential for new large wood recruitment. In comparison, Devils Gulch, which is in the same land type (Swauk) and is unmanaged, has 71 pieces of woody debris per mile.

The Chumstick watershed is also lacking in large wood. Surveys have generally found an abundance of small wood in the channel but a lack of large wood. Densities of large wood in the Chumstick range from 0 to 11 pieces per mile (USFS 1999b). This lack of LWM may be the result of management, debris slides, and development within riparian areas which has led to the dominance of early successional vegetation. Rather than trapping and storing sediment and gravel, wood is being flushed through the system at high flows, resulting in channel scour and increased fine sediment delivery into valley bottoms.

Pool Frequency & Quality Pools provide the slower and deeper water for fish rearing, resting, and refugia. Both Peshastin and Chumstick watershed are generally lacking in pool habitat, especially deep pool habitat (>3’ depth). Cover is limited for most all pools because of the lack of woody debris and low flows. The mainstem of Peshastin Creek has around 29% of its total area in pool habitat and average pool depth is less than 1.8 feet (2.6’ average maximum depth). In tributaries the percentage of pool habitat ranges from 18- 29% with average pool depths around 1.2 feet and no deep pools (average maximum pool depths from 1.5-1.6’) (USFS unpublished data 2011). Most pools in the watershed lack complexity and adequate 40

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning cover for fish. Overall, numerous portions of Peshastin Creek and its tributaries are functioning at unacceptable risk. Numerous factors contribute to poor pool quality and quantity, including roads and dispersed camping and recreation directly adjacent to the stream, lack of LWM (see above), mining activity, and harvest of riparian vegetation.

Chumstick Creek has similar pool frequency and quality. Within surveyed reaches, pool area was 59% of total stream area and pool density was approximately 8/mile. Average pool depths are around 2 feet and large pools are rare (USFS 1999b). Beaver activity in Chumstick Creek provides some of the available pool habitat.

Off-Channel Habitat Off-channel habitat provides important low velocity, productive rearing habitat and refugia for juvenile fish. Peshastin Creek naturally lacks the potential for off-channel habitat due to valley channel confinement. Due to the high degree of management though, most off-channel areas are occupied by roads and/or road fill or have been stranded from their streams due to channel downcutting either from channel confinement or suction dredge mining. According to 2011 USFS surveys, off-channel habitat is essentially missing from the mainstem of Peshastin Creek and in Scotty Creek and averages 1 percent in Shaser Creek and just 6 percent in Tronsen Creeks.

Chumstick Creek has more potential for off-channel habitat but these areas have generally been developed and roaded so therefore very little side or off-channel habitat exists currently. The most significant impacts to side and off-channel habitat is Highway 97 in Peshastin Creek and Chumstick Highway and the railway line in Chumstick Creek. These transportation routes channelize the creeks and disconnect their floodplains.

Riparian Forest Conditions Riparian forest plays a critical role in dissipating stream energy, providing nutrients and fish prey, reducing erosion, filtering sediment, stabilizing banks, improving flood-water retention and groundwater recharge, and providing shade and instream wood and cover. Riparian areas are poorly functioning in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds due to roads, dispersed camping and recreation, mining, irrigation diversion, housing and development, and timber harvest. Highway 97 impedes riparian function along much of the mainstem of Peshastin Creek and other streamside roads also limit riparian forest conditions in the tributaries. Most stream reaches have either overstocked riparian forest and/or a lack of late-seral vegetation and stream shading is lacking. Invasive plant species are also common in some riparian areas, especially in Chumstick Creek. All of these factors contribute to a lack of shade and woody debris, change in channel type, increases in temperature, lack of refugia, and a lack of connectivity.

Fish Species Current fish use of these watersheds includes Upper Columbia River spring and summer Chinook, coho, Upper Columbia steelhead, rainbow and redband trout, Columbia River bull trout, cutthroat trout, and a number of other small non-salmonids. Fish presence and use has been determined from a variety of sources including watershed assessments and stream surveys data. Fish species that are listed under various regulatory authorities (Endangered Species Act (ESA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Wenatchee Forest Plan Management Indicator Species (MIS), or the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and are present in the project area are listed in Table 5 and addressed in this analysis.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Table 5. Fish presence and use in the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project area.

Life History Present (egg, Creek Species Present juvenile, adult) ESA Coverage (Y/N) Peshastin Watershed Subarea Peshastin Creek Spring Chinook, Egg, juvenile, adult Species- Y Mainstem steelhead, bull trout, Critical Habitat- Y coho, rainbow Upper Peshastin Tributaries* Tronson Steelhead, cutthroat, Egg, juvenile, adult Species- Y rainbow Critical Habitat- N Scotty Steelhead, cutthroat, Egg, juvenile, adult Species- Y rainbow Critical Habitat- N Ruby Spring, Chinook, Juvenile, adult Species- Y steelhead, rainbow Critical Habitat- N Shaser Steelhead, rainbow Juvenile, adult Species- Y Critical Habitat- N Etienne Bull trout, steelhead, Juvenile, adult Species- Y rainbow/redband Critical Habitat- Y Lower Peshastin Tributaries Camas Steelhead, rainbow Juvenile Species- Y Critical Habitat- N Hansel Spring, Chinook, Juvenile, adult Species- Y steelhead, cutthroat, Critical Habitat- N rainbow Mill Steelhead, rainbow Juvenile, adult Species- Y Critical Habitat- Y Chumstick Watershed Subarea Chumstick Creek Spring Chinook, Egg, juvenile, adult Species- Y Mainstem Steelhead, coho, Critical Habitat- Y rainbow Eagle Creek Steelhead, rainbow Egg, juvenile, adult Species- Y Mainstem Critical Habitat- Y * The fish species listed in this table are those likely to be present given the habitat conditions in Tronsen, Scotty, Ruby, and Shaser creeks.

Spring Chinook Salmon Spring Chinook occur in low numbers in mainstem Peshastin Creek, lower Ingalls Creek, Hansel Creek, and Ruby Creek. Chinook spawn primarily in the mainstem of Peshastin Creek and use larger tributaries for rearing. Peshastin Creek is considered a minor spawning area for the population and there is very little evidence of natural-origin spring Chinook spawning in the watershed (UCRTT 2008). Spring Chinook have been reintroduced to the watershed in recent years using out-of-basin non- ESA listed stock. Beginning in 2001 and continuing annually through 2004 a portion of the adult hatchery spring Chinook that returned to Leavenworth NFH were outplanted to Peshastin Creek in a joint effort by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and the Yakama Indian Nation (Cooper and Mallas 2004).

Within lower Peshastin Creek, occasional spawning, rearing and migration use does occur. Spawning typically occurs from river mile 5.2 (Mill Cr) to 9.3 (Ingalls Cr). Rearing typically occurs from river 42

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning mile 0 to 14.8 (Magnet Cr) (Andonaegui 2001). Spawning surveys by Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) since 1989 have found an average of 10 redds per year (Hillman et al. 2011).

Chumstick Creek supports limited spring Chinook rearing (Titus 1997); however, fish passage improvements over the past 5 years should improve passage for juvenile fish and may allow for expanded use of the watershed by this species. Currently spring Chinook use is limited to rearing in the first 0.3 miles of Chumstick Creek (Andonaegui 2001). The watershed is considered a minor spawning area for spring Chinook although currently there is no known spring Chinook spawning (UCRTT 2008). Critical habitat has not been designated for spring Chinook in Chumstick Creek but has been designated in Peshastin Creek in the mainstem up to and including the lower few miles of Ingalls Creek. Both areas are under the EFH listing for Chinook salmon.

Steelhead Salmon Steelhead are known users of the mainstem of Peshastin Creek and are thought to use most other tributaries in the watershed. The watershed is considered a major spawning area for steelhead (UCRTT 2008) and critical habitat has been designated in the mainstem Peshastin, Mill Creek, and Ingalls Creek. Steelhead use would be expected mainly in the early spring and possibly as late as July for adults. Juvenile steelhead would be expected to be in the drainage throughout the year. Recent spawner surveys by WDFW found an average of 59 redds in Peshastin Creek between 2004 and 2010 (Hillman et al. 2011).

Presently, steelhead occupy habitat in the mainstem of Chumstick Creek (RM 0-6.0) and Eagle Creek (RM 0-0.6). Adult steelhead have been found as far as 5.7 miles upstream of the mouth of Chumstick Creek (Douglas County PUD, 2000, unpublished data). The upstream extent of steelhead distribution in Eagle Creek is approximately RM 1.0 (Mullan et al. 1992). Steelhead likely rear in the lower Chumstick and in Eagle Creek as well as some of the larger tributaries to reaches adjacent to where spawning occurs. Critical habitat for steelhead has been designated in the mainstem of Chumstick Creek and Eagle Creek.

Coho Salmon Coho populations in the mid-Columbia region have been considered extirpated in mid-Columbia tributaries since the 1930’s. Reintroduction of the species has been ongoing at various locations within the Wenatchee watershed over the past several decades, however their current use of habitat throughout the basin has not been well described. Since the Yakama Nation’s program of coho feasibility studies began in 1996, coho have been found spawning in the mainstem Wenatchee River (near the Wenatchee River confluence to Lake Wenatchee); in Nason, Beaver, Icicle, Peshastin, Chumstick and Mission creeks; and possibly in Chiwawa River. Coho may overwinter or seek refuge in both Chumstick and Peshastin Creek given habitat conditions in these areas and habitat preferences for the species. At one point coho salmon may have been a substantial part of the population of salmonids in Chumstick Creek due to the amount of low gradient, unconfined habitat that likely existed prior to development. Currently, the lack of adequate off-channel habitat likely limits their use of these areas currently.

Bull Trout A resident bull trout population occurs in Ingalls Creek and migratory bull trout have been found to occur in the mainstem of Peshastin Creek, Ingalls Creek, and Etienne Creek as well. Three individuals (<12 inches) were seen in the very lowest portions of Peshastin Creek in 1996 (USFWS unpublished data). According to the Washington State Department of Fisheries, Draft Bull Trout Species Management Guide (WDFW 1992), the last date bull trout were known to inhabit the main portion of Peshastin Creek was 1978. This report also indicated that surveys for bull trout along Peshastin Creek 43

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning from Tronsen Creek to Scotty Creek also failed to show evidence that these fish are users of this part of the drainage. Other surveys for fish species have also failed to show evidence of bull trout outside of Ingalls Creek most likely due to high temperatures, high sediment loads and poor habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife snorkel and shocking surveys in 1993 and 1995; Forest Service Stream Surveys from 1990-94; Mullen 1992).

One documented sighting of a bull trout was found in Chumstick Creek in 2009 near the mouth, however no other documentation exists of their presence or use of this watershed. Bull trout are unlikely to utilize the habitat due to water quality, flow, fine sediment levels, and lack of LWM and channel roughness features. Other contributing factors include competition with non-native brook trout and impassable barriers in some of the upper water portions of the watershed. Critical habitat has not been designated for bull trout in Chumstick Creek but has been designated in Lower Peshastin, Etienne Creek, and Ingalls Creek.

Redband and Rainbow Trout Rainbow trout have been stocked in Chumstick Creek and its tributaries (1933-1991) and continue to occur throughout the watershed (Titus 1997; USFS unpublished data 1997). Rainbow trout also occur through Peshastin Creek and genetic work on the rainbow found in the lower Etienne Creek drainage indicate these fish have a "good" genetic purity rating and were considered interior redband rainbow.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Within the project area, cutthroat trout are only known to be in the Peshastin watershed and occur from the mouth of Peshastin Creek to the headwaters, including Hansel Creek, Scotty Creek, and Tronsen Creek. The distribution and abundance of cutthroat trout may be limited by poor water quality and competition with other resident species.

Direct and Indirect Effects The effects of roads were analyzed to determine changes in the hydrology, sediment yield, water quality, fish habitat, and fish populations within the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Road mileage, road density, and the number of stream crossings, as well as the proximity of roads to streams and the stream network drainage all provided information about the effects of Alternative 1 and 2. Table 6 summarizes the results of this analysis and the following narrative explains in more detail how aquatic habitat could be affected by these alternatives. In most cases the effects to aquatic resources were more generally described by the known effects that roads have on watershed function and fish habitat.

Table 6. Summary of aquatic resource evaluation metrics for comparison of alternatives.

Alternative 2

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Indicators (No Action) Peshastin- 336 mi. Peshastin- 284 mi. Number of miles of roads Chumstick- 281 mi. Chumstick- 270 mi. Total Road density Peshastin- 2.5 mi./sq.mi. Peshastin- 2.1 mi./sq.mi. Chumstick- 3.6 mi./sq.mi. Chumstick- 3.4 mi./sq.mi. USFS Stream crossings Peshastin- 135 crossings (0.6/mi.) Peshastin- 105 crossings (0.6/mi.) (density) Chumstick- 128 crossings (0.6/mi.) Chumstick- 114 crossings (0.5/mi.)

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

USFS Road proximity to Peshastin- 57 mi. Peshastin- 45 mi. streams (within 300’) Chumstick- 109 mi. Chumstick- 105 mi.

Peshastin- 427 mi. (53% from roads) Peshastin- 375 mi. (47% from roads) Stream network drainage Chumstick- 405 mi. (57% from roads) Chumstick- 394 mi. (56% from roads)

Alternative 1 (No Action) Under Alternative 1 roads would remain on the landscape and would be managed and maintained according to current policy, regulations, and standards. Some roads may be closed or decommissioned in the future as a result of other projects. Roads that are currently closed would remain unmaintained. Those roads currently at-risk for road failure (or those that have already failed) will remain in this state. Direct and indirect effects of not decommissioning these roads to aquatic resources (including fish, fish habitat, hydrology, and soils/sediment yield) are described below. Table 6 summarizes the relevant metrics that were used to evaluate the effects of the alternative on soil, watershed, and riparian/aquatic resources.

More information about the risks to aquatic resources under Alternative 1 is provided below.

Effects to Hydrology Hydrologic processes that control infiltration and the flow of surface and subsurface water are severely impacted by forest roads. Under Alternative 1 roads would continue to affect the hydrology of the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. The relatively impermeable surfaces of roads cause surface runoff of rain and snowmelt water to bypass longer, slower subsurface flow routes in soils. Where roads are in-sloped to a ditch, as most of the roads in this project are, the ditch extends the drainage network, collects surface water from the road surface and subsurface water intercepted by road cuts and transports this water quickly to streams. This process increases flow routing efficiency and may result in increased magnitude of peak stream flows. Efficiencies in routing water through the system through interception and increased runoff may also result in less water available for late-season flow. This results in lower base flows as a result of road systems (Tague and Band 2001).

Until a road is removed and natural drainage patterns are restored, the road is likely to continue to affect the routing of water through watersheds. Road networks in these drainages have increased the drainage network and would continue to add more drainage networks over time when roads and their drainage systems and stream crossings fail. Increased drainage networks would continue to alter flow routing efficiency and change the overall timing of the hydrograph (Wemple et al. 1996; Bowling and Lettenmaier 2002).

Road density, road proximity to streams, and the number of stream crossings are all useful indicators of the potential for the road system to affect hydrologic function. The increase in the drainage network due to the ditch length can also be generated and used to evaluate the potential impact of the road system. Under Alternative 1, a total of 617 miles of roads would remain on the landscape and have the potential to influence hydrology. Stream network drainage would be at or above 832 miles, >50% of which could be from the road drainage network (based on stream miles and road miles in the watersheds). The majority (82%) of the road system in Peshastin would remain interconnected with the stream network (based on drainage area) and almost 50% of roads in Chumstick would have the potential to frequently or continuously restrict floodplain function and to intercept both surface runoff and/or groundwater (USFS 2010a; USFS 2011).

Effects to Sediment Yield

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Effects of roads on sediment generation are closely tied to runoff generation and diversion. Sediment yield from roads occur as a result of chronic erosion from road surfaces and road drainage and from road-related slope failure. If left untreated, the roads proposed for decommissioning would continue to contribute sediment to streams through chronic erosion and failure. Eventually, if not maintained, nearly all of the drainage crossings would plug, and fills at crossings would be eroded and transported as sediment. If flows are sufficiently large or continuous, a headcut scarp would develop at the toe of the fill and progress upslope. If not stopped, the entire road fill could be eroded by the new drainage location. Some roads would have natural revegetation and ditch filling which would reduce the potential for chronic sedimentation but the risks to failure-related sedimentation would likely persist without decommissioning.

Predicting sediment yield from the Alternative 1 road system relies on a number of different factors including road location and condition (e.g. distance from streams, culvert condition, drainage condition, surfacing, etc.), geologic hazards (e.g. landslide potential, soils, bedrock depth, etc.) and hydrologic hazards (e.g. peak flow events). Under this alternative there would continue to be chronic amounts of sediment generated associated with native surface and gravel roads and ditchlines of all roads. There are also stream crossings and road segments with the potential for catastrophic failure and the potential to deposit large amounts of sediment into the stream system. Unpaved roads in close proximity to streams (within 300’) would have the greatest potential to deliver sediment to streams (Belt et al. 1992; Rashin et al. 2006). USFS roads make up the majority of unpaved roads in both watersheds. A total of 166 miles of USFS roads, or 38%, are within 300’ of streams under Alternative 1. The number of road crossings is also a good indication of road-related erosion potential. The greater number of stream crossings within a watershed the more likely that sediment will be delivered to streams. Under Alternative 1 there would be 135 stream crossings in Peshastin watershed and 128 stream crossings in Chumstick watershed. This equates to 0.6 crossings per square mile of watershed.

Effects to Water Quality The principal water quality variables that may be influenced by roads are water temperature and suspended sediment. Overall, the impacts of Alternative 1 to water quality are difficult to quantify but can be described in terms of the effects roads generally have on water quality. Temperature is largely impacted by the effects roads have on riparian vegetation and hydrology. Where streamside vegetation has been removed, summer water temperatures usually increase in direct proportion to the increase in sunlight that reaches the water surface. Smaller streams have a greater potential for increases in temperature from streamside roads than do larger streams, because a greater proportion of their surface areas will be newly exposed to warming effect of the sun (Chamberlin et al. 1991). The mileage of roads within 300 feet of streams is a good indicator of the effect roads may be having on stream temperature given the probability that these roads are impacting riparian shading. Under the No Action Alternative, 57 miles of stream in Peshastin watershed and 109 miles of stream in Chumstick watershed would continue to be impacted by streamside USFS roads. Temperature impacts may also result from changes to hydrology. Lower base flows and/or reduced groundwater influence can increase water temperature. These impacts are expected under the No Action Alternative (see above).

As described above, roads can influence suspended fine sediment in streams. These changes result in impaired water quality directly through turbidity and indirectly through impacts to stream temperature (through changes in stream bed morphology). Road-related erosion has been found to significantly increase chronic turbidity in streams. Studies have found an increase in the average annual duration of high turbidity events of over 73 as a result of roads (Reid 1998). As mentioned above, roads in close proximity to streams and roads in highly unstable areas have the greatest potential to impact turbidity levels (Belt et al. 1992; Rashin et al. 2006). The measure of streamside roads is a good indicator of

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning impacts to turbidity and under the No Action Alternative 166 miles of streamside roads would remain in the road system and contribute to chronic and pulse turbidity in streams.

Effects to Aquatic Habitat Under Alternative 1 the Peshastin road system would remain at 336 miles and total road densities would remain at 2.5 mi./sq. mi. (3.4 mi./sq. mi. outside the roadless Ingalls Creek subwatershed). The Chumstick road system would remain at 281 miles with total road densities of 3.6 mi./sq. mi. Road densities greater than 1.7 mi./sq. mi. have been found to result in negative impacts to aquatic resources (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) and therefore negative impacts to aquatic habitat would be expected. As part of the Peshastin Minimum Roads Analysis (USFS 2010a), the Forest Service evaluated the risk of the road system to aquatic habitat. The following parameters were fed into a modeling system to develop aquatic risk ratings for each road: road density, stream crossing density/count, road proximity to streams, road surface erosion potential, and road/stream connectivity. More than 75% of the road system was found to have a moderate to high risk potential for aquatic habitat (USFS 2010a). Under Alternative 1 these risks would not be diminished and would likely increase over time as roads degrade and fail due to lack of maintenance and use.

The road system in Chumstick was evaluated in the 2011 Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (USFS 2011). Based on that analysis over 50% of the roads in the watershed are at moderate to high risk to aquatic habitat and under Alternative 1 these risks would continue unabated.

Negative impacts to hydrologic function and sediment loading (as described above) have the greatest potential to impact fish habitat. Many of these impacts result from the effects that road systems have on numerous habitat attributes including channel and floodplain structure and function, substrate, and riparian conditions (Furniss et al. 1991). A total of 57 miles of USFS road in the Peshastin watershed and 109 miles of USFS road in the Chumstick watershed would remain within 300’ of streams. Roads within this close proximity have a high likelihood of contributing to the loss of riparian function, degraded floodplain connectivity, decreased bank stability, altered channel morphology, and increased sediment yields. Other effects from roads include an elevated potential for chemical contamination, invasive plant and animal introduction, changes to aquatic food webs and prey availability, and increased human impacts.

Effects to Fish Alternative 1 would not result in direct effects to fish as there would be no roads decommissioned or converted to trails. Indirect effects would be through impacts to hydrology, water quality, and fish habitat as described above. The individual effects described below influence population-level viability and resilience within these watersheds. The effects of degraded habitat and reduced growth and survival have a negative long-term impact on the abundance, productivity, spatial structure and life history diversity of the fish population. Since the juvenile life stage is most impacted (primarily through sediment and hydrologic effects on habitat), population-level effects are likely given the influence of this important life stage to overall population viability and health (Kareiva et al. 2000). Steelhead and resident trout species are especially susceptible to road-related effects since they remain in streams up to two years or longer.

Migration Juvenile and adult migration can be affected through the impacts roads have directly and indirectly on stream connectivity. Roads affect stream hydrology (see above) which can influence the ability of fish to move within the stream system. Lower base flows may affect adult migration in the summer and fall and higher peak flows can affect juvenile migration in the winter and spring. Improperly designed road crossings can also affect the ability of fish to migrate. Road related slope failures and road crossing 47

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning failures can also cause fish passage barriers. As these road systems deteriorate the likelihood of new fish passage barriers would increase. Stream crossings can also impede gravel movement, leading to bed aggradation and subsurface flows that block migration. Ice buildup at culverts is another source of road-related barriers to migration.

Spawning Adult fish (especially salmonids) have specific habitat requirements for spawning and the abundance and quality of spawning substrate can be severely affected by road-related sedimentation. Fine sediment can be deposited in gravel interstices, even in fast-moving streams. If sediment becomes too embedded with fine sediment fish may be unable to spawn. In some low-velocity streams suitable spawning substrate may be completely covered, rendering the reach useless for spawning. This impact could be especially great in Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds since suitable spawning reaches are already limited. Sedimentation may also lead to decreased width-to-depth ratios, increased bank erosion, reduced pool volume and frequency, and decreased flows. These changes can also contribute to the loss of spawning habitat and decreased spawning success.

Incubation Successful incubation in stream gravels depends on adequate water flow to provide oxygen and remove carbon dioxide and waste. If flow is inadequate due to fine sediment within the substrate egg development can be slowed or eggs can die. Fry emergence can likewise be hampered by excessive fine sediments that trap fry in the gravel (Chapman 1988). Changes in flow can also affect incubation success. Increased peak flow and runoff could lead to increased redd scour and egg loss.

Rearing Roads can adversely affect juvenile rearing in several ways. Large amounts of fine sediment affect stream substrate, water quality, and channel form and function. Affects to substrate can influence the amount and quality of benthic macroinvertebrate, thereby limiting the food available to juvenile fish. Non-embedded substrate is also important to providing refugia during rearing and the loss of this type of habitat likely affect rearing potential (Suttle et al. 2004). Increased turbidity (as described above) can also lead to reduced growth and survival of juveniles (Berg and Northcote 1985). Excessive fine sediment, hydrologic changes, and roads in floodplains can modify the stream channel configuration; thereby reducing rearing opportunity and capacity. Higher peak flows and lower base flows that are related to road networks can also reduce the time and areas that fish are able to rear. Lastly, effects to riparian forest (most often from roads within close proximity to streams) influences rearing potential because riparian vegetation provides important components of rearing habitat, including shade, food supply, channel stability, and channel structure (Furniss et al. 1991).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Direct effects are impacts that result in direct effects to individuals. Instream construction activities utilizing large machinery within the active channel during culvert removal and road decommissioning would cause the greatest potential for direct effects to fish and their habitat. Specifically, construction- related turbidity may result in injury or death to fish in Peshastin or Chumstick Creek or associated tributaries.

Indirect effects are impacts that alter a resource or habitat conditions. Indirect impacts have delayed or unforeseen effects that occur in the future or in a different location than the original action. For purposes of this analysis, negative indirect effects are associated with delayed sediment delivery and deposition to tributaries from instream construction activities. As previously discussed, roads can have many indirect effects on fish and fish habitat. Under Alternative 2 these effects would be lessened due to the decommissioning of roads. In the long term, road decommissioning would improve hydrologic function, reduce unnatural sediment yield, improve water quality, and improve fish habitat. Long-term 48

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning beneficial effects are expected for fish species and their critical habitat. The project would not only benefit seasonal fish migration, but would decrease aquatic habitat fragmentation. Removal of roads would restore connectivity and allow wood, water, and sediment and aquatic organisms to move more naturally through these stream and river systems.

Effects to Hydrology Under Alternative 2 roads would continue to affect the hydrology of the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds in a manner similar to that described above but to a lesser degree than under Alternative 1, the no action alternative. With implementation, total road miles would be reduced from 617 to 554 miles (an 11% reduction) and road crossings would be reduced 17% to a total of 263 crossings. Road density would be reduced between 5-17%. Potential stream network drainage would be reduced 8% but close to 50% could still be contributed by roads (based on stream miles and road miles in the watersheds). The majority (78% or 193 miles) of the road system in Peshastin would remain interconnected with the stream network (based on drainage area) but the 4% reduction of interconnected roads would improve local hydrologic function in some drainages. Although reduced by 2%, almost half the roads in Chumstick would continue to have the potential to frequently or continuously restrict floodplain function and to intercept both surface runoff and/or groundwater (USFS 2010a; USFS 2011). Overall there would be little change to the overall hydrologic function of the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds but any change that does occur would be toward a more natural and less road-influenced hydrology.

Effects to Sediment Yield Short-Term Short duration pulses of sediment into streams and tributaries may occur during and after construction and road decommissioning activities. Sediment pulses are associated with (1) removing culverts from the stream channel, (2) diverting the stream into a temporary diversion channel, (3) diverting the stream back into the reconstructed channel, (4) high flow events capable of mobilizing sediment after project completion. Streambank erosion and lateral channel migration also contribute sediments through natural events if protective vegetation and living root systems are removed (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Generally it has been found that post-project erosion and sedimentation is low when compared to the untreated condition (Madej 2001; Cook and Dresser 2004). During the first winter after treatment, erosion and elevated turbidity within the restored stream crossings is common but erosion diminishes considerably over the following year (Klein 2003). Active decommissioning on roads with numerous stream crossings and/or large segments of ground disturbance would contribute considerably more short-term sedimentation to streams than would passive decommissioning. Over the short-term, some areas may experience elevated rates of sedimentation above what would occur in the absence of decommissioning (above current condition).

Long-Term Although sediment loading may increase over the short-term (6 months to 1 year) under Alternative 2, over the long-term sediment yield would be appreciably reduced through the decommissioning of roads. Decommissioning reduces sediment loading from roads by removing the features that contribute to chronic and pulse erosion. Culvert and stream crossing fill removal, crossdrains, treatment of unstable areas, subsoiling, and planting can all reduce the sediment yield from a previous road over time (Cook and Dresser 2004; Weaver and Hagans 1994). These methods are designed to hydrologically disconnect the existing road prism from the drainage network and re-stabilize the slope.

Under Alternative 2, long-term sediment delivery from the road systems in Peshastin and Chumstick watershed would persist but at a reduced level from what is proposed under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Total road miles would be reduced to 554 miles (a 14% reduction). USFS road 49

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning mileage within 300’ of streams would be reduced 10% to 150 miles. Road density would be reduced 17% in Peshastin watershed (to 2.4 mi./sq. mi.) and 5% in Chumstick watershed (to 3.8 mi./sq. mi.). The number of stream crossings would be reduced by 17% to 219 crossings. Sediment yields are expected to be reduced over the long-term for areas with the most road decommissioning (Scotty, Tronson, Ruby, Camas, Hansel, Freund, and East Van Creeks).

Effects to Water Quality Although short-term (6 months to 1 year), localized (multiple reach scale) impacts to turbidity are likely to occur as a result of implementing decommissioning activities (see above); over the long-term there is expected to be improved turbidity levels as overall sediment loading is reduced. The magnitude of this improvement would be small but would be toward a positive impact on water quality. Given that only 10% of roads that are being decommissioned are within riparian areas (300 feet of streams) there is only a small likelihood of any change in water quality (stream temperature and turbidity) as a result of implementation of decommissioning under Alternative 2. However, any change that could occur would be toward improved stream temperature as a result of increased riparian forest condition and therefore improved shading.

Effects to Aquatic Habitat Implementation of the proposed action would result in a road system where the risk to aquatic habitat from roads is reduced due to the synergistic benefits from improved hydrology, sediment yield, water quality, and riparian function (as described above). These changes would lead toward improved channel and floodplain function, substrate, instream complexity, and aquatic food webs. Because a large proportion of the road system would remain on the landscape some negative impacts to aquatic habitat would continue unabated.

Under Alternative 2 total road miles would be reduced to 554 miles. Road density would be reduced to 3.4 mi./sq. mi in the Chumstick watershed and to 2.1 mi./sq. mi. in the Peshastin watershed. Road densities greater than 1.7 mi./sq. mi. have been found to result in negative impacts to aquatic resources (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) and therefore negative impacts to aquatic habitat would continue. Roads within 300 feet of streams have the greatest potential to negatively impact stream habitat and under Alternative 2 USFS road mileage within 300’ of streams would be reduced 10%. Based on the aquatic habitat risk indicators (based on road density, stream crossing density/count, road proximity to streams, road surface erosion potential, and road/stream connectivity) assessed in the Peshastin Minimum Roads Assessment and Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (USFS 2010a; USFS 2011) the percentage of roads with a moderate to high risk to aquatic resources would be reduced by 3% (7.5 miles) in Peshastin watershed and 2% (2.7 miles) in Chumstick watershed.

Effects to Fish Alternative 2 could directly impact fish through the process of decommissioning 64 miles of roads, which can involve work in an active stream channel where fish reside. Whenever culvert or fill removal is associated with road decommissioning work, the potential exists to create localized turbidity which can harm fish. Decommissioning work done at stream crossings has the greatest likelihood of directly affecting fish. Under Alternative 2 a total of 44 crossings would be removed. The use of heavy equipment could disturb the stream channel and cause impacts to fish. Design criteria (e.g. timing) would reduce or minimize this risk. Direct impacts could range from short-term reduction in feeding efficiency to incidental mortality. Given that most of the road decommissioning is within fishless headwater streams, the likelihood of direct impacts to fish is minimal however some short-term sedimentation of streams downstream may occur. Once exposed soil is re-vegetated and stabilized, erosion would continue to decrease over time to levels that are likely to be lower than current sediment 50

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning loading from the road (Cook and Dresser 2004). Any sediment that is disturbed would likely be mobilized during the first winter and be redistributed downstream temporarily.

Indirect effects to fish would be through benefits to fish habitat as described above. These benefits would take 10-50 years to realize as slopes stabilize, riparian areas revegetate and recover, stream channels reconfigure, drainage networks shrink, substrates are scoured of fine sediment, and LWM increases over time. These positive changes in habitat function would lead to improved growth and survival of individual fish through enhanced spawning, incubation, rearing, and migration. Steelhead and resident species are most likely to benefit the most from implementation of Alternative 2 due to their wide distribution and long residency in headwater streams. Lesser benefits may occur for spring Chinook and coho salmon which occur less frequently and lower in the watersheds.

Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis includes the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages and the timeframe considered is 2012 to 2019 as this is the time period that road decommissioning activities would occur. Leading up to implementation, numerous past and ongoing management actions have affected and continue to affect fish populations, aquatic habitat, sediment yields and watershed function in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. The overall the cumulative effect of past activities on the baseline has been toward the loss and degradation of instream habitat and fish populations, water quality and hydrologic function. Some current and future actions are expected to overlap with the proposed alternatives and are discussed below.

Actions such as prescribed burning and fuels reduction projects on state and private lands and on public land under various USFS projects (Lower Peshastin EA, Chumstick HFRA project, non-commercial thinning CE) will have some short-term negative effects on sediment yields and aquatic resources (e.g. temporary roads, opening and use of roads, ground disturbance) but improved conditions will result over time due to decreased fire potential, and improve forest health will lead to long-term positive benefits. Road repair and maintenance projects in Peshastin watershed (Scotty Creek and TipTop) will decrease risks to aquatic resources. The Forest Service is currently undertaking an evaluation of landscape-level restoration potential in the Peshastin watershed under the Okanagan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy (USFS 2010b). The resulting Peshastin Landscape Restoration project may require temporary roads to be built that would be decommissioned after their use. The Landscape Restoration project may provide additional opportunities for road decommissioning and other projects to restore aquatic habitat. The net outcome is a benefit to aquatic resources.

Consistency Findings Clean Water Act Water bodies that do not meet established standards are identified on Washington State’s list of impaired water bodies (the 303(d) list), and a non-degradation policy for all waters that exceed standards is prepared. This policy protects these waters from any further degradation. The Washington Dept. of Ecology has established a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Wenatchee National Forest to address streams on the 303(d) list (Whiley and Cleland 2003). The primary objectives of the TMDL are to examine pollutant sources and determine the pollutant reductions necessary to achieve the water quality standard. Both Peshastin and Chumstick watershed contain reaches listed on the State of Washington 303(d) list for impairments to temperature, flow, dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal coliform. The Implementation Strategy for improving water quality lists actions needed to meet TMDL standards. The implementation of the TMDL will be in coordination with the Wenatchee Watershed Management Plan (WWMP), the Wenatchee Watershed Planning Unit (WWPU), and the WWPU’s

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Water Quality Technical Subcommittee (WQTS). Implementation of the proposed action would contribute toward implementing the following actions:

Implementation action item #4 (WWMP, 7.4.2) Actions to improve shade near surface waters should be implemented. The WQTS should encourage implementation of a prioritized list of areas and plans for establishing riparian vegetation. Associated monitoring should be planned and implemented over time, as site potential riparian vegetation requires many years to become established. The WQTS should coordinate with the WWPU’s other subcommittee conclusions, recommendations, and actions to reduce water temperatures.

Implementation action item #5 (WWMP, 7.4.2) For USFS managed land, the riparian reserves prescriptions in the Northwest Forest Plan should continue to be maintained for the establishment of site potential riparian vegetation, where appropriate.

Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply. Standard and guidelines give specific management direction for Riparian Reserves that provide for the attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Riparian Reserves include those portions of a watershed directly coupled to streams and rivers, that is, the portions of a watershed required for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes and ponds, wetlands, streams, stream processes, and fish habitats. Riparian Reserves also include primary source areas for wood and sediment such as unstable and potentially unstable areas in headwater areas and along streams. Riparian Reserves occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, intermittent stream channels and ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. Riparian Reserves generally parallel the stream network but also include other areas necessary for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes.

Consistency with Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines for roads within the Riparian Reserves is assessed by addressing consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. However, there are Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines that address: Minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow. Closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads based on the ongoing and potential effects to Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and considering short-term and long-term transportation needs. Minimizing sediment delivery to streams from roads. Providing and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams.

An assessment of consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives is completed later in this section. The Proposed Action is designed to minimize disruption of natural, hydrologic flow paths, minimize sediment delivery and provide for fish passage.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives The following is a summary of the proposed project’s consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (ROD B-10).

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Objective 1: Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted. The project is designed to restore natural drainage patterns (both surface and subsurface) which would restore natural travel paths for aquatic organisms by removing barriers. Removing roads has the potential to restore floodplain connectivity, reduce aquatic habitat fragmentation, thus increasing the complexity of stream habitat. By restoring natural flowpaths for water, sediment and large woody material channel components that contribute to channel complexity (pool quantity and quality, substrate, flows) would be enhanced.

Objective 2: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity in and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Restoring natural drainage patterns would restore spatial and temporal connectivity because riparian areas associated with stream crossings would become continuous, and surface and subsurface flows would follow natural patterns.

Objective 3: Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. Removal of roads including culverts restores streambanks and bottom configurations at stream crossings. Natural streambank and streambed configurations would be established above, through and below existing stream crossings.

Objective 4: Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain in the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. The project has the objective of restoring or improving water quality by reducing existing chronic sediment sources and/or by reducing the risk of catastrophic failure of stream crossings. There may be short-term impacts to water quality (increased sedimentation) when the projects are implemented (during culvert removal). However, project design criteria were developed to minimize these impacts and keep them to an acceptable level.

Objective 5: Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. Road decommissioning has the potential of maintaining or restoring the sediment regime, by removing obstructions or pinch points where sediment transport is impeded. In addition, chronic sediment sources associated with the road surface and ditchlines would be removed.

Objective 6: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected. This project is designed to restore in-stream flows and provide for natural hydrologic and sediment regimes. By reducing the stream drainage network and removing impervious surfaces associated with the road, natural flowpaths would be restored and stream flow routing efficiency would approximate undisturbed levels and would not result in increased magnitude of peak stream flows. Improvement of 53

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning stream crossings and restoration of areas where streams have been channelized or narrowed would reduce risks of increased peak flows, which can result in bank erosion and channel bed scour. Removal of stream crossings and restoration of the crossing using stream simulation techniques would provide for sediment, nutrient, and wood routing.

Objective 7: Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Road decommissioning would restore natural hillslope flow processes, re-establishing natural drainage patterns, providing for restoration of floodplain inundation characteristics.

Objective 8: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Areas impacted by the implementation of this project would be planted, seeded, and/or mulched. Seed may be native plants or non-persistent non-natives. These plants would rapidly provide ground cover, thereby reducing erosion. They would be replaced by native plants in a few years. Road decommissioning and associated culvert removal should reduce surface erosion, bank erosion, and allow for natural levels of channel migration.

Objective 9: Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Road decommissioning activities would restore vegetation, streamflow, and erosion patterns, enhancing terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal populations.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, or Special Status (PETS) Fish and/or Aquatic Species The Okanagan-Wenatchee National Forest uses trout and salmon species as management indicator species (MIS) for aquatic habitats due to their sensitivity to habitat changes and water quality degradation. In addition, some species are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered for a number of factors related to species status and threats. Habitat has also been listed under ESA as critical for recovery (as Critical Habitat). Some species have been listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester for similar reasons related to status and habitat. Another important listing is Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for some species under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Table 7 lists the effects of the alternatives on all MIS, ESA, Sensitive, and Magnuson-Stevens species.

Table 7. Species listed in the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning Project area and the effects of the alternatives.

Effects of Alternatives*

Species Habitat Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Present in Present in (No Action) Project Area Project Area

Endangered Species Act Listing

Upper Columbia Spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus Yes Yes NE NLAA

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning tshawytscha)- Endangered & Critical Habitat

Upper Columbia Steelhead- (Oncorhynchus Yes Yes NE NLAA mykiss)- Threatened & Critical Habitat

Columbia River Bull Trout- (Salvelinus Yes Yes NE NLAA confluentus)- Threatened & Critical Habitat

Regional Forester’s Special Status Species Listing

River Lamprey- Sensitive Unknown Yes NI MIIH

Umatilla Dace- Sensitive No No NI NI

Pygmy Whitefish- Sensitive No No NI NI

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Listing

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)- EFH Yes Yes NAA NAA

Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)- EFH Yes Yes NAA NAA

Forest Plan Listing

Spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)- MIS Yes Yes None Negligible

Summer Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)- Yes Yes None Negligible MIS

Sockeye Salmon- (Oncorhynchus nerka)- MIS No No None None

Steelhead- (Oncorhynchus mykiss)- MIS Yes Yes None Negligible

Bull Trout- (Salvelinus confluentus)- MIS Yes Yes None Negligible

Westslope Cutthroat- MIS Yes Yes None None *Abbreviations/Acronyms Endangered Species Act: NE- No Effect NLAA- May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Regional Forester’s Special Status: NI- No Impact MIIH- May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: NAA- Not Adversely Affected

Effects Determination to ESA Listed Fish and Critical Habitat The implementation of road decommissioning in Alternative 2, warrants a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination for endangered spring Chinook, threatened steelhead, and threatened bull trout found in the project area. This is due to the potential for short-term increases of sediment into the stream channel which these species reproduce, rear or feed in.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Designated critical habitat for these same species occurs in the proposed project areas in the mainstem of Peshastin and Chumstick Creeks and some of the connected tributaries. Project design criteria was developed to minimize or eliminate any potential affect that project elements of the action alternatives might have on water quality, fisheries, and aquatic resources. The analysis of effects determined that the probability of any potential effect to designated critical habitat would be of a short-term duration. There would be no measurable long-term effect to any habitat or baseline habitat indicator where ESA listed fish species occurs. The implementation of these projects would not have any long-term adverse effect to designated critical habitat. Therefore, an effects determination of May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) is warranted for designated critical habitat that occurs within or downstream of the project area.

To avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects to ESA listed species and critical habitat, activities would be implemented consistent with the species and activity category-appropriate design criteria and conservation measures in Bureau of Land Management/Forest Service Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington CY2007-2012 Biological Assessment and associated Biological Opinions: NMFS BO (P/NWR/2006/06532 [BLM]), FWS BO (13420-2007-F-0055).

Effects Determination to Essential Fish Habitat Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) includes those waters and substrate necessary to ensure the production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery (i.e., properly functioning habitat conditions necessary for the long-term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation). EFH includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically, accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California.

Two salmonid species are identified under the MSA and occur within the project area. These include Chinook and coho salmon. Chinook and coho salmon utilize mainstem as well as tributaries for migration, rearing, and spawning habitat. The proposed project would not have any long term adverse effect on water or substrate essential to the life history of coho and Chinook salmon that occur within the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Implementation of the projects proposed would have a short- term impact but would Not Adversely Affect (NAA) essential fish habitat for Chinook or coho salmon.

Effects Determination to Regional Forester’s Special Status Species The effects determination for special status species for Alternative 2 on river lamprey would be May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing (MIIH) for decommissioning of roads due to the potential of short-term increases of sediment into stream channels which river lamprey could reproduce, rear or feed. Pygmy whitefish and Umatilla Dace are not known to occur within the project area therefore, the effects determination is No Impact (NI) for this species.

Effects Determination to Management Indicator Species Alternative 2 would improve habitat conditions for the aquatic MIS in the project area including spring Chinook, steelhead, bull trout, and Westslope cutthroat trout. There is not likely to be any direct impacts to these species although there may be short-term, indirect effects through sedimentation during and immediately following decommissioning. In the long-term, there would be a reduction in road-induced fine sediment entering the stream system, benefiting aquatic MIS and their habitat. Therefore, the project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Wenatchee National Forest for these species and will have a negligible impact overall. There would be no impact on sockeye salmon since they do not occur in the project area. 56

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Wildlife Resources ______The section below summarizes the existing condition information along with the direct, indirect and cumulative effects from the proposed Peshastin-Chumstick Road Decommissioning project.

This section describes the terrestrial wildlife species found in the project area and the effects of the alternatives on these species. Rather than addressing all wildlife species, discussions focus on proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species, survey and manage species, Forest Plan management indicator species (MIS), and other wildlife species of special interest and their habitat (see individual species lists below).

An endangered species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under the ESA that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A proposed species or proposed critical habitat means an animal or plant species or habitat proposed in the Federal Register to be listed or designated as critical habitat under section 4 of the ESA. A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the USDA Forest Service Regional Forester for which species viability is a concern either a) because of significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or b) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution. Proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and habitat effects are summarized in this section by PETS species and status. A Biological Assessment was prepared for this project covering federally proposed, endangered, and threatened species and designated critical habitat, and is in the project file. Survey and manage species are those identified in the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001) that met three basic criteria: 1) occur or potentially occur within the Northwest Forest Plan area, 2) closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forest, and 3) the reserve system and other standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan do not appear to provide for the species persistence. A summary of these species and others of special interest, their status, and occurrence in the project area is listed in Appendix C. Many species are listed in more than one status category.

Though occurring on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, the federally threatened, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Mardon skipper, and designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx, and marbled murrelet does not occur, nor is there potential for habitat to occur, within the project area. So for that reason, there would be “no effect” from any alternative and they will not be analyzed further in this document. Similarly, Forest Service Sensitive Species Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), common loon (Gavia immer), Clark's grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii), eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), gray flycatcher (Empedinax wrightii), Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata), California mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata), striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus), VanDyke's salamander (Plethodon vandykei), Chelan Mountain snail (Oreohelix new sp. 1), Grand Coulee mountain snail (Oreohelix junii), and masked duskysnail (Lyogyrus sp. 2), potentially occur on the Forest, but do not occur, nor is there potential for habitat to occur, within the project area. So for those reasons, there would be “no impact” from any alternative and they will not be analyzed further in this document.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

The Sensitive species, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American peregrine falcon (Falco pergrinus anatum), sharptail snake (Contia tenuis), Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli), blue-gray taildropper (Prophysaon coeruleum), and Puget Oregonian snail (Cryptomastix devia) could potentially occur in the project area, but project activities would not occur in or near their habitat, nor affect them or their habitat, so no impacts would occur from any alternative. Potential habitat for the Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) occurs in the project area. The fisher was likely extirpated from the State of Washington and the only known population is on the Olympic Peninsula where it was reintroduced in February 2008 (Aubry and Lewis 2003, Lewis and Hayes 2004, FWS 2004b). For these reasons, no impacts are expected to these species and they will not be analyzed further.

The Peshastin-Chumstick Roads Decommissioning Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006). Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines, including both pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs:

“Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground- disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to: a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old: b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.” “The provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006), shall remain in force. None of the following terms or conditions in this Settlement Agreement modifies in any way the October 2006 provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006).”

The Project meets Exemptions b and c because it entails road decommissioning to improve riparian and stream improvement, therefore survey and manage species will not be analyzed further in this document.

The Federally threatened Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) and the MIS mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) have habitat in the project area, but they do not occur near any proposed treatments. The other sixteen MIS occur within the project area, but no habitat would be removed. For this reason, no effects to viability of these species are expected and they will not be analyzed further.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

In January 2001, President Clinton issued an executive order on migratory birds directing federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. Because this proposed project focuses on decommissioning existing roads, it will have no negative impact on migratory bird habitat, and would increase habitat in the longer term as these areas revegetate. All alternatives are consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186. For these reasons, migratory birds and their habitat will not be analyzed further in this document.

Existing Condition Wide-ranging Carnivores Wide-ranging carnivores that occur or potentially occur within the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning Project area include the gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), and California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus). All three species have very large home ranges, are generalists in their use of habitat, and are susceptible to disturbance from motorized traffic on open roads. A more detailed analysis for the gray wolf and grizzly bear can be found in the Biological Assessment written for the project, and located in the analysis file at the Wenatchee River Ranger District.

The gray wolf is listed as an Endangered species under the ESA (FWS 1967). Recovery regulations require consideration of potential impacts to known denning habitat or rendezvous sites (FWS 2003b:15872-15875). Gray wolves historically occurred throughout the Cascade Mountains in Washington and Oregon (Anderson 1943, Goldman 1944, Young and Goldman 1944, Hall and Kelson 1959, Nowak 1979, Pisano 1979). In 1992, a solicited howling response of an individual was confirmed as a Class I sighting in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, immediately west of the project area (Gaines et al. 1995). In 2008, a wolf pack was confirmed in the Methow Valley, with individuals currently radio-tagged and their locations monitored. In 2011, a wolf pack was confirmed in the Teanaway Valley, approximately 5 miles southwest of the project area, with an individual currently radio-tagged and her locations monitored. No sightings have been reported or confirmed in the project area.

Gray wolves are sensitive to road-associated factors but are not particularly affected by summer recreation trails (de Vos 1948, Mech et al. 1988, Thurber et al. 1994, Paquet and Callahan 1996, Boyd and Pletscher 1999). For gray wolves, both Mech et al. (1988) and Thiel (1985) found that when road densities exceed about 1 mi/mi2, wolves avoided or were displaced from areas. Mladenoff el al. (1995) found that road density was the major predictor of wolf pack location. Jensen et al. (1986) reported that road densities >1 mi/mi2 were apparent barriers to wolf dispersal. Gray wolves have been documented to abandon den sites if disturbed by humans (Mech et al. 1991). Wolves have also been documented to be killed by collisions with vehicles (Gibeau and Heuer 1996, Paquet and Callahan 1996).

Other project effects analyzed for wolves include potential disturbance, effects to security habitat, and effects to prey base. Deer and/or elk are common on each Forest and could provide a suitable prey base. Roads can influence the effectiveness of habitat for ungulates, and the security of habitat for wolves (Thiel 1985, Mech et al. 1988, Mladenoff et al. 1995). Security habitat for wolves is defined as areas with open road and motorized trail densities <1 mile/square mile of habitat. The project area provides summer range for mule deer and elk (prey base for wolves). Fawning and calving habitat is also present in the project area, typically in areas with little disturbance and heavy cover, such as riparian vegetation away more heavily travelled roads.

The grizzly bear is listed as a Threatened species, with a determination of warranted for endangered status in the North Cascades (FWS 1975, 1998). Portions of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning are located within the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (NCGBRZ). The project area falls within the Peshastin Bear Management Unit (BMU). Currently, management direction includes guidelines for sanitation and an interim “no-net-loss” of core area. A recovery chapter specific to the NCGBRZ has been completed (FWS 1997) as an amendment to the overall recovery plan (FWS 1993). Grizzly bears once occurred throughout the North Cascades (Bjorkland 1980, Sullivan 1983, Almack et al. 1993). Although the grizzly bear is considered present in the 9,565 square mile North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, the population is likely less than 50 (Almack et al. 1993) and may be as low as 6 (Romain-Bondi et al. 2004). The nearest, most recent confirmed report (Class I) of a grizzly bear was in the Boundary Butte area, in the northwest portion of the project area in 1991 (USFS 1991a).

Several studies have documented displacement of grizzly bears from trails (motorized and non- motorized) and roads (Archibald et al. 1987, Mattson et al. 1987, McLellan and Shackleton 1988, 1989; Kasworm and Manley 1990; Mace and Waller 1996, 1998; Mace et al. 1996, 1999, Ciarniello et al. 2007). Factors related to human access include increased potential for poaching, collisions with vehicles, and chronic negative human interactions at campgrounds and campsites that are accessed by roads and trails (Claar et al. 1999, Wisdom et al. 2000, Ciarniello et al. 2004, Ciarniello et al. 2007). Human access is managed by assessing the quality and quantity of seasonal habitats within core areas (IGBC 1998). Core areas are defined as areas that are greater than 500 meters from an open road, motorized trail or high-use trail.

Prey base for grizzly bears include ungulates (during fawning/calving), salmon (during spawning periods), carrion, and to a lesser extent small mammals. Vegetation is a key food source during spring emergence. Plant species such as glacier lily bulb, balsam-root, camas, and lush vegetation attract grizzly bears during late spring through early summer. In the fall, prior to hibernation, huckleberries are a prime food source in the North Cascades. Denning habitat is typically in caves or large boulder fields, in remote areas away from human disturbance. There are no known grizzly bear denning sites in or near the project area.

The California wolverine is listed as a Sensitive species and has been petitioned to be federally listed as threatened or endangered. Throughout the Cascades, the wolverine inhabits alpine, boreal forest and mixed vegetation (Copeland and Harris 1994), often associated with rocky outcrops and steep mountainous areas. Forested riparian zones at upper elevations are likely to be important forage habitats for these furbearers and provide relatively safe travel corridors that allow for animals to move within and between watersheds.

Wolverines are sensitive to road associated factors but are not particularly affected by summer recreation trails (Banci 1994). Winter recreational activities may displace wolverines from important natal dens in subalpine cirques (Copeland 1996, Hornocker and Hash 1981). Because roads and trails influence wolverines similar to wolves, the same metrics (see above) can be used to assess project impacts (Gaines et al. 2003). Prey base for wolverines include ungulates, in the form of carrion, during winter months, with vegetation, berries, and insects, small and medium-sized mammals consumed during the summer. Marmots appear to be a key item for rearing young (Magoun and Copeland 1998).

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) The spotted owl was listed as “threatened” on June 26, 1990. A revised final recovery plan (FWS 2011) and conservation strategy (USDA and USDI 1994) has been developed for the northern spotted owl. A formal 5-year status review of the northern spotted owl was completed that estimated a net increase in risk to the population, but concluded the species continues to warrant protection as a threatened species (FWS 2004a). The 5-year review, based largely on a compilation of information by 60

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning the Sustainable Ecosystem Institute (SEI) (Courtney et al. 2004), considered all information that has become available since the original listing of the northern spotted owl. The recommendation to remain listed as “threatened” was based the following points: 1) the rate of habitat loss on Federal lands has been substantially reduced, however, habitat loss from harvest continues, especially on private lands, and uncharacteristic wildfires appear to be removing habitat at an increasing rate; 2) demographic data collected over 15 years document declining populations across the species range with the most pronounced declines in British Columbia, Washington, and northern Oregon; 3) the continued decline of northern spotted owls in the northern portion of the range, despite the presence of a high proportion of habitat on Federal lands, suggests that effects from past habitat loss and modification have not yet responded to habitat protection on Federal lands; 4) the nature, magnitude, and extent of barred owl effects on northern spotted owls remain uncertain; and 5) the new threats of West Nile virus and Sudden Oak Death are potentially severe and imminent, but uncertain.

From 1994 to 2003, range-wide habitat decline due to management activities (2.11%) and natural disturbance (3.03%) was estimated at 5.14% (0.57% per year). Annual rates of habitat loss due to management activities were less than 25% of rates projected at the time of listing (Bigley and Franklin 2004), primarily due to actual rates of logging being less than anticipated (Bigley and Franklin 2004). However, threats from catastrophic habitat loss have increased on the east side of the Cascade Range due to wildfire, pests, and pathogens. While fire exclusion may have increased the amount of suitable spotted owl habitat, especially in the dry forest type, it has also resulted in a greater risk of habitat loss from wildfires, pests, and pathogens (Bigley and Franklin 2004; USFS 2004).

The barred owl was identified as a potential threat in the Final Rule listing the northern spotted owl as a threatened species (FWS 1990:26191). For at least the past 50 years the barred owl has been expanding its range into southwestern Canada, northern Rockies and Pacific states. It is not known if this range expansion was natural or facilitated by anthropogenic habitat change. The barred owl now occupies a range roughly coincident with that of the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest and continues to expand. Since barred owls were first detected throughout the range of the northern spotted owl in the 1980s and 1990s, their numbers have increased dramatically, and barred owls now occupy many territories once occupied by spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004).

The primary prey species identified in local studies include the northern flying squirrel, bushy-tailed woodrat, deer mouse, and voles (Richards 1989; Forsman et al. 2001). Woodrat and flying squirrel den sites in local dry and mesic forests are among the highest densities measured within the range of the northern spotted owl (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006a, b). Nesting activities begin in early March with incubation of the eggs from April to June. Feeding and care of the young occurs from April through August, and then juveniles disperse from natal areas in August and September. Site specific monitoring on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest has shown that within the Eastern Washington Cascades Province, after July 31, spotted owl young are mobile and generally can move from disturbance.

Several local studies have characterized nest sites of spotted owls. Buchanan et al. (1995) compared random sites with spotted owl nest sites and found that nest sites had more Douglas-fir trees 35 to 60 cm diameter at breast height (DBH), greater basal area of Douglas-fir trees, more large ponderosa pine trees (61 to 84 cm DBH), greater live tree basal area, and greater basal area of mature snags. In addition, nest sites had less basal area of new hard snags, however, volume of coarse woody debris and canopy closure did not differ between sites. Snag classes are from Buchanan (1991). Everett et al. (1997) found that spotted owl nest stands had multi-layered canopies and that the presence of shade- tolerant tree species have increased as a result of reduced fire effects. While spotted owls will nest in a wide variety of habitats within the east Cascades Physiographic Province (Buchanan and Irwin 1998), a general definition of their habitat includes multi-layered forests with closed-canopies (greater than 70%), with a component of Douglas-fir, and some “old forest” structural attributes (e.g., large trees, 61

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning mature snags). The most common nest type observed in the Eastern Cascades were those originally constructed by northern goshawks (55.3%), followed by mistletoe brooms (24.7%), cavities (10.6%), and large horizontal branches (3.5%) (Buchanan 1991). Nest trees were predominantly found in Douglas-fir (92%); other species included white pine (2%), and grand fir, western larch, ponderosa pine, western red cedar, and western hemlock all at 1% (Buchanan 1991).

Dispersal habitat has been used to define the conditions necessary for spotted owls to move between patches of nesting, roosting and foraging habitats. Dispersal habitat provides linkages between LSRs/MLSAs for owl movement, but does not contain the structural attributes, such as canopy closure, large trees, and snags, associated with nesting, roosting and foraging habitats. In general, dispersal habitat is composed of single or multi-layered forests with moderate sized trees (10 to 15 inches DBH), and a canopy closure greater than 40%. Little research has been conducted to quantitatively define dispersal habitat for spotted owls.

Few studies have evaluated the effects of recreational activities on the northern spotted owl. In the Wenatchee National Forest Late Successional Reserve Assessment it was assumed that northern spotted owls could be affected negatively by the edge effects of roads (USFS 1997b). Wasser et al. (1997) found that stress hormone levels were significantly higher in male northern spotted owls (but not females) when they were located less than 0.41 km from a major logging road, compared to northern spotted owls in areas greater than 0.41 km from a logging road. Swarthout and Stiedl (2001) reported that the closely related Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) was affected by hikers at close distances. They reported that juveniles and adults were unlikely to flush at distances greater than or equal to 12 meters and greater than or equal to 24 meters from hikers, respectively. Delaney et al. (1999), also studying the Mexican spotted owl, reported disturbance from helicopter and chainsaw noise, but found that no owls flushed when stimulus was greater than 105 meters.

The project area overlaps portions of the Swauk, Boundary Butte, Deadhorse, and Chiwawa LSRs; the Sand and Eagle MLSAs; and the Entiat spotted owl Critical Habitat Unit (CHU). Six 1.8-mile radius home ranges of current activity centers occur within the Peshastin Watershed, and three within the Chumstick Watershed.

Direct and Indirect Effects Open road densities were analyzed within the Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds, the Peshastin and Lower Wenatchee BMUs, and the Swauk, Boundary Butte, and Chiwawa LSRs to determine changes in the quality of habitat for the gray wolf, grizzly bear, and wolverine (Table 8). Because wolves and wolverine are less susceptible to disturbance from recreational trails, open road density and the proportion of the analysis area in security habitat was used to evaluate project effects. Because grizzly bears are also disturbed by high-use recreational trails, both motorized routes and high-use recreational trails can influence grizzly core area.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Table 8. Road Densities and habitat quality for gray wolf, grizzly bear, and wolverine within analysis areas associated with the Peshastin-Chumstick Road Decommissioning project.

Open Road/ Open Road/High-use Size of Area High-use Trail (miles) Trail Density (mi/mi2) Core Area (ac (%)) Analysis Area (ac) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Peshastin 86,839 322 317 2.4 2.3 Watershed 49,942 50,214 130,451 Peshastin BMU (38.3) (38.5) Chumstick 50,349 287 286 3.6 3.5 Watershed Lower 92,826 93,121 218,249 Wenatchee BMU (42.5) (42.7)

The direct effects that projects can have on spotted owls include the physical alteration of suitable spotted owl habitat and disturbance near a nest site during the critical nesting period.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Effects to Wide-ranging Carnivores Selection of this alternative would not change habitat quality for wolves, grizzly bear, or wolverine (Table 8). Road densities and security habitat would remain unchanged. Grizzly bear core area also would not change. There would be no disturbance from construction activity.

Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Implementation of this alternative would not remove habitat directly nor cause noise disturbance to nesting owls. It therefore would have no effect. This would be consistent with existing management direction.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Effects to Wide-ranging Carnivores Selection of this alternative would provide higher quality habitat for wolves, grizzly bear, and wolverine than Alternative 1 (Table 8). Road density would be lower, and security habitat higher. Grizzly bear core area would also be increased by 272 acres in the Peshastin BMU by decommissioning FSRs 7224-000 (10 ac), 7300-400 (118 ac), 7310-210 (44 ac); and by 295 acres in the Lower Wenatchee BMU by decommissioning FSR 7701-270. This increase in habitat quality and the amount of grizzly bear core area is very small at the BMU scale (~0.2%) and not likely to change the amount of use by these species.

Because wolves, grizzly bears, and wolverines are wide-ranging, disturbance could occur during project activities from noise caused by heavy equipment during road decommissioning. The duration, intensity, and extent of these activities were described in Chapter 2. However, because of the existing high human use throughout the project area this habitat is unlikely to be used, and the likelihood of disturbance is small (Thiel 1985; Mech et al. 1988).

Since this project would preclude motorized access to some areas, the project would not increase the amount of human activity in the area, and would decrease it where roads are decommissioned, causing beneficial effects. No long-term negative effects are anticipated.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

If wolf, grizzly bear, or wolverine is found to be using any part of the project area during implementation, mitigation measures included in contracts would be implemented to reduce potential effects to discountable levels.

The implementation of any of this alternative could have temporary minor direct effects on deer and elk prey of wolves, grizzly bear, and wolverine through noise disturbance from decommissioning activities. However, there is no winter habitat in the project area and summer habitat is not limiting since travel is not impeded by deep snow and displacement would be negligible this time of year. Therefore the potential for effects to prey species is minimal.

Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Implementation of this alternative would focus on road restoration on existing disturbed ground, so would have no effect on owl habitat.

There are treatments proposed within ¼-mile of seven owl activity centers, but activities would occur outside the nesting season limiting disturbance from noise, and is therefore not likely to adversely affect owls.

The Proposed Action would have no effect on prey base because treatments would be focused on existing disturbed ground. In the long term, decommissioned roadbeds would return to productive forest and increase habitat for spotted owls and their prey.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects were evaluated for the entire fifth-field Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds and the Peshastin and Lower Wenatchee BMUs. The timeframe considered is 2012 to 2019 as this is the time period that road decommissioning activities would occur. Past activities in or near the project area include mining, sheep grazing, hunting, trapping, logging, recreation, transportation corridors, transmission lines, and fire suppression, which continue to have effects on wildlife resources. Continued residential development on private land in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds continues to occur and displace wildlife, especially those prone to human disturbance like grizzly bears and wolves.

Cumulative effects to wolves, grizzly bear, and wolverine from the project would be short term disturbance from noise and other project activities, when added past and ongoing activities described above. Longer term effects would be beneficial to wildlife after roads are restored and motorized access is eliminated.

The cumulative effects to owls from the project would be very minor and include potential noise disturbance from project activities when added to ongoing activities described above. No cumulative effects are expected in the Peshastin Watershed due to the distance between owl habitat and project activities. Cumulative effects in the Chumstick watershed would be minor and limited to noise disturbance of this project, added to noise generated from the Chumstick Forest Restoration project. Effects are expected to be minor, and mitigation measures will limit them to the non-breeding season, when owls can freely move away from disturbance.

Consistency Finding Both alternatives would be consistent with recovery regulations for the gray wolf because no denning areas or rendezvous sites would be disturbed. The alternatives would also be consistent with the recovery plan (FWS 2011) and the conservation strategy (USDA and USDI 1994) for the spotted owl. 64

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Both alternatives would be consistent with the interim direction for the management in the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone because there would be no net loss of grizzly bear core area. In terms of Endangered Species Act consistency, an analysis has determined that the implementation of Alternative 2 “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the gray wolf, grizzly bear, and spotted owl and its critical habitat. Consistency with the Aquatic Restoration Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) including wildlife was submitted by the US Forest Service and concurred to by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in September 2011. Botanical Resources ______

Existing Condition Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and Survey and Manage (S&M) Plants Information for TES and S&M plant species and their habitat was gained through: the NRIS TES database, WNHP database, and professional knowledge of the project area as well as species habitats and occurrences.

There is one Listed Endangered plant species, Wenatchee Mountain checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva), and its critical habitat found in the project area. Sidalcea oregana var. calva is most abundant in moist meadows that have surface water or saturated upper soil profiles into early summer. These meadows vary in size from greater than 100 acres to about an acre in size. The species is also found in somewhat open coniferous stands dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and/or Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and along the edge of shrub and hardwood thickets.

There are two sensitive plant species that occur within the project area: long-sepaled globemallow, (Iliamna longisepala) and Wenatchee larkspur (Delphinium viridescens).

Iliamna longisepala is found along gravelly streamsides in the open shrub-steppe and open ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests. The species also occurs on open hillsides in microsites not immediately adjacent to a stream channel and is frequently found in old roadbeds.

Delphinium viridescens is found in moist meadows, moist micro-sites in open coniferous forest, springs, seeps, and riparian areas. All habitats are characterized by surface water or saturated upper soil into early summer, with poorly drained and silty to clayey-loam soil.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and Survey and Manage (S&M) Plants There would be no effects to sensitive plant species with this alternative. No plants or their habitat would be disturbed because there are no known sites within existing roadbeds ion the project area.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and Survey and Manage (S&M) Plants Iliamna longisepala and Delphinium viridescens have been observed to do well under disturbance such as that caused by decommissioning activities. The effects of the project may negatively impact individuals but may also be beneficial by creating freshly disturbed habitat. Effects to these species are expected to be minimal and not threaten populations or lead to listings under the Endangered Species Act. Sidalcea oregana var. calva would not be affected by proposed activities. 65

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

GIS analysis indicated two known sites of D. viridescens and one known site of I. longisepala within ten feet of proposed project activities. Surveys would be conducted to re-locate the sites prior to implementation and appropriate mitigation measures would be taken to protect the plants.

Existing Condition Invasive Plant Species Information for invasive plant species and their habitat was gained through the NRIS INSP database and professional knowledge of the project area as well as species habitats and occurrences.

Invasive plants are non-native, aggressive species that colonize disturbed areas and have the potential to competitively exclude desirable native plant species, provide little to no forage value to wildlife, and can adversely impact the biodiversity of an ecosystem. Disruption of native plant communities can result from invasive plant infestations.

Many to most of the roadsides on the District are colonized by invasive nonnative plant species. The following are the most common and widespread invasive plant species along roadsides on the District: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), St. Johns wort (Hypericum perforatum), sulphur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), hairy catsear (Hypochaeris radicata), and burdock (Arctium ssp).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Invasive Plant Species There would be no change to current condition with this alternative. Infestation of invasive species would continue to be treated under the on-going District noxious weed treatment and prevention program.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Invasive Plant Species Ground disturbance associated with road decommissioning or any kind of movement by heavy equipment across the landscape disturbs the native vegetation and could create suitable habitat for invasive plant species. The seed bank from noxious weed species could be a source of invaders for any patch of newly exposed soil. When a closed road already infested with an invasive plant species is opened up for project activities there is a risk for spread.

Aside from these concerns associated with active road decommissioning, decommissioning roads can be an effective invasive plant prevention and control measure. Decommissioning roads could benefit native vegetation by reducing the spread of invasive nonnative plants. People and vehicles are major vectors for the spread of weeds. Blocking vehicle access to roads or closing roads could aid in the prevention and control of invasive plants.

Project design criteria would ensure that project activities would have minimal effects. Roads to be actively decommissioned would be treated prior to treatment and seeded with native seed after treatment to control the spread of invasive species and equipment would be required to be cleaned before entering the project area.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Cumulative Effects

The geographic boundary for assessing cumulative effects of each alternative is the project area. The time frame for the cumulative effects assessment is 2012 to 2016. This is the time it would take to complete the project.

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and Survey and Manage (S&M) Plants Present and foreseeable future management actions in the project analysis area which could affect sensitive plant species include noxious weed control. Noxious weed control practices may occur during the cumulative effects timeframe. Application of chemical herbicides is prohibited where known or suspected populations of sensitive plants occur. No cumulative effects to sensitive plant species are expected as a result of these design features. The proposed actions comply with Forest Service policies and management actions to maintain available, well distributed sensitive plant habitat and populations within the project analysis area and the cumulative effects analysis area.

Invasive Plant Species Infestation of invasive species would continue to be treated under the on-going District noxious weed treatment and prevention program. These treatments would be scheduled to coincide with any activities listed in the foreseeable future actions that require invasive species treatment and would be treated before project activities were implemented.

Consistency Finding Wenatchee Land and Resource Management Plan The Proposed Action, with any necessary mitigation measures, would meet the Standards and Guidelines for Proposed, Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive plant species.

Forest Service Manual 2670 The Proposed Action, with any necessary mitigation measures, would meet FSM objectives to avoid or minimize adverse effects to Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species.

Northwest Forest Plan The Peshastin-Chumstick Roads Decommissioning Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006). Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines, including both pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs:

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

“The provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006), shall remain in force. None of the following terms or conditions in this Settlement Agreement modifies in any way the October 2006 provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006).”

Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program; Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants ROD . The Forest Plan requires a noxious weed assessment for all ground disturbing project activities to determine the risk of introducing invasive plants. This assessment was conducted as part of the above analysis. The Forest Plan also requires a prevention plan for all activities to prevent introduction of invasive plants on moderate and high-risk sites. The prevention plan is located in Chapter 2 as design criteria and incorporates relevant portions of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests Weed Management and Prevention Strategy and Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 2002a) as well as standards provided by the Region 6 Invasive Plant Management EIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Forest Health and Vegetation Management (Silviculture)

Existing Condition Most of the roads in the project areas were built by timber sale operators for the Forest Service to access harvest units. The resulting managed stands need to be accessed for vegetation management activities such as non-commercial thinning, restoration thinning and prescribed fire treatments during their course of their development. Some of these actions can be accomplished by walking on closed or decommissioned roads at additional costs, but managing forest stands that require multiple entries for intermediate treatments may or may not be feasible without reopening these roads. Most of these roads are needed to continue management of forest stands to meet objectives set forth in the Forest Plan. Roads are used for other vegetation related activities such as gathering special forest products or managing insect outbreaks.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Vegetation and its spatial arrangement on the landscape influences wildlife habitat, biodiversity, disturbance patterns and types, soil erosion, sedimentation, stream flow regimes, soil chemistry, and more. Green tree value is a function of ecosystem delivery (clean air, water, carbon dioxide sequestration, etc.), general forest product delivery (sustained forest regeneration, growth and timber harvest where appropriate), and maintaining scenic integrity. Forest vegetation landscape patterns in the project areas have become more homogeneous with multilayered stands, and loss of openings and edges between distinct structural patches. Forest stands within the project areas are mostly within dry forest Plant Association Groups (Lillybridge, Kovalchik, Williams, & Smith, 1995) of the Douglas-fir and grand fir series.

Fire suppression has reduced the natural tree thinning action of fire and structural patterns of vegetation in the planning areas, contributing to denser forests. Both project areas support significantly greater numbers of trees than in the past. Stand density and basal area is increasing, altering forest tree species composition, stand and watershed species composition and structure which has contributed to dramatic, ongoing effects from insects and diseases. This shift toward fire intolerant species, buildup of contiguous fuels from forest floor to canopy, and change of structure to more closed canopies represent a departure from reference conditions and risk of an uncharacteristic fire event (see Fire Management and Fuels section below).

The Forest Health Assessment for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2004a) documents the general disturbance ecology and effects of fire, and the forest-wide situation of increasing insect and disease outbreaks. The assessment, which includes both watersheds, concludes, in part, that forests have become more densely stocked in vertical and horizontal canopy structure; that the current structure of vegetation and the conditions of fuels create a high risk of severe wildfire. The assessment also indicates that eastside mesic forests have many similar characteristics of dry forest and will respond to fire, thinning, and other disturbances in a similar way.

The Upper Peshastin subwatershed is 38,430 acres of which 29,238 (76%) acres are Forest Service. The Lower Peshastin is 24,780 acres of which 11,758 acres (47%) are Forest Service. In Peshastin watershed there are 217 miles of National Forest System roads with 124 miles (57%) currently open and 43% currently closed. Some roads have already decommissioned but have not been taken off of the Forest transportation system and remain available for access as needed. Chumstick watershed (46,072 acres/30,404 acres FS) shows 219 miles of National Forest System roads with 125 miles (57%) currently open and 43% currently closed but available to be re-opened as needed to meet resource needs. Both watersheds have cost share roads and intermingled private ownerships.

Approximately 65% of the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project is within land allocations where road use (construction and reconstruction) is restricted or not permitted. Forest Plan direction in approximately 35% of each watershed is to provide for long term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products at a high level of investment in silvicultural practices and to apply an ecosystem management approach that develops stand structures which are not at high risk to uncharacteristic disturbances, “maintaining the natural disturbance regime” and “restoring biological and physical process within their range of natural variability”. Roads are a tool to help meet these landscape level objectives. Forest restoration treatments often require multiple entries that use road access to move landscape vegetation patterns towards a residual stand of fire tolerant tree species, stand structure and size to restore forest complexity and resilience to fire. Roads provide access for all timber yarding methods and are a key factor to the economic viability of a commercial timber sale used to meet restoration objectives.

Management of roads on the district is active and has been following policy by effectively closing roads, decommissioning roads (Timber sale, KV and watershed collections) in both project areas. In the 69

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning past few years funds collected have helped decommission and close 27.92 miles of road in the Peshastin watershed. The majority of roads in Peshastin have gates or earthen berms and all temporary roads are obliterated by the timber sale purchaser after use. Funds are collected through the timber sale to pay for cost share roads. These roads are available to be re-opened as needed. Forest management can require re-entries at intervals from 1 year (e.g. site preparation for planting) to 25 years with intermediate treatments (thinning, density management) to meet Forest Plan objectives.

Forest Insects and Diseases Using records from aerial surveys done annually since 1947 and reports of specific management projects, four insects and two disease-causing organisms are believed to have historically affected the Peshastin area at the watershed scale (Hadfield 2005). These species are western spruce budworm, fir engraver, western pine beetle, Douglas-fir bark beetle, Douglas-fir dwarf-mistletoe and western dwarf- mistletoe. Many other insects and diseases have affected trees and stands in the watersheds, however the number of trees and acres affected have been small. Forest insects and disease-causing agents exert strong influences on the vegetation of these watersheds. In turn, they are influenced by vegetation composition, structure and continuity. Depending on scale, all these agents have beneficial ecological effects to wildlife, forest structural and species diversity and ecological processes. Historically, between budworm outbreaks, a dense, multistory canopy of Douglas-fir and especially grand fir, will limit the establishment and growth of early seral conifers that are more likely to grow old and large. However, because the role of fire has been and is continuing to be suppressed, the extent and pattern on the landscape continue to be altered.

Insects and tree pathogens are members of the environmental community, and they occupy an important role in the ecosystem in terms of disturbance. Like wildfire, these organisms are responsible for regulating mortality and applying stresses to the trees. Stand susceptibility to tree-killing insects and pathogens particularly western pine beetle, dwarf mistletoe, fir engraver, Douglas-fir beetle, root pathogens, and spruce budworm is increasing leading to fuel accumulations and changing the patterns of canopy cover, stand structure and growth in ways that are altering the inherent resiliency. Many stands are deteriorating and are not ecologically sustainable, resulting in an increasing risk of an uncharacteristic fire event. Insects and disease are profoundly affecting the amount of dead and down fuel accumulations on the forest floor and lowering canopy base levels.

With the increase of multi-layered stands, western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) populations are more active resulting in widespread tree defoliation (Figure 6) within the Peshastin Watershed and adjacent subwatersheds. Three consecutive years of heavy defoliation can kill trees outright (Mehmel, 2011). Trees that are not killed become susceptible to secondary attacks by bark beetles. Indirect control through silviculture is the most effective way of reducing budworm impacts over the long term (Mehmel, 2011). This is the fourth year that defoliation has been reported. The 2011 aerial survey of Peshastin mapped 10,929 acres of defoliation by western spruce budworm tends toward increasing acres of heavy defoliation. There will probably be at least two to three more years of widespread budworm defoliation before the outbreak subsides (Mehmel, 2011). At the landscape scale heavy defoliation, overstocking, contiguous acres multi-storing stands (ladder fuels), increased potential for secondary attacks by bark beetles (increased probability after stress of defoliation) has the potential to make our forests more susceptible to uncharacteristically high severity fires and epidemic levels of insects and disease; and a decreased ability to maintain large diameter trees, especially fire resilient ponderosa pine.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 6. September 2011 continuous acres of multi-storied stands with Western Spruce Budworm defoliation in the Peshastin watershed. Large, old, thick barked, ponderosa pine embedded within dense stands are at high risk to beetle attack (Covington and Moore 1994, Arno et al. 1995, Johnson 1972). Although mortality rates are not well known, it is expected that moisture stress associated with high stand density would accelerate ponderosa pine mortality, due to bark beetles, and reduce tree longevity.

The result is that current vegetation patterns are susceptible to widespread conifer die-off due to insect and disease epidemics. Resource values at risk include large and old tree structure, ecosystem sustainability and resiliency, species composition, and stand structure. It is highly likely that current vegetative conditions are not sustainable.

Vegetation Management & Timber Harvest Activities on National Forest System Lands Since the 1940’s, the majority of Forest road construction has been in support of timber management activities. Since about 1955 to 1990, increased use of shelterwood and clearcutting methods to reduce mistletoe, root rots, and undesirable species increased. Across the majority of each watershed, the existing road system has been used to manage forest vegetation. Records show commercial timber harvest occurred on 8192 acres that used these haul roads now proposed in this project for decommissioning and removing from the transportation system. These roads were to be designed for long term forest management and to access stands between units with subsequent treatment entries. These commercial timber sales funded road construction, reconstruction and road maintenance. Past treatment of mid-elevation forest stands on north and west facing slopes containing grand fir and/or mistletoe Douglas-fir were commonly clearcut harvested between 1970 to 1990 creating forest plantations where multiple intermediate treatments including prescribed fire, is key to stand development. There are 2124 acres in forest plantations these roads access.

While some specific road segments identified in this project are experiencing deterioration with lack of low level cost of road maintenance (cleaning ditches/culverts) and intermittent flooding events at stream crossings, approximately 43% of Forest Service roads in both watersheds are already closed with the lowest maintenance - level 1. Roads on the system where culverts were removed are closed and vegetated with the road template left intact to allow future options for forest management and extended attack access for fire suppression and fire fighter safety. Most of the 336 miles of roads in the watershed would continue to serve as potential access for vegetation and hazardous fuels reduction projects, though some would require reconstruction to repair damage to bring them to current standards.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Blewett Pass (Highway 97) runs through the Peshastin Watershed along Peshastin Creek. For the most part, this north-south corridor is located outside the Forest boundary. Highway 97 provides essential haul access (in conjunction with the county road systems and cost share roads) to timber mills in the state. Approximately 21 miles are within the Peshastin Watershed Road Decommissioning project boundary.

Upper Peshastin Sub-watershed (6th Field HUC, 38,431 acres) Closed Timber Sales with post harvest stand management activities ongoing: Wenatchee Ridge, Old Wenatchee Ridge, Tronsen Summit, Chipper, Diamond, Scotty, Shaser Iron Mountain, Five Mile, High Five, Orchard, Torchard, Deer Park Springs, Cowcam

Lower Peshastin Sub-watershed (6th Field HUC, 24,780 acres) Closed Timber Sales with post harvest stand management activities ongoing: Boundary Butte, Cowcam, Basin, Gretel, Ingalls Blowdown, Orchard Reoffer, Sandman, Camas Roots, Tip Top

Chumstick Watershed Closed Timber Sales with post harvest stand management activities ongoing: Dry Creek, East Van Creek, Freund, Cromwell, Williams and Cow Salvage. Planned are 2201 acres of timber sale units; currently active Chumley Stewardship IRC (560 acres) scheduled to sell in 2012, Skywalker TS or stewardship contract scheduled to sell by December 30, 2012.

Direct and Indirect Effects The effects of road decommissioning on forest health and vegetation management were analyzed within the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. The number of miles of accessible road for vegetation treatments, the estimated loss of treatment acreage, and the loss of potential timber harvest (in Million Board Feet (MMBF)) all provided information about the effects of Alternative 1 and 2. Table 9 summarizes the results of this analysis and the following narrative explains in more detail how forest health and vegetation management could be affected by these alternatives.

Table 9. Summary of forest health and vegetation management evaluation metrics for comparison of alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Indicators (No Action) (Proposed Action)

Peshastin- 228 mi. Peshastin- 176 mi. Number of miles of accessible road Chumstick- 234 mi. Chumstick- 223 mi.

Estimated loss of potential restoration treatment acres Peshastin –11,600 acres accessible by road 0 Chumstick - 1,800 acres

Peshastin- 116.0 MMBF Potential loss of timber harvest (MMBF) 0 Chumstick- 4.2 MMBF

Alternative 1 – No Action In the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds combined there are approximately 462 miles of National Forest System Roads which represents 33 percent of all Forest Service roads on the district (1,390 miles). This alternative represents the existing condition for both Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project areas (USDA Forest Service 2004a) and would not affect the current road 72

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning management processes for management of forest vegetation to improve forest and watershed health. The road system would continue to be managed and maintained to current standards. No roads would be removed from the district transportation system and would continue to be used, as needed, for forest management.

Stand susceptibility to tree-killing insects and pathogens particularly western pine beetle, dwarf mistletoe, fir engraver, Douglas-fir beetle, root pathogens, and spruce budworm would increase. Ingrowth of trees would continue increasing inter-tree competition and decreasing tree vigor, and resistance to insects and diseases. There will probably be at least two to three more years of widespread budworm defoliation before the outbreak subsides (Mehmel 2011). At the landscape scale heavy defoliation, stand overstocking, contiguous acres of multi-storied stands (contributing to ladder fuels); increased potential for secondary attacks by bark beetles (with increased probability after stress of defoliation by budworm) would prevail. Large, old, thick barked, ponderosa pine embedded within dense stands would continue to be at high risk to beetle attack (Covington and Moore 1994, Arno et al. 1995, Johnson 1972) with a decreased ability to maintain viability within stands. Favorable Douglas-fir beetle conditions would increase, decreasing the ability to maintain large diameter Douglas-fir. The number of dead trees would likely substantially increase. Dwarf mistletoe infections would continue to increase. Aspen stands would continue to decline with conifer encroachment. Loss of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) would likely continue.

All existing access to Selected Superior Genetic Trees, where trees are climbed to collect seed, would remain unchanged. Cost associated with cone collection would not be affected by additional walk-in costs. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) study areas and cone collection would continue to be accessible.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action A total of 63.8 miles of U.S. Forest Service roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick are proposed for removal. After decommissioning and taking the road off the transportation system there would be a reduction in the amount of roads which could be used as access for forest restoration management and management of the timber resource. Although short-term implementation of forest vegetation treatments prior to decommissioning would be possible under the proposed implementation schedule, this proposal has the long-term potential to eliminate motorized access to 13,400 acres of suitable timber lands and access to 8,192 acres currently managed following Forest Plan direction to provide for long term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products at a high level of investment in silvicultural practices using ecosystem management. If new technologies develop that do not rely on roads or economics change to accommodate more helicopter logging systems, this situation could potentially change at that point. If new roads cannot be built to access these acres or economics do not change, and roaded access is necessary for treatment, then no harvesting of trees from these acres would occur and no sawtimber or biomass from these acres would be available to regional mills and no economic value derived from the sale of this material (excess trees) would occur.

The majority of acres (11,600 acres) with lost roaded access are in the Peshastin Watershed. The remaining acreage (1,800 acres) is in the Chumstick watershed. Road segments would be decommissioned in the Mill Creek, Hansel Creek, Shaser Creek, Scotty Creek, Tronsen Creek, Ruby Creek, Tiptop, Camas, Camas land and Pendleton Creek areas of the Peshastin watershed. The average potential productivity of 52.3 cubic feet per acre per year on dry sites and 60.3 cubic feet per acre per year for wet types could contribute to the supply of wood to meet the national and local community needs. Projected potential from these acres is an estimated 116 MMBF from one entry of commercial restoration thinning. Without treatments the potential to move the landscape toward forest restoration goals would be decreased by an estimated 20 percent. For the Chumstick watershed the potential is approximately 4.2 MMBF. There would be a projected potential loss of funding generated from Trust 73

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Funds (BD and KV) that could decrease acres of vegetation treatments such as reducing fuels or planting trees unless other funding sources occurred. Appropriated funding could be requested but under current policies would likely be limited. Grants and other funding sources could be sought but this requires funding to process requests.

Approximately 2,124 acres of plantations would lose access and costs to treat (tending/manage by thinning, conducting stocking surveys) could increase. Some forest vegetation treatments can be accomplished by walking on closed or decommissioned roads at additional costs, but treatments may or may not be feasible without existing roads. Plantations that cannot be feasibly thinned would remain at maximum density for decades until natural processes (mortality, disturbance) opens the canopy enough to allow expansion of crowns and understory response from increased light. Failure to maintain tree spacing while trees are young can have consequences lasting the life of the stand (Oliver 1996). If stands are not treated, the overstocked condition can result in a higher risk of catastrophic fire, smaller trees with reduced vigor, increased mortality, and increased susceptibility to stressors such as insects, diseases, and weather. Recent studies have indicated that dense, closed-canopy second growth without legacy trees can result in a period of low structural diversity that can last more than 100 years and can have profound effects on the capacity of the forest to develop biocomplexity in the future (Courtney 2004). Within the project area multiple treatment entries, which require road access, are needed to move the landscape toward the desired conditions. Roaded access is the most cost effective way to implement these treatements.

Removing Forest roads would eliminate access needs for managing Select Tree cone collections and whitebark pine cone collections. Some of these actions may be accomplished by walking on closed or decommissioned roads at additional costs.

Monetary Return from the Sale of Products Alternative 2 has the potential to limit large areas where commercially valuable timber would be removed as a byproduct of restoration thinning and fuel treatments. The value of these marketable products can substantially reduce the overall costs of the project. In recent sales, units initially considered for helicopter yarding were dropped or deferred due to projected costs and concerns with new road construction, yarding costs, and low value of material removed. Additionally biomass material may add value if market conditions are favorable but trends show it will likely be some time before this is even an option.

Skyline loggings systems are more costly than ground based equipment and the percent mix of yarding systems can affect sale viability. The percent of skyline yarding combined with lower size material will impact sale viability. However, it is important to recognize that the high cost of treatment with these systems can often be offset by the value of the material being removed.

For projects where ground-based equipment has been used to harvest timber in order to reduce fuels on the Wenatchee River Ranger District, there has been a predictable and usually substantial monetary return. Although the amount varies from site to site, and with changes in market conditions, the ground based treatments planned for the project may not only pay for itself but may also help to partially offset the costs of other treatments and reduce the need for appropriated funding on the project.

Protection of Prior Investments Portions of the analysis area have had both commercial and non-commercial treatments in the past to reduce stand density, susceptibility to insects and disease, and fuels buildup. Subsequent treatments proposed in the refined proposed action would move these stands even further towards the desired condition and in some cases would be implemented at much reduced costs and with improved revenue due to these earlier treatments. 74

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Without continued treatments these previous investments, and the gains that have been achieved, are at increased risk of loss through catastrophic fire.

Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis includes the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds and any connecting National Forest road systems around the boundaries of these drainages. The removal of the 63.8 miles of access roads from the Forest transportation system is proposed to occur between 2012 and 2019. Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands according to [forest] standards and guidelines. Currently, ninety-one percent of the roads proposed are Maintenance Level 1 and are already in long term storage and would continue to be available to open for forest restoration treatments as needed. Under this project the 155 acres of the land currently roaded would become part of the previous land classification and ecosystem function. Under the Chumstick HFRA Project EA 1.61 miles of road will be decommissioned. For roads used for timber sales, road maintenance on all roads used for haul would be done and roads opened for the sale will be re-closed. Land management activities are planned and conducted in a manner so that watershed conditions provide for the protection of the beneficial uses of water. Vegetation management in the watersheds over the next twenty years will be affected in a variety of ways. Maintenance Level 1 roads needed for the next restoration treatment entry may not be able to be re-opened. Any new timber sale activities would continue to provide road maintenance and would generate funding to “decommission” roads (close/gate/berm, hydrologically stabilize) after restoration treatment entry. Washington Department of Transportation will continue to remove hazard trees along the Highway 97 corridor.

If these roads cease to exist forest stands would still need to be treated in a different way to meet Forest Plan objectives. As appropriate, stand treatments could rely on prescribed burning versus mechanical methods for thinning. Steps could be taken to develop greater flexibility in strategies and tactics used during a wildfire. National policy currently allows a range of suppression strategies to be applied on wildfires to meet a range of suppression and resource objectives. Collaboration with private landowners could change needs. Political and community factors could reshape fire management options. More flexibility to expend resources for use of less aggressive suppression strategies could occur. Treatments strategies could rely on existing roads. As needed, new road construction or temporary road construction could occur. Temporary roads could then be decommissioned.

Road access to forested lands classified as suitable for timber management would continue to be managed under current regulatory direction.

The effects of treatments on insect and disease activity are mostly local, and limited to the area treated, so are difficult to quantify over the landscape. There may be a small decrease in activity but the cumulative effect over the landscape likely could not be measured. One exception could be the extent of spruce budworm defoliation if vegetation treatments could be achieved over large portions of the watershed.

Forest insects and diseases (pathogens) would profoundly affect the amount of dead and down fuel accumulations on the forest floor and lowering canopy base levels. Stand succession and ecosystem processes would continue to shape landscape vegetation patterns.

Intermediate stand management treatments such as tending plantations, commercial thinning would be affected on the 8,192 acres. Plantations identified for treatment under the 2005 Timber stand improvement/Hazardous Fuels CE would be affected and treatment cost would have to cover walk-in 75

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning time to units. Access to other vegetation management activities such as sapling thinning and special forest product gathering would be impeded.

Remaining hazardous fuels reduction treatments outlined in the Lower Peshastin EA and the District-wide Non-commercial thinning CE, and current and future fuels treatments analyzed in the Chumstick HFRA EA would all be considered in the timing schedule of proposed road decommissioning in this project. The Peshastin Landscape Restoration project would be a landscape level project intended to restore forest and watershed health. The anticipated Landscape Restoration project would affect vegetation management and could help determine how roads in the Peshastin area are needed in the short term to help achieve ecosystem sustainability objectives.

The Chumley Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber sale Contract is planned to be awarded July, 2012 with 1.61 miles of road decommissioning to be implemented. The roads that are currently closed and overgrown would continue to re-vegetate.

Natural landslides and wildfires could affect vegetation. Emphasis would continue to be placed on providing administrative and public access and safety within a context of maintaining and restoring healthy ecosystems. Future decommissioning of roads would continue based on each project and unneeded roads would be identified. All temporary roads would be obliterated after harvest. Re-using the existing roads is necessary to accomplish the purpose and needs of improving forest health, reducing hazardous fuels, protecting and enhancing late-successional and old-growth habitat in an economically efficient manner.

In order to facilitate access to for future vegetation management, alternatives to helicopter use are the development of new roads. Building roads to support skyline or ground-based logging systems is generally less expensive than helicopter logging without roads. Skyline and ground-based logging systems also allow for the removal of tops and limbs, which is not the case for helicopter logging. Road construction might be feasible if the road is relatively short and does not require the installation of large culverts. Any new road construction would require analysis through the NEPA process including public participation and evaluation of environmental effects.

In the Chumstick watershed, the Ski Hill Trail Plan environmental assessment is currently in progress. The proposed action could decrease road access to manage forest vegetation in land use allocation Matrix.

Managing the forest landscape to increase resilience to fire, insect outbreaks, and other disturbances has become one of the major objectives of public land managers across the interior west as a part of whole lands restoration. Moving landscape pattern and process towards the historical range of variability (HRV) or considering climate change, the future range of variability (FRV), is thought by many to be the surest path to resetting characteristic disturbance processes, sustaining native biodiversity, and providing for other key ecological functions.

Consistency Finding A Forest Plan goal is to develop a transportation system which is designed and operated appropriate to the planned uses, considering safety, cost, and effects on the land and resources (Forest Plan: IV-4). The desired future condition from the Forest Plan is that most newly constructed roads would be closed (Forest Plan: IV-14). A Forest Management objective is that areas proposed for timber management or resource protection (such as the Peshastin Forest Restoration project area and Chumstick Forest Restoration project area) would need to be provided with local road access as necessary (Forest 76

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Plan:IV-61). The NW Forest Plan goal is ecosystem management that considers sustainability. The locations and overall lengths of the roads are dependent upon the proposed logging systems for each of the various treatment areas. This is accomplished through interdisciplinary transportation analysis that meets common resource goals and minimizes costs by developing, operating, and maintaining transportation facilities that serve both immediate and long-term needs (FSM 7709.55, Chapter 30).

The National Forest Management Act of 1976, Sec. 8, states that: “roads constructed on National Forest System Lands shall be designed to standards appropriate for their intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation and impacts on land and resources”. Forest roads are generally corridors, averaging 14 feet in width, with the base native material, where all forest vegetation has been removed and use is temporarily converted to a road system needed for safe and efficient travel 36 CFR 212.5 and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands and for managing the Forest lands (FSH 7709.55, Chap 20 (January 8, 2009)).

Consistent with Timber Management TM-1 which prohibits timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in the Riparian Reserves except (a. where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, wind or insect damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting if required to meet ACS objectives and (c. (to) apply silvicultural practices for riparian reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics need to attain ACS objectives. All riparian buffers are consistent with guidelines. (USDA-USDI 1994) Fire Management ______The Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds are dominated by dry forest plant associations historically composed of open stands of Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir) subjected to frequent surface fires of low intensity. Forests in the dry vegetation group have changed dramatically over the past century due to dense in-growth of Douglas-fir and Abies grandis (grand fir) into the large and old, fire protected age class of trees, particularly ponderosa pine (Hall 1980; Gast et al. 1991; Mutch et al. 1993; Agee 1994). Using a criterion of canopy closure greater than 55%, over half of the dry forest in the Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds has been mapped as high density with successionally-advanced, shade- tolerant communities. These communities include significant understory that can serve as ladder fuels during fires (Franklin and Dyrness 1973; Agee 1994). Ladder fuels that extend from the ground up to the canopy facilitate carrying fire into the tree crowns and risking stand replacement fire.

Portions of the Boundary Butte Late Successional Reserve Area (LSRA ), Swauk LSRA, Deadhorse LSRA, and Chiwawa LSRA; the Camas Managed Late-Successional Area (MLSA), and the Eagle MLSA are within the project area. These areas, predominantely composed of Douglas-fir and grand fir, are at risk to fire due to the density and build-up of fuels, as well as the deteriorating health of the trees within and around the LSRs and MLSAs. Currently there is an extensive outbreak, in it’s second year, of Choristoneura occidentalis western spruce budworm in the Upper Peshastin sub-watershed. Three consecutive years of heavy defoliation can kill trees outright and trees not killed become susceptible to bark beetle attacks. (Mehmel, 2011).

The Peshastin and Chumstick Project areas have a significant wildland-urban interface (WUI) component. This includes over 2,000 private residences located in the Chumstick valley and in the adjacent side canyons, the US Highway 2 and US Highway 97 corridors and the adjacent side canyons inside and outside of the National Forest boundary. These areas have permanent residences and also receive considerable dispersed recreational use due to their proximity to the 77

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning communities of Leavenworth, Plain and the Puget Sound area. High level of use increases the likelihood of human ignition of wildland fires. The higher summertime populations also present evacuation challenges for citizens fleeing a wildland fire and access challenges for firefighters. The Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad runs through the Chumstick area and has been a source for wildland fire ignitions.

There are currently two sheep grazing allotments within the planning area. Generally the grazing routes and bedding areas are near roads or along ridgelines. The grazing keeps grasses and forbs low reducing fire behavior and allowing the areas to act as fuelbreaks. Sections of the Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds have been analyzed for vegetation management treatments to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire and provide for safe evacuation routes. Some of the identified treatments have been completed, but much remains to be done and the projects are still a priority for safety and for restoration of historical fire regimes in these watersheds .

Open, driveable roads play an important role in fire management as access to fires for initial attack (immediate) suppression, as suppression lines and anchor points; and for forest restoration projects that include reducing stand stocking and the reduction of hazardous fuels. Roads also serve as evacuation routes for civilians and ingress/egress routes for firefighters during active fires. Currently road maintenance funding has declined and many roads are becoming non-drivable because seasonal damage is not repaired. Non-driveable roads that have the road profile or template intact can be opened for extended attack (spanning several days to weeks) fire suppression and to access areas for forest restoration projects.

Historic and Present Day Fire Historically dry forest associations were subjected to frequent (every 2 - 20 years), low intensity surface fires defined as fire regime condition class 1. Frequent surface fires eliminated most surface fuels and killed the colonizing seedlings and saplings, preventing dense stands from developing (Agee 2003, Wright and Agee 2004). These stands were relatively stable or fire-resistant across the landscape over time (Everett et al. 1996a). Moderately frequent fires (every 35 - >50 years) burned in mesic forest patches or stands at different severities and are classed fire regime condition class 3. The mixed severities create a complex mosaic of diverse stand structures (age classes, tree canopy closure, stand densities, fuel beds, wildlife habitat, and plant communities). Low-severity patches simply underburned with little tree mortality. Moderate severity patches were thinned by fire, while most trees in high severity patches were killed (Agee 1998; Arno et al. 2000). This natural mosaic of stand structure reduced the chances of large, stand replacing fires in the mixed-severity fire regimes. High severity patches also provided opportunities for regeneration of shade intolerant ponderosa pine and edge for wildlife.

Protracted fire exclusion has altered the disturbance regime and successional trajectory for these fire-adapted ecosystems (Arno et al. 1997, Ohlson and Schellhaas 2002). Fire exclusion combined with livestock grazing and selective timber harvest over the last 100 years to dramatically change dry and mesic forest structure, composition, and pattern across the Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds. Timber harvest activities from settlement to the early 1990’s tended to harvest large diameter, fire tolerant species such as ponderosa pine. Much of the Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds have not burned in many years resulting in the loss of four to ten disturbance cycles. Landscape vegetation patterns have become more homogeneous with the loss of openings and edges between distinct structural patches that were previously maintained by fire, particularly for the drier ponderosa pine forest stands. At the same time, fire exclusion allowed for an increase in fire intolerant species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir 78

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning to regenerate under the ponderosa pine overstory, resulting in far more trees per acre and increased crown bulk density. Species composition and structural changes shifted fire regimes from frequent, low and mixed-severity fires to less frequent fires with much higher intensity and severity (Arno et al. 1995, Mutch et al. 1993).

Since 1970, over three hundred fires have occurred within the Peshastin and Chumstick Watersheds. Figure 7displays the fire occurrence history for the Peshastin and Chumstick project area. Fires are most often started naturally by lightning and are typically concentrated along ridge tops, though random strikes may occur anywhere. Human caused fire starts tend to occur in the lower third of the slopes and are increasing as a result of other activities such as recreation (campfires) and debris burning. The size of the fires may vary, but typically small fires of a few to several acres occur on a 5-10 year interval. In Chelan County large fires (those greater than 500 acres) of high severity occurred in 1994 (Tyee Fire, 150,000 acres), (Rat- Hatchery Fire, 43,000 acres), 1985 (Five Mile Fire, 500 acres), and 1976 (Ingalls Creek Fire, 650 acres). Relatively small portions of the Tyee Fire (2,700 acres) and Rat Creek Fire (8,000 acres) burned into the project areas and conditions are still conducive for future large, high severity fires.

Within both watersheds large wildfire events burn quickly over the landscape and can consume many hundreds of acres in a single day. Suppression resources contain over 95% of fires to less than 10 acres during the initial attack stage, usually in one to two days, but 5% of the fires escape initial attack and develop into large fires that move into the extended attack stage lasting several days to weeks. Historically, fires that escape suppression efforts have occurred when: Fuel moisture and atmospheric conditions are above the 90th percentile, allowing for extreme fire behavior Fire intensity prevents suppression resources from working in close proximity to the fire due to flame lengths above 4 feet and fire spread is through the crowns Fires are not easily accessible to ground resources due to limited access/egress or when aerial- delivered firefighting resources (helitak, rappellers or smokejumpers) are not available.

It is expected that in the future, potential high fire severity would remain and gradually increase given anticipated climate change, further accumulation of hazardous fuels, and deterioration of roads over time. Both watersheds contain state, private industrial and developed private lands (WUI) intermixed within the National Forest System lands. Figure 7 displays the WUI areas. There is an existing and future concern that wildfire could easily cross between ownerships due to the current and increasing hazardous fuels situation. Stand replacement fire across the landscape would lead to heavy losses of timber, fisheries and wildlife habitat, watershed integrity and aesthetic quality. Again, access is important to initial attack fire response and forest vegetation restoration projects.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Figure 7. Fire Occurrence History and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in the Peshastin and Chumstick project area.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under Alternative 1, 332 miles roads of accessible roads in Peshastin watershed and 281 miles of roads in Chumstick watershed would remain in the road system in their current state and designation as open or closed by administrative order. There would be no change in the level of maintenance of roads and some roads would continue to experience deterioration through storm damage or overgrowth of vegetation. This would mean a random, slowly declining level of road access for immediate initial attack fire suppression. Most roads would remain available for hazardous fuels reduction projects, though some may require repair before use. The 4 miles of USFS roads beyond the Ruby Creek landslide area would remain inaccessible.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The proposed action would decommission 52.1 miles of roads and convert 11.7 miles to all- terrain vehicle (ATV) trails. The roads proposed for decommissioning have been strategically selection and prioritized based on administrative and public needs and therefore future fire planning can take into consideration the change in roaded access to certain areas. Decommissioned roads would be unavailable for immediate, initial attack fire suppression access, however the routes, if needed, could potentially be available for extended attack (fires lasting multiple days) suppression. If necessary, heavy equipment could be used to reopen a route, manage drainage and reestablish an accessible road surface for extended attack use, but even roads that receive more extensive decommissioning, Level a, treatment should be available within 48 to 72 hours. The photos in Figure 8 are examples of decommissioned roads that could be reopened for fire suppression access.

Figure 8. Example of decommissioned roads that could be re-opened for suppression access. Roads converted to ATV trails could be utilized for initial attack fire suppression using ATVs to transport firefighters and ATVs outfitted with pumps and water tanks. The decommissioned roads would be removed from the Forest Service road system and would no longer be available

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning for motorized access to support forest restoration/fuels management. The proposed action would reduce road access available for initial attack fire suppression, but aerially-delivered firefighting resources such as helitack crews, helicopter rappellers and smokejumpers could provide an initial attack fire suppression response. For any hazardous fuels reduction projects that may need motorized access to these areas in the future, any proposed roads would be considered new construction that would require new National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis.

Cumulative Effects For fire suppression and fuels management, the area of consideration is all lands within the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds. Most known or planned projects are predictable to about fifteen years in length. As part of Lower Peshastin EA several road segments have been gated and placed in ML 1, or decommissioned with the access blocked and the surface ripped. These road treatments were completed after a full analysis and consideration of fire suppression access. Washington State and many private land owners, including large holdings of Longview Timberlands LLC, have roads that are gated. Most of these roads are also available for fire suppression access.

Mudslides in Spring 2011 damaged and closed the Tiptop road (approximately 3 miles up) and the Scotty Creek Road (approximately 3 miles up). These roads are expected to be repaired and re-opened for fire suppression and fuels treatment projects by late summer 2013.

In the summer of 2012 Chelan County is planning to replace the bridge on the Old Blewett Pass Highway, just south of the intersection with Highway 97. This bridge replacement project will close the Old Blewett Highway for 3 months, restricting road access to Shaser and Scotty Creek from the Chelan County side of Highway 97. Fire suppression access would be from the Kittitas County side or by aerially-delivered firefighters. No hazardous fuels treatment projects would be adversely affected during that time. All necessary access for grazing would remain in both Alternatives and the fire behavior reduction benefits maintained.

Consistency Findings Implementation of either Alternative would remain consistent with the goals, objectives, and the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan provides direction to the fire management program to address two main facets of operations: the suppression of wildfires and the use of prescribed fire. Current Forest Plan goals for fire management (IV-4) includes: 1) “Implement an efficient fire protection program which is responsive to resource management objectives and prioritizes the protection of life, improvements, and private property” and 2) “Use prescribed fire to meet resource and land management objectives as appropriate”. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Fire Management Planning and Analysis (IV-103) state: “1) the prevention of human caused wildfires will continue to be a management priority. The investment in this program will be commensurate with the values at risk, 2) Prescribed fire will be used to modify vegetation in an effort to minimize the risk of wildfires. Unplanned ignitions may be utilized if a prescribed fire plan has been developed and it is appropriate to the management area affected and 3) Prescribed fire will also be used as a resource management tool when appropriate planning indicates it is an efficient and effective option. With either of the Alternatives there will still be road access for fire suppression efforts and to modify vegetation in an effort to minimize the risk of wildfires.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning Recreation ______

Existing Condition Open roads on the National Forest in the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages are mostly managed for travel with high clearance highway vehicles. Closed roads have various conditions, from simply closed with a berm or gate to completely brushed-in and not easily passable by any vehicle or even a hiker. Open roads are used mostly by highway vehicles to access forest areas for dispersed recreational opportunities such as hiking, hunting, mountain biking, horse riding or just driving for pleasure. Closed roads are also used by recreationists for similar activities. The road template offers a tread that makes travel for foot, horseback, or motorcycle easier, though these routes are not managed for this use. Over time, closed roads usually brush in, making travel difficult. Sometimes culverts are pulled and the surface is roughened for hydrologic reasons.

Peshastin Watershed There are currently 228 miles of U.S. Forest Service roads in the Peshastin Watershed; 104 miles are currently closed to highway vehicles and 124 miles are open to highway vehicles. The Peshastin drainage accommodates a moderate amount of dispersed recreation use. People come here to sightsee, camp, rock climb, dredge for gold, cut firewood, hike, picnic, snowmobile, cross country ski, ride ATVs, ride horses and hunt. Camping is heaviest along Highway 97, Scotty Creek and Shaser Creek. Camping is mostly associated with recreational dredging and panning for gold or ATV riding. A low level of camping occurs through the rest of the drainage usually during hunting season. The Swauk Pinnacles area is the focus for rock climbing. The Forest Service system trails in the drainage are Tronsen Ridge, Etienne Creek, Gold Creek Basin, Magnet Creek, Ingalls Creek and the Swauk Discovery Trail. Motorcycles are allowed on the Tronsen Ridge Trail and the Gold Creek Basin Trail. Other trails are non-motorized. Many user-created trails exist mostly on ridge-tops. A very popular ATV route is behind a gate on the Iron Mountain Road #7322-400 and spurs 480 and 485. Road #7322-485 accesses the Gold Creek Basin trail #1211. This trail allows motorcycle use and leads steeply up to the Ingalls Creek Divide near Three Brothers, which is also the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Boundary. Motorcycle access into the wilderness at this point is not possible due to very steep topography. In the winter, cross country ski and snowmobile opportunities in the upper Peshastin drainage are mostly on National Forest roads accessed from Highway 97. Snowmobiles predominately use the Old Blewett Highway, Scotty Creek Road, the Shaser Road System, the Wenatchee Ridge Road, and the King Creek Road. These routes are not on the groomed snowmobile system. Most cross country skiing occurs on Tronsen Creek Roads # 7240-000, 7245-000, and 7230 systems.

Chumstick Watershed There are currently 234 miles of road in the Chumstick Watershed; 109 miles are currently closed to highway vehicles and 125 miles are open to highway vehicles. The Chumstick drainage accommodates a low to moderate amount of dispersed recreation use. People come here to drive for pleasure, camp, cut firewood, hike, picnic, snowmobile, cross country ski, ride ORVs, ride horses, rock climb and hunt. There is one heavily used dispersed camping area in East Van Creek; however the rest of the drainage sees a low level of camping, mostly during hunting season. The only Forest Service system trail in the drainage is the Freund Creek/ Ridge trail. However there are many user- created trails that exist mostly on ridge-tops in the lower drainage (Eagle Creek, Walker Canyon, and Van Creek). These are used largely by mountain bikes, motorcycles and equestrians. The Freund Trail System is a very popular mountain biking area which also utilizes the Tumwater Mountain Road #7701. There are isolated rock- climbing sites in upper Eagle Creek. In the winter, groomed snowmobile routes cover ten miles on Road #7801 and access French Corral on Entiat Ridge, a major destination. Backyard snowmobile use (not on the groomed system) and cross country skiing occur on many of the side canyons such as Merry Canyon, Dry Creek, Railroad Canyon, Moon Canyon and Clark Canyon. 83

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1- No Action Because the No Action Alternative would not close or decommission any road, there would be no change in current conditions to Forest users accessing the Forest for dispersed recreation. Access to dispersed camping sites, trails, rock climbing areas and winter sports areas would not change. Activities such as firewood and other special product collecting, hunting or fishing would not be affected. There would be no change in effects to the wilderness resource. Effects would be as described in the Recreation Existing Condition section above.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Peshastin Watershed At total of 52 miles of road would be decommissioned in the Peshastin Watershed of a total 228 miles of U.S. Forest Service roads, constituting 23% of the total miles. A total of 2.9 miles of road are currently open of the proposed 52 miles. Road segments would be decommissioned in the Mill Creek, Hansel Creek, Shaser Creek, Scotty Creek, Tronsen Creek, Ruby Creek, Tiptop, Camas, Camas land and Pendleton Creek areas. Dispersed recreation activities such as hiking, mountain biking, horse riding, and motorcycling take place on some of these roads. This use could become more difficult and as road surfaces are often roughed up and/or culverts are pulled during decommissioning.

Of the 52 miles of road decommissioning proposed9.1 miles of road would receive only minor or less intensive decommissioning treatments (Level b or c) across only part of the road or road segment and 11.7 miles would be converted to trail. 28.3 miles of road in 53 segments would receive treatments (Level a) where dispersed recreational access would be made difficult due to decommissioning The remaining 2.9 miles would be decommissioned in a manner to not preclude access by motorcycles for mining access (Road 7312-211). Additionally, of the53 Level a segments, 20 are longer than 0.5 miles and total 19.4 miles. Dispersed recreational use more often occurs on longer road segments which access more ground. These twenty segments are located in the Tiptop, Boundary Butte, Pendleton Creek, Hansel Creek, Ruby Creek, Five Mile Creek, Middle Shaser Creek, South Shaser Creek, Scotty Creek, Wenatchee Ridge Road and Tronsen Creek areas. Recreational use of these closed roads varies but is generally a low level of hiking or motorcycle use. This use would become more difficult if not impossible and would not be a pleasant experience after decommissioning roughs up the road surface.

The currently open roads that would be decommissioned are seven segments totaling 3.5 miles located in the Camas, Tiptop, Wedge Mountain, Ruby Creek, South Shaser Creek and Tronsen Creek areas. All but one of these segments is less than 0.5 miles, with most being short spurs that do not lead to any attractions and are lightly used. The one exception, Ruby Creek Spur #7204-183 is 0.94 miles long, but does not lead to any attraction and is very lightly used. Driving for pleasure would be eliminated on these 3.5 miles of currently open spurs. Access to the trail system (Tronsen Ridge, Etienne Creek, the Three Brothers, Magnet Creek, Ingalls Creek and the Swauk Discovery Trails) would not be affected by decommissioning as these access roads would remain open. Heavily used dispersed camping sites along Highway 97, Scotty and Shaser Creeks would not be affected as access roads would remain open. The snowmobile routes on Old Blewett Highway, Scotty Creek Road, the Shaser Road System, the Wenatchee Ridge Road, and the King Creek Road would not be affected as these roads are not proposed for decommissioning. Similarly, the major roads used for cross country skiing in the Tronsen Creek area would not be affected. Decommissioned roads would not affect any of the dispersed sites identified by the Okanogan Wenatchee Travel Management Plan Proposed Action (USFS 2009). Access to the Swauk Pinnacles rock climbing area and major mining areas such as Scotty Creek and Shaser Creek would be maintained. Firewood cutting activities on currently closed roads that are planned for decommissioning

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning would not be affected as the current firewood cutting permit does not allow vehicle access off of open roads. The currently open roads that would be decommissioned that are located in land allocations open to firewood cutting are six segments totaling 3.3 miles located in the Camas, Tiptop, Wedge Mountain, Ruby Creek, and South Shaser Creek areas. Therefore, access to firewood cutting would be eliminated along 3.3 miles of currently open road in the Peshastin drainage. This amounts to 3% of the 124 miles of open roads within the drainage.

Iron Mountain Roads #7322-400, 480 and 485 would be converted to an ATV trail (11.7 miles) from the private property boundary in Section 9 down into Upper Etienne Creek. This would involve narrowing the road template, pulling culverts and replacing them with bridges. This would not affect recreation as the road is currently managed for ATV/off-road motorcycle use, with a gate being used to restrict highway vehicle traffic. This same use would continue. This ATV trail system would lead to the existing Gold Creek Basin Trail #1211which is open to motorcycles. This trail allows motorcycle use and winds steeply up to the Ingalls Creek Divide near Three Brothers Mountain, which is also the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Boundary. Motorcycle access into the wilderness at this point is not possible due to very steep topography. Illegal motorcycle use sometimes occurs on Trail #1210 which leads to the Falls Creek Trail #1216. The Falls Creek Trail is within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Eliminating any possibility of highway vehicle traffic transporting motorcycles into Upper Etienne Creek could improve wilderness solitude or wilderness incursions in this area. However most motorcycles access Upper Etienne Creek under their own power, therefore under this alternative, there would not likely be any change to wilderness solitude or wilderness incursions in this area.

Chumstick Watershed Eleven miles of road would be decommissioned in the Chumstick Watershed of a total 234 miles of U.S. Forest Service roads, constituting 5% of the total miles in the watershed. 1.2 miles of the eleven miles to be decommissioned are currently open of the 125 miles of road that are currently open. Therefore 1% of the currently open road miles would be decommissioned. Road segments would be decommissioned in the upper Van Creek, Dry Creek and upper Freund Creek areas. Dispersed recreation such as hiking, mountain biking, horse riding, and motorcycling take place on some of these roads. This use could become more difficult as road surfaces are often roughed up or culverts are pulled during decommissioning operations.

Of the eleven miles of road decommissioning proposed, 3 miles would be mitigated by decommissioning in a manner that will not preclude non-motorized recreational access (Roads 7520- 300, 7701-270, 7701-325, 7701-450, and 7701-500). Additionally, 5.6 miles of road would receive the minor or less intensive decommissioning treatments (Level b or c) across only part of the road or road segment. The remaining 2.4 miles of road would receive treatments (Level a) where dispersed recreational access would be made difficult due to decommissioning operations. Of these five segments (7520-310, 7520-320, 7801-404, 7520, and 7804-200) only Road 7520-320 is longer than 0.5 miles. Recreational use more often occurs on longer road segments which access more ground. Road 7520-320 is currently being utilized by ATV traffic. This use would likely no longer be possible after decommissioning activities. The 1.2 miles of currently open roads that would be decommissioned and access a dispersed camping site along Van Creek (7520-330) and a route most often used by ATVs at the East Van Creek dispersed camping site (7531-135).

Driving for pleasure would not be affected in the Chumstick watershed since no roads highway vehicles normally drive would be decommissioned. The groomed snowmobile systems would not be affected as these roads are not proposed for decommissioning. Decommissioned roads would not affect any of the dispersed sites identified by the Okanogan Wenatchee Travel Management Plan Proposed Action (USFS 2009). Access to the dispersed camping site on the Van Creek spur Road #7520-300 would be

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning maintained. Access to the Eagle Creek rock climbing area and the Freund Canyon trail system would be maintained. Backyard snowmobiling and skiing could continue on decommissioned roads as route corridors would still exist and the snow pack would cover most disturbances. Firewood cutting activities on currently closed roads that are planned for decommissioning would not be affected as the current firewood cutting permit does not allow vehicle access off of open roads. The currently open roads that would be decommissioned that are located in land allocations open to firewood cutting are two segments totaling 0.75 miles located in the Upper Van Creek and Upper East Van Creek areas. Therefore, access to firewood cutting would be eliminated along 0.75 miles of currently open road in the Chumstick drainage. This amounts to less than 1% of the 125 miles of currently open roads within the drainage. There is no wilderness areas accessed in this portion of the Chumstick Watershed.

Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis includes the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages and any connecting National Forest road systems around the boundaries of these drainages. The timeframe considered is 2012 to 2019 as this is the time period that road decommissioning activities would occur. The following activities would add to the amount of roads not available for motorized traffic in addition to the similar effects of the proposed action.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee NF is preparing a Travel Management Plan which will designate specific roads and trails where motorized use is permitted on the National Forest. Motorized use off this system will be prohibited. Currently motorized use by ORVs is permitted except where closed, as long as resource damage is not being done. The Travel Management Plan would reduce the number of miles of routes that motorized vehicles can utilize. Therefore this road decommissioning project would close 14 miles of open road in addition to the routes that the Travel Management Plan will likely restrict motorized travel on.

Mudslides in spring 2011 damaged and closed the Tiptop road (approximately 3 miles up) and the Scotty Creek Road (approximately 3 miles up). These roads are expected to be repaired and re-opened for public use in late summer 2012.

In summer 2012 Chelan County is planning to replace the AKRO bridge on the Old Blewett Pass Highway, just south of the intersection with Highway 97. This bridge replacement project will close the Old Blewett Highway for 3 months, restricting access to Shaser and Scotty Creek from the Chelan County side of Highway 97. Access to the mining areas of Scotty and Shaser Creeks will only be available on the Old Blewett Pass Highway from the Kittitas County side. Access via Scotty Creek will not be available until the 2011 mudslide damage is repaired.

Ranger District Management activities such as timber harvest, road maintenance and prescribed burning may temporarily close roads to public use for safety concerns, but these would be short term closures.

The Ski Hill Trail Plan is currently in progress. The proposed action would increase the amount of non-motorized trail in the Freund trail system as well as connecting that system to the Leavenworth side at the Ski Hill. Special Uses ______

Existing Condition Peshastin Watershed 86

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Electronic sites are accessed by Roads 7320-211 and Tiptop Road #7201. These sites need roaded access for maintenance activities. An underground utility corridor runs along Highway 97 from the north to the Old Blewett Highway, then up the Scotty Creek Road. Road access is necessary to maintain this line. Many of the roads accessing the alternate privately owned sections (checkerboard) are cost-share roads. This means that the Forest Service and the private landowner have agreed to share in the construction and maintenance costs of these roads since they access both ownerships. In most cases the Forest Service did not acquire recreational driving shares for these roads and they are gated to restrict highway vehicles. Access to the many parcels of private lands on roads across the National Forest is important to the private landowners. Mineralized areas are located along Highway 97 (Peshastin Creek) and the following tributaries; Etienne Creek, Ruby Creek, Culver Gulch, King Creek, Shaser Creek and Scotty Creek. Mining claims are scattered through this area, both placer and lode claims. Generally claim holders have sub-surface mining rights. There is no heavy commercial mining occurring, and most activity is prospecting and assessment. Miners access their claims on existing open roads. The major exception to this is Lower Etienne Creek. Historically, vehicle access to Lower Etienne Creek was along a section of the Old Blewett Pass Highway from Ingalls Creek. However a large landslide in the 1990s swept this road off the hillside and there are no plans to replace it. Miners access their claims in Lower Etienne Creek on motorcycles on a user created trail from Ingalls Creek or by foot, across Peshastin Creek in low water.

Chumstick Watershed Two communication sites are accessed on the Tumwater Road system #7701. These sites need road access to maintain the facilities. An outfitter guide provides horse rides to the public on National Forest land up Eagle Creek and uses Roads # 7401-000 and 7401-390. Utility power lines cross National Forest briefly in the French Corral, Douglas Creek and Sunitsch areas, requiring road access for maintenance. There is one grazing permittee who grazes sheep through National Forest land in Eagle Creek, Van Creek and Dry Creek areas. The permittee requires road access to herd the animals. There are many private land parcels interspersed within the National Forest boundary. Some of these private parcels have water line permits across the National Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1- No Action Because the No Action Alternative would not close or decommission any road, there would be no affects to current special uses. Access to communication sites, mining claims, outfitter guide permit areas, utility power lines, and grazing areas would not be affected. Activities such as prospecting and dredging would not be affected. Effects would be as described in the Special Uses Existing Condition section above.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Peshastin Watershed Electronic sites accessed on Roads 7320-211 and Tiptop Road #7201 and the underground utility corridor in Scotty Creek would continue to have access as these roads would not be decommissioned. Private landowners who are share-cost partners have concurred with the proposed decommissioning of certain share cost roads. Access to the many parcels of private lands on roads across the National Forest would be maintained. No roads are proposed for decommissioning that access mining claims in Ruby Creek, Culver Gulch, King Creek, Shaser Creek and Scotty Creek. In lower Etienne Creek there is no longer any road access into the drainage due to the Ruby Creek landslide in the 1990sMiners access their claims in Lower Etienne Creek on motorcycles on a user created trail from Ingalls Creek or by foot, across Peshastin Creek in low water. Roads 7312 and 7312-211 in Etienne Creek would be 87

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning decommissioned (4.92 miles) in a manner that would not preclude motorcycle, stock or foot access as needed for mining access. Mining claims in Upper Etienne Creek are currently accessed by Road #7322-400, 7322-480 and 7322-485. These roads are currently gated and designated as an ATV route for recreationists. ATV use is moderate on these roads from June to October annually. Prospecting, assessment and panning activities along Upper Etienne Creek currently utilize both ATVs and pickup trucks for access. These roads would be converted to ATV Trails. Current culverts would be pulled and replaced with ATV trail bridges and the road prism would be narrowed to a tread to accommodate ATVs, motorcycles, stock or foot traffic. Mineral activities would need to be accessed by those forms of transportation as the road would no longer be wide enough to accommodate pickup trucks and other similar four-wheeled transportation.

Chumstick Watershed Access would be maintained to the Tumwater Mountain communications sites except for the communications site accessed by Road 7701-270. This road is planned to be decommissioned and there would no longer be road access to the site. Access would be maintained to the Eagle Creek outfitter, private parcel permits on the National Forest, and utility power lines since no roads would be decommissioned that access these areas. The grazing permittee identified Roads #7520-300 and 7520- 330 as necessary to the grazing operations. These roads are generally flat and would be decommissioned in a manner which would not preclude grazing use by the permittee as sheep are able to walk across rough surfaces. These rough surfaces would be seeded and would soon provide additional forage on the old road template.

Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis includes the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages and any connecting National Forest road systems around the boundaries of these drainages. The timeframe considered is 2012 to 2019 as this is the time period that road decommissioning activities would occur. The following activities would restrict vehicle use of roads in addition to the similar effects of the proposed action.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee NF is preparing a Travel Management Plan which will designate specific roads and trails where motorized use is permitted on the National Forest. Motorized use off this system will be prohibited. This plan will not likely propose any closures that would affect special uses in the Peshastin or Chumstick drainages.

Existing Condition The forest transportation system is managed to provide access to National Forest System lands for administration, protection, and utilization consistent with Forest Plan guidance. In the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds there are approximately 462 miles of National Forest System Roads. Based on road management objectives, each road is given an operational and objective maintenance level (1 through 5), which determines the type and frequency of maintenance. Briefly defined, a Level 1 (ML 1) road is closed and in a state of storage for future use; a Level 2 (ML 2) road is suitable for use by high clearance vehicles; and Levels 3 through 5 (ML 3 – 5) receive a higher degree of maintenance providing access for a standard passenger car (see Appendix B). Approximately 52.1 miles are identified for decommissioning and 11.7 88

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning miles identified for conversion to ATV trail with this project. All the identified roads are listed as Maintenance Level 1 (48.5 miles) or Maintenance Level 2 (15.3 miles) (see Table 3 and description of Maintenance Level in Appendix A - Road Treatment Definitions, Photos, and Methods).

Routine road maintenance focuses on ensuring that unsafe conditions are corrected, protecting the road investment and minimizing potential adverse impacts to other resources, such as fish and wildlife habitat. Road maintenance includes using heavy equipment to grade roads, cut roadside brush, clean ditch lines, remove minor slide and slough material, unplug or replace culverts, and use of chainsaws to remove hazard trees and brush or logs in the roadway.

Road maintenance activity and accomplishment is contingent on budgetary constraints. The current trend is a decrease in maintenance budgets and therefore activity. It is anticipated that this trend will continue. In the past, timber sale operators constructed and maintained roads on Forest Service lands for their own use. In recent years, however, the timber sale program has declined and there have been insufficient funds to continue to maintain the established network of roads to the standards they were built for. For this reason, many roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick watersheds have become unsafe, overgrown with vegetation, and are undriveable. Additionally, routine inspection and maintenance of culverts and ditches on many roads is not possible due to lack of personnel and funding and therefore risks of road failure and wash-outs have increased. Approximately 20% of the roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages currently receive maintenance to standard every three to five years.

Direct and Indirect Effects The effects on dispersed recreation, fish, wildlife and costs of road maintenance will primarily be measured by comparing current miles of roads on the road system to roads decommissioned or converted to trails and therefore not on the road system post-project (Table 10).

Table 10. Comparison of Alternatives based on metrics related to transportation issues.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Indicators (No Action) (Proposed Action)

Peshastin- 228 Peshastin- 176 Number of miles of USFS road Chumstick-234 Chumstick- 223

Number of miles of USFS road open to motorized Peshastin-124 Peshastin- 109 traffic Chumstick- 125 Chumstick- 124

Annual projected road maintenance costs to meet ML Peshastin- $20,667 Peshastin- $18,167 2 standards* Chumstick- $20,833 Chumstick- $20,667

Peshastin- 99 Peshastin- 84 Number of miles of unmaintained open ML 2 roads** Chumstick- 100 Chumstick- 99

Peshastin- $365,290.00 Costs of decommissioning $0 Chumstick- $95,992.00 *The projected road maintenance costs are with the assumption that all roads would receive needed maintenance at least every three to five years. ** Approximately 20% of the roads in the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages are expected to receive maintenance to standard given trends in road maintenance budgets.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Alternative 1- No Action Under Alternative 1 – No Action, the current number of roads on the system, 462 miles, would remain the same. Road maintenance would remain the same for ML 1 and 2 roads with a normal maintenance schedule of once every 3 to 5 years for ML 2 and as needed for ML 1. The costs associated with maintaining the road system would continue to fall short of funding levels by approximately 80%. Only the roads with higher usage or drainage issues would be maintained consistently on schedule. Other roads would be left unmaintained and would not necessarily meet standards. Maintenance would be done as needed and as funding levels provide opportunities to do work.

Traffic would consist of administrative, recreational, and dispersed use typical for the area. Roads currently open or closed would remain the same and there would be no road closures, conversion to trails, nor decommissioning of roads. The opportunity for reduction of maintenance costs and adverse environmental effects is forgone with this alternative. Drainage problems would continue in the long term.

For user safety, roads are maintained to their operational maintenance level according to the objective for the road. Not all roads are maintained at their operational maintenance level and therefore could pose a safety risk for users. Under Alternative 1 – No Action, the miles of unmaintained roads would remain the same. Maintenance would continue to be done as needed and as funding levels provide opportunities to do work.

Alternative 1- Proposed Action Under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, approximately 52.1 miles of Forest roads would be decommissioned and 11.7 miles converted to ATV trails and would be removed from the road system inventory. A total of 399 miles of roads would remain on the road system. Various methods would be used for decommissioning. (See Table 3 and Appendix A). The roads decommissioned would be closed, stabilized, and hydraulically disconnected, eliminated from the road system, and would not need recurring maintenance. Alternative 2 would reduce the backlog of unmaintained roads.

Costs for decommissioning would vary by the type and amount of treatment needed for each road to meet the Desired Condition. The cost of implementing Level a decommissioning when it required full obliteration and slope recontouring could be very expensive. Based on the prescriptions for decommissioning presented in Table 3, approximately 28 miles (44%) of road decommissioning would be done at this higher rate of decommissioning costs. Approximately 22.7 miles of decommissioning and trail conversion (would be done through Level c passive restoration which would require very little cost to implement. The remaining 13.4 miles of Level b decommissioning would be done at an intermediate rate. Table 11 summarizes the estimated costs for decommissioning under Alternative 2.

Table 11. Estimated costs for road decommissioning under Alternative 2 based on recent decommissioning project costs in the project area. Decommissioning Level # Miles Estimated Costs Level a 27.8 $15,000 per mile= $416,400 Level b 13.4 $3,000 per mile= $40,350 Level c 22.7 $200 per mile= $4,532

Some cost saving would be incurred under Alternative 2 as a result of reduced road maintenance costs. Road maintenance is a recurring cost that is directly related to the number of miles of road in the project area. Decommissioning would decrease the number of roads and therefore the cost of maintenance of roads. Under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, the miles of potentially unmaintained roads would be reduced from 462 miles to 399 miles. Maintenance would continue to be done as needed and as funding levels provide opportunities to do the work.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

In terms of user safety, under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, the miles of potentially unmaintained roads would be reduced from 462 miles to 399 miles. Road safety concerns could no longer be an issue on roads that are decommissioned.

Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis includes the Peshastin and Chumstick drainages and any connecting National Forest road systems around the boundaries of these drainages. The timeframe considered is 2012 to 2019 as this is the time period that road decommissioning activities would occur. The following activities could add to the amount of U.S. Forest Service system roads and/or change the level of maintenance required on certain roads. There are no known foreseeable actions that will likely decrease the amount of U.S. Forest Service system roads.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee NF is preparing a Travel Management Plan which will designate specific roads and trails where motorized use is permitted on the National Forest. Although Travel Management could result in a change in maintenance level or the closure of some roads it is not anticipated that it will close roads or change the maintenance level for any roads in the project area. It will therefore not change maintenance costs or the number of U.S. Forest Service roads.

Road construction on Forest Service and private lands could occur as a result of forest management and/or private land development. New Forest Service road construction tends to be temporary with decommissioning after use, while private road construction is more likely to be permanent in nature. Therefore these actions could add temporarily to U.S. Forest Service maintenance responsibilities and costs. Timber harvest of private lands could have a similar effect and add maintenance costs and responsibilities if cost-share roads are used. Overall, when added to the proposed action, there is likely to still be a net decrease in U.S. Forest Service roads and maintenance costs.

Consistency Findings Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan A goal of the LRMP is to “Develop a transportation system that is designed and operated to standards appropriate to the planned uses, considering safety, cost of transportation and effects upon lands and resources” (pIV-4). Part of the strategy for road management is “…to reduce the cost and impact of roads…” (pIV-60).

Direction under the Wenatchee Forest Plan has been met by “...considering safety, cost of transportation, and effects upon lands and resources...” in planning the transportation system. Alternative 2 would “…reduce the cost and impact of roads…” Heritage Resources ______The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (36 CFR 800) established the Federal government’s policy and programs on historic preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires Federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal, federally- assisted, or permitted undertaking to take into account the effect an undertaking may have on heritage resources determined significant enough to be listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Federal agencies are responsible for the management of heritage resources that are listed or eligible for the NRHP. The Section 106 process also affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on and participate in consultation regarding such undertakings (16 U.S.C. 470f). The Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the Department of

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the ACHP are the state and federal agencies respectively responsible for overseeing the management and protection of historic properties in compliance with the NHPA.

On the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest heritage resources are districts, pre-contact archaeological and historic sites, buildings, structures and objects that contain evidence of past human activities. They are fragile and non-renewable. Heritage resources that are listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are given consideration in planning for federally licensed, approved or funded projects (E.O. 11593).

Existing Condition A review of Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest heritage resource reports and site records indicates that portions of the Peshastin-Chumstick Road Decommissioning Project had been surveyed for heritage resources between 1984 and 1999. Previous studies addressing road impacts and risks to watershed and aquatic resources within these watersheds include the Lower Peshastin Ecosystem Restoration EA (USFS 1999a), Peshastin Minimum Roads Analysis (USFS 2010a), and Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (USFS 2011). Heritage resource inventories for these projects were conducted by cultural resource specialists or cultural resource technicians working under the direct supervision of a cultural resource specialist. All surveys were conducted in accordance with the Forest’s heritage resource site probability model which requires 100% examination of high probability, 35% examination of moderate probability and 5% examination of low probability landforms in a given project area. Transect intervals were spaced 10 to 45 meters apart. As a result of those surveys, two historic period heritage resource sites were documented adjacent to, straddled by, or near road segments slatted for decommissioning under this alternative. The sites are a sheep camp defined by a wooden trough and a pipe at a spring, and a historic cabin. The cabin site was formally determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1985 but the sheep camp was not evaluated for the NRHP and was avoided during project activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action alternative, heritage resources in the project area would indirectly and cumulatively remain at some risk to effects relating to modern day use of the forest, domestic animal and wildlife activities, natural deterioration, scavenging/artifact collection, and catastrophic events such as fire, flood, and landslide. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action alternative, ground disturbing treatments associated with decommissioning of roads have the potential to damage or destroy heritage resources located on or adjacent to a road prism or road features such as lead out ditches, bridges, and culverts.

In preparation for the proposed project, a search of Heritage Program reports and site records, and application of the Forest’s GIS Heritage layer to the project area, indicated that only seven of the 69 roads proposed for decommissioning are in project areas that had been previously inventoried for heritage resources. Two previously documented sites had been documented on roads that under this alternative may be subjected to ground disturbing decommissioning activities. The previously documented sites are a sheep camp that straddles road 7520330 and an ineligible historic cabin that burned in 1937 at the south end of road 7531135.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

A total of 46 roads proposed for decommissioning under this alternative were surveyed by a cultural resource specialist in 2011. A total of 23 of the roads were not inventoried for heritage resources because 1) the road is in a remote location where treatments have yet to be determined or treatments may not require ground disturbance, 2) the road is a spur road behind a larger road that will be decommissioned, or 3) the road could not be located. For the 46 roads inventoried, the heritage resource survey was conducted on foot using transect spacing of five to ten meters. The previously documented ineligible cabin site was relocated but no artifacts or features were identified in the road prism. The portion of the site outside the road prism will not be affected. The location of the previously documented sheep camp, defined only by a wooden trough and a pipe at a spring in 1984, was revisited. No evidence of the site remains. As such, the site was formally determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 2012. No other heritage resources were identified in the project area nor were any heritage resources (including traditional cultural properties) identified during a literature review or in consultation with the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the Forest’s 1997 programmatic agreement regarding the management of cultural resources on national forests in Washington State, heritage resource clearance for decommissioning 46 of the 69 roads under this alternative was approved by the Heritage Program Manager with a determination of No Historic Properties Present/No Effect. The report was submitted to SHPO on 28 February 2012 for concurrence on the eligibility of the sheep camp. A letter of concurrence from SHPO was received on 29 February 2012.

Under Alternative 2, if ground disturbing treatments are proposed on any of the 23 roads not yet inventoried for heritage resources, pedestrian survey would occur prior to decommissioning. An addendum to the 2011 Section 106 heritage resource report would be prepared prior to implementation and if any National Register eligible heritage resources are present, they would be avoided. Treatments near National Register eligible or potentially eligible heritage resources would be monitored by a cultural resource specialist. If avoidance of a heritage resource was not possible, mitigation would be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) for the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes.

If undocumented heritage resources are discovered during project implementation, all work would cease pending review by a cultural resource specialist and as needed, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) for the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes. Specifically Required Disclosures ______This is not a major Federal action. It would have limited context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27), individually or cumulatively, to the biological, physical, social or economic components of the human environment. In addition, the following conditions would be met.

Clean Air Act All of the proposed alternatives would be consistent with the Clean Air Act because no more than incidental dust is anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed alternatives. No effect to wilderness visibility or other Class 1 airsheds is anticipated.

Social Groups, Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, directs Federal agencies to address effects accruing in a disproportionate 93

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning way to minority and low income populations. No disproportionate impacts to consumers, civil rights, minority groups, and women are expected from the action alternatives. Decommissioning work would be implemented by USFS staff or contracts with private businesses. Project contracting for the project’s activities would use approved management direction to protect the rights of these private companies. There would be no effect from the proposed activities on the rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and the Yakama Indian Nation.

Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains Positive, long-term benefits to designated floodplains or wetlands are projected. Several sections of decommissioned road are within floodplains or cross wetlands, and effects are described in the Aquatic Resources section above. Floodplains and wetlands would be protected by mitigation measures which conform to Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.

Effects on Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land The project area does not contain any prime rangeland or prime farmland. The forest land within the analysis area does not qualify as “prime forest” because growth rates do not exceed 85 cubic feet/year at culmination of mean annual increment. Therefore, the proposed action complies with the Secretary of Agriculture’s Memorandum 1827.

Energy Requirements of Alternatives With relation to national and global petroleum reserves, the energy consumption associated with the proposed action would be insignificant. Fossil fuels used during road decommissioning would result in an irreversible resource commitment of fossil fuel resources. Energy consumption associated with this project would be insignificant at the local, regional, or national level. Overall, road decommissioning could reduce energy consumption through reduced maintenance requirements and reduced motorized travel.

American Indian Treaty Rights The Peshastin and Chumstick project analysis area lies within the traditional use areas of some members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and is within the lands ceded to the U.S. Government by the 1855 Treaty with the Yakama. None of the proposed alternatives would conflict with Executive Order provisions. Some areas may no longer be available to motor vehicle access but this would not affect subsistence rights under the Executive Order for traditional hunting or gathering rights, since other forms of accessible would be available to exercise these rights. Benefits to natural resources are expected to enhance the ability to exercise these rights. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and the Yakama Indian Nation were both contacted in reference to this proposed Action.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects There are no known substantial, irreversible, or irretrievable commitments of resources connected with the proposed action. The irreversible commitment of resources refers to a loss of non-renewable resources, such as mineral extraction, heritage (cultural) resources, or to those factors which are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity. Road decommissioning would reduce the extent of irreversible loss to soil productivity and natural resources.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Greer Maier Team Leader/Aquatics Michelle Ellis Fire and Fuels Glen Ferrier Geographic Information Systems Lauri Malmquist Botany Mick Mueller Environmental Coordinator Susan Peterson Public Affairs Ernie Stutzman Transportation/Engineering Robert Stoehr Recreation/Special Uses Michelle Satterfield Vegetation Don Youkey Wildlife DECIDING OFFICIAL: Jeffery A. Rivera District Ranger

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wenatchee Field Office, Wenatchee, Washington National Marine Fisheries Service, Ellensburg, Washington

TRIBES: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation Yakama Indian Nation

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning CHAPTER 5 - REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1994c. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 52 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr320.pdf (October 19, 2006).

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science, 72(special issue):24-34. Available online at http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/Journal%20reprints.htm (December 19, 2007).

Agee, J.K. 2003. Historical range of variability in eastern Cascades forests, Washington, USA. Landscape Ecology, 18(8):725-740. Available online at http://www.springerlink.com/content/m80l003512780253/fulltext.pdf (January 12, 2007). Agee, James K.; Maruoka, Kathleen R. 1994. Historical fire regimes of the Blue Mountains. BMNRI- TN-1. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 4 p.

Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Wooten, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem evaluation; final report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, Colo. 156 p.

Anderson, R.M. 1943. Summary of the large wolves of Canada, with description of three new Arctic Races. Journal of Mammalogy, 24(3): 386-393.

Andonaegui, C. 2001. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout Habitat Limiting Factors for the Wenatchee Subbasin (WRIA 45) and Portions of WRIA 40 within Chelan County (Squilchuck, Stemilt and Colockum Drainages). Washington State Conservation Commission. November 2001.

Archibald, W.R., R. Ellis, and A.N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the Kimsquit River valley, British Columbia. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:251-257.

Arno, S.F., J.H. Scott, and M.G. Hartwell. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire history. Research Paper, INT-RP-481. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 25 pp. Available online at http://maps.wildrockies.org/ecosystem_defense/Science_Documents/Arno_et_al_1995.pdf (January 11, 2007).

Arno, S.F., H.Y. Smith, and M.A. Krebs. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand structures: influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. Research Paper, INT-RP-495. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 20 pp. Available online at http://maps.wildrockies.org/ecosystem_defense/Science_Documents/Arno_Smith_Krebs_1997.pdf.

Arno, S.F., Parsons, D.J. and Keane, R.E. 2000. Mixed-severity fire regimes in the Northern Rocky Mountains: consequences of fire exclusion and options for the future. In: Cole, D.N., S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management. 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 225-232. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_5.html (October 19, 2006). 96

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation, 114(1):79- 90. Available online at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon (January 12, 2007).

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggerio, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W. [et al.], tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 99–127.

Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in Territorial, Gill-flaring, and Feeding Behavior in Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following Short-term Pulses of Suspended Sediment. Can. Journal of Fish. And Aqu. Sci. 42(8): 1410-1417.

Bigley, R.E. and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Habitat Trends. In: Courtney, S.P., J. A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. September 2004. Chapter 6. Available online at http://www.sei.org/owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm (October 20, 2006).

Bjorkland, J. 1980. Habitat and vegetative characteristics of a remote backcountry area as related to reestablishment of a grizzly population in the North Cascades National Park Complex. USDI National Park Service, North Cascades National Parks, WA. Misc. Research Paper, NCT-10. 38 pp

Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3):407-417.

Bowling, L.C. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2002. Evaluation of the effects of forest roads on streamflow in Hard and Ware creeks, Washington. University of Washington Dept. of Civil and Envionmental Engineering. Seattle, Washington. Water Resources Series, Technical Report No. 155. October 2002.

Boyd, D.K. and D.L. Pletscher. 1999. Characteristics of dispersal in a colonizing wolf population in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(4):1094-1108.

Buchanan, J. B. 1991. Spotted owl nest site characteristics in mixed conifer forests of the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 76 pp.

Buchanan, J.B. and L.L. Irwin. 1998. Variation in spotted owl nest site characteristics within the eastern Cascade Mountains Province in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist, 79(1):33-40.

Buchanan, J.B., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1993. Characteristics of spotted owl nest trees in the Wenatchee National Forest. Journal of Raptor Research, 27(1):1-7.

Buchanan, J.B., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Journal of Wildlife Management, 59(2):301-310.

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Chapman, D. W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds or large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:1–21.

Ciarniello, L.M., D.C. Heard, D.R. Seip, M.S. Boyce. 2007. Grizzly Bears and Forestry: Increased Mortality Leading to Lower Abundance in Heavily-roaded Landscapes. in T.D. Hooper, editor. Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference. 1 March 2–6, 2004, Victoria, B.C. Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference Organizing Committee, Victoria, B.C.

Ciarniello, L.M., M.S. Boyce, D.C. Heard, D.R. Seip. 2007. Components of Grizzly Bear Habitat Selection: Density, Habitats, Roads, and Mortality Risk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5): 1446- 1457.

Claar, J.J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, B. Conard, G. Hickman, R. Hornpesch, G. Olson, H.I. Pac, T. Wittinger, and H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. In: Joslin, G., H. Youmans, coords. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society: pp. 7.1-7.61.

Cook, C. and A. Dresser. 2004. Erosion and channel adjustments following forest road decommissioning, Six Rivers National Forest. In M Furniss, C Clifton, and K Ronnenberg, eds., 2007. Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004, PNWGTR- 689, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Cooper, M. and S. Mallas, 2004. Peshastin Creek Smolt Monitoring Program, Annual Report 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office, Leavenworth, WA.

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. Moscow, ID: University 138 p. M.S. thesis.

Copeland, J. P. and C. Harris. 1993. Wolverine ecology and habitat use in central Idaho. Progress Report, Idaho Dept. Fish and Game. 26pp.of Idaho.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. September 2004. 508 pp. Available online at http://www.sei.org/owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm (December 13, 2004).

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(1):60-76. Available online at: http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/pb1/vitae/Delaney_etal1999b-Noise-MSO.pdf (October 19, 2006).

De Vos, A. 1948. Timber wolves (Canis lupus lycaon) killed by cars on Ontario Highways. Journal of Mammalogy, 30(2):197.

Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, California. 818 pp.

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Everett, R.L., R. Schellhaas, T. Anderson, J.F. Lehmkuhl, and A.E. Camp. 1996. Restoration of ecosystem integrity and land use allocation objectives in altered watersheds. In: McDonnell, J.J, J.B. Stribling, L.R. Neville, and D.J. Leopold, eds. Watershed restoration management – Physical, Chemical, and Biological Considerations; Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association; Syracuse, NY; July 14-17, 1996. American Water Resources Association Herdon, VA. p. 271-280.

Everett, R., D. Schellhaas, D. Spurbeck, P. Ohlson, D. Keenum, and T. Anderson. 1997. Structure of northern spotted owl nest stands and their historical conditions on the eastern slope of the Pacific Northwest Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 94(1-3):1-14. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/spottedowl.pdf (October 20, 2006).

Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Foltz, R.B., H. Rhee, K.A. Yanosek.2007. Infiltration, erosion, and vegetation recovery following road obliteration. Transactions of the ASABE. 50(6): 1937-1943.

Forsman, E.D., I.A. Otto, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D.W. Hays, H. Allen, S.L. Roberts, and D.E. Seaman. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research, 35(2): 141-150.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fish and Their Habitat. Ed. W.R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19: 297-323.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1967. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Determination of Endangered Status for Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the conterminous States, except MN and where listed as an experimental population; Final Rule. Federal Register 32:4001. March 11, 1967.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1975. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Amendment Listing the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilus) of the 48 Conterminous States as a Threatened Species; Final Rule. Federal Register 40(145):31734-31736. July 28, 1975.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register 55(123):26114-26194. June 26, 1990.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. 181 p.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Grizzly bear recovery plan, supplement: North Cascades Ecosystem recovery plan chapter. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. July 8, 1997. 24 pp.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Findings on Petitions to Change the Status of Grizzly Bear Populations in the North Cascades Area of Washington and the Cabinet-Yaak Area of Montana and Idaho from Threatened to Endangered; Notice of 12-month petition finding. Federal Register 63(107):30453-30455. June 4, 1998.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning the conterminous United States; establishment of two special regulations for threatened gray wolves; Final and Proposed Rules. Federal Register 68(62):15803-15875. April 1, 2003

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004a. Northern Spotted Owl Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Portland, OR. November 15, 2004. 72 pp. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/pdf/NSO_5-yr_Summary.pdf (June 23, 2006).

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12- month finding for a petition to list the west coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69(68):18770-18792. April 8, 2004.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Revised Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl - Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pp. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/ (June 30, 2011).

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Letter of Concurrence for the Peshastin Chumstick Road Decommissioning Project. Wenatchee Field Office, Wenatchee, WA. September 9, 2011.

Gaines, W.L., G.K. Neale, and R.H. Naney. 1995. Response of coyotes and gray wolves to simulated howling in North-central Washington. Northwest Science, 69(3):217-222.

Gaines, W.L, P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 79 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr586.pdf (October 19, 2006).

Garde, R.J. and K.G. Ranga Raju. 1985. Mechanics of Sediment Transportation and Alluvial Stream Problems. 2nd Edition, John Wiley, New York, NY.

Gast, William R., Jr.; Scott, Donald W.; Schmitt, Craig; [and others]. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report: "New perspectives in forest health". Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Malheu, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 296 p.

Goldman, E.A. 1944. The wolves of North American, Part II, Classification of wolves. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC. p. 387-636.

Gomi, T., Dan Moore, R. and Hassan, M. A. 2005. Suspended sediment dynamics in small forest stream of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41: 877–898.

Hadfield, James. 2005. Forest Pathologist. Initial Watershed Assessment for Fire Recovery Needs, Wenatchee Service Center, Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Wenatchee, WA. [email protected].

Hall, R. and K. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. 356 pp.

Hall, Frederick C. 1980. Fire history--Blue Mountains, Oregon. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 75-81. 100

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Harris, R.R., J.M. Gerstein, W.W. Weaver, D.J. Lewis and D. Lindquist. 2005. Monitoring the Effectiveness of Road System Upgrading and Decommissioning at the Watershed Scale. University of California, Center for Forestry, Berkeley, CA. 45 pp.

Hessburg, P.F., R.G. Mitchell, and G.M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. General Technical Report, PNW- GTR-327. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 72 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr327/ (October 3, 2006).

Hillman, T., Miller, M, Miller, J., Keesee, B., Miller, T., Tonseth, M., Hughes, M., and Murdoch, A. 2011. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Chelan Country PUD Hatchery Programs: 2010 Annual Report. BioAnalysts, Inc. Chelan Country PUD, and Washignton Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Prepared for HCP Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, Washington. June 1, 2011.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwest Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59: 1286–1301. IGBC (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee). 1998. Grizzly bear/motorized access management. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report. 7 pp.

Huff, M.H., R.D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, R.E. Vihanek, J.F. Lehmkuhl, P.F. Hessburg, and R.L. Everett. 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-355. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr355/ (October 3, 2006).

Hummel and J.K. Agee. 2003 "Western spruce budworm defoliation effects on forest structure and potential fire behavior." Northwest Science. 77(2): 159-169. http://hdl.handle.net/2376/807 (April 22, 2010)

Jensen, W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf, Canis lupus, distribution on the Ontario- Michigan border near Sault Ste. Marie. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 100(3):363-366.

Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clearcutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon, Water Resources Research, 32 (4), 959-974.

Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management options for spring/summer Chinoook salmon in the Columbia River Basin. Science 290:977–979.

Kasworm, W.F. and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management, 8:79-84.

Klein, R.D. 2003. Erosion and turbidity monitoring report, Sanctuary Forest stream crossing excavations in the upper Mattole River basin, 2002-2003. Final Report prepared for the Sanctuary Forest, Inc., Whitethorn, California. 34 p. Found at: http://www.bof.fire.ca.gov/pdfs/RKleinSanctSept2003.pdf

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Everett, R.L.; Huff, M.H.; Ottmar, R.D. 1994. Historical and current forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington: part l. vegetation pattern and insect and disease hazards. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW. 0(328): l-lll, 1-888 Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr328/ (October 19, 2006). 101

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler, and J.S. Begley. 2006a. Bushy-tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of Eastern Washington. Journal of Mammalogy. 87(2):371-379.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler, J.S. Begley, and J. Boulanger. 2006b. Demography of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications 16(2):584-600.

Lewis, J.C. and G.E. Hayes. 2004. Feasibility assessment for reintroducing fishers to Washington. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 70 pp.

Lillybridge, T.R., B.L. Kovalchik, C.K. Williams, and B.G. Smith. 1995. Field guide for forested plant associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-359. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In cooperation with Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee National Forest. 337 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr359.pdf (October 19, 2006).

Mace, R.D. and J.S. Waller. 1996. Grizzly bear distribution and human conflicts in Jewel Basin Hiking Area, Swan Mountains, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24(3):461-467.

Mace, R.D. and J.S. Waller. 1998. Demography and trend of grizzly bears in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Conservation Biology, 12(5):1005-1016. Available online at http://www.blackwell- synergy.com/toc/cbi/12/5 (October 3, 2006).

Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33:1395-1404.

Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western Montana. Conservation Biology, 13(2):367-377.

Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. Earth Surf Proc Land 26: 175–90.

Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of Wolverine Reproductive Den Sites. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 131-1230.

Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, and B.M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International Conference on Bear Research and Management, 7:259-273.

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behaviour, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25:451-460.

McLellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1989. Immediate reactions of grizzly bears to human activities. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17:269-274.

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16(1): 85-87.

102

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Mech, L.D., T.J. Meier, and J.W. Burch. 1991. Denali Park wolf studies: implications for Yellowstone. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 56:86- 90.

Mehmel, C.J. 2007. Analysis of impacts of the Tripod Fire on fire insect activity. Internal Forest Service Report. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee Service Center, Forestry Sciences Lab, Wenatchee, WA. 3 pp.

Mehmel, C., 2011. Forest Entomologist. Informal report on the effects of western spruce budworm in the Upper Peshastin sub-watershed. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, R.G.Haight, and A.P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes region. Conservation Biology, 9(2):279-294. Available online at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/cbi/9/2 (October 3, 2006).

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in Mid-Columbia River Tributaries. Monograph 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA.

Mutch, R.W., S.F. Arno, J.K. Brown, C.E. Carlson, R.D. Ottmar, and J.L. Peterson. 1993. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 14 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr310.pdf (October 19, 2006).

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic Ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11: 72-82.

Nowak, R.M. 1979. North American quaternary Canis. Monograph No. 6, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. 154 pp.

ODF (Oregon Dept. of Forestry). 1996. Road Sediment Monitoring Project Report: Survey of Road Drainage in Western Oregon. ODF Forest Practices Monitoring Program. Final Report to the Department of Environmental Quality.

Ohlson, P. and R. Schellhaas. 2002. Historical and current stand structure in Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests. Wenatchee WA: Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Lab, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file at the Leavenworth Ranger District, Leavenworth, WA.

Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill. 459p. Paquet, P.C. and C. Callahan. 1996. Effects of linear developments on winter movements of gray wolves in the Bow River Valley of Banff National Park, Alberta. In: G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Ziegler, and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of the Florida Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Transportation-related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Highways and Movement of Wildlife: Improving Habitat Connections and Wildlife Passageways across Transportation Corridors, April 30-May 2, 1996. U.S. Department of Transportation, Orlando, FL. FL-ER-58-96. pp. 46-66.

Pisano, R. 1979. Does the Cascade wolf survive? Oryx, 15(2):185-190.

103

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.

Rashin E.B., C.J. Clishe, A.T. Loch and J.M. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association: 42 5 (2006), pp. 1307–1327.

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson, J. R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334 349.

Reid, L. M. 1998. Forest roads, chronic turbidity, and salmon. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 79(45): F285.

Reynolds, K.M.; Rodriquez, S.; Bevens, K. 2003. User guide for the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System, Version 3.0. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA. 82pp. Reynolds, K.M.; Hessburg, P.F. 2005. Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management. 207:263-278.

Richards, Jo Ellen. 1989. Spotted owl food habits and prey availability on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University. 44p.

Ritter, D.F. 1978. Process geomorphology. WC Brown Publishers, Dubuque, 603pp

Romain-Bondi, K.A., R.B. Wielgus, L. Waits, W.F. Kasworm, M. Austin, and W. Wakkinen. 2004. Density and population size estimates for North Cascade grizzly bears using DNA hair-sampling techniques. Biological Conservation, 117(4):417-428. Available online at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon (October 20, 2006).

Skaugset, A.R. and M.M. Allen, 1998. Forest Road Sediment and Drainage Monitoring Project Report for Private and State Lands in Western Oregon. Unpublished Report, Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University.

Sullivan, P.T. 1983. A preliminary study of historic and recent reports of grizzly bears, Ursus arctos, in the North Cascades area of Washington. WA Department of Game, Olympia. 32 pp.

Suttle, K.B., Power, M.E., Levine, J.M, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14(4): 969-974.

Swarthout, E.C.H. and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65(2):312-317.

Switalski, T., L. Broberg, and A. Holden. 2007. Wildlife Use of Open and Decommissioned Roads on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center.

Tague, C. and Band, L. (2001). Simulating the impact of road construction and forest harvesting on hydrologic response. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26: 135–151.

104

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road density and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist, 113:404-407.

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray wolf response to refuge boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 22(1):61-68.

Titus, K. 1997. Unpublished data. Chumstick Creek Stream Survey Report. USFWS, Mid-Columbia Fisheries Resource Office, Leavenworth, WA.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1981. Alpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan (Report).

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1990. Wenatchee National Forest land and resource management plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee, WA.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1997a. Assessments for late successional reserves and managed late successional areas. Eastern Washington Cascades Province. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. February 1997. 427 pp. plus maps.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1997b. Forest-wide assessment for late-successional reserves and managed late-successional areas. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. February 1997. 391 pp. plus maps.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1999a. Peshastin Creek Watershed Assessment. Wenatchee National Forest, Leavenworth Ranger District and Lake Wenatchee Ranger District.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1999b. Chumstick Creek Watershed Assessment. Wenatchee National Forest, Leavenworth Ranger District and Lake Wenatchee Ranger District.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1999c. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Washington, D.C.: Washington Office, USDA Forest Service. p. iii.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2000. Strategy for management of dry forest vegetation – Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. April 2000. 45 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/district/dry_site_strategy.pdf (August 31, 2006).

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2003. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Road Analysis: Wenatchee Sub-basin. December 2003. On file at Leavenworth Ranger Station, Leavenworth, WA.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2004. Forest Health Assessment for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA. August 2004. 105 pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/planning/planmain.htm (November 17, 2006).

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005a. Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm (August 30, 2006).

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005b. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants.

105

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Portland, OR. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm (August 30, 2006).

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2008. Programmatic Biological Assessment for Selected Forest Management Activities on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. May 1, 2008. 139 pp.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2009. Okanogan –Wenatchee National Forest Travel Management Proposed Action. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee, WA.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2010a. Peshastin Minimum Roads Analysis- Upper Peshastin, Lower Peshastin, and Ingalls Creek Watershed. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee River Ranger District, Leavenworth, WA. December 2010.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2010b. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape resiliency. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. September 2010. Available online at: http://fsweb_ow.ewz.r6.fs.fed.us/resources- planning/documents/2010Final_ForestRestorationStrategy_1.pdf

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2011. Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee River Ranger District. March 2011.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2012. 2011 Sediment Sampling Report for the Chiwawa River, Wenatchee River, Nason Creek, Peshastin Creek and Mission Creek. USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee River Ranger District, Leavenworth, WA. April 2012.

USDA and USDI (U.S. Dept of Agriculture and U.S. Dept of Interior). 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; Standards and Guidelines for management of habitat of late-successional and old-growth related species within the range of the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. April 1994. Available online at http://www.reo.gov/general/aboutnwfp.htm (October 26, 2006).

USDA and USDI (U.S. Dept of Agriculture and U.S. Dept of Interior). 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guideline. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR.

UCSRB. 2007 Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board’s Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. August 2007. Available online at http://www.ucsrb.com/plan.asp or http://www.ucsrb.com/UCSRP%20Final%209-13-2007.pdf.

UCRTT (Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team). 2008. A biological strategy to protect and restore salmonid habitat in the Upper Columbia Region. April 30, 2008. Available online at: http://www.ucsrb.com/resources.asp.

WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1992. Bull trout/Dolly Varden management and recovery plan. Washington Department Number 92-22, Fisheries Management Division. Olympia, Washington.

106

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Wasser , S.K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology, 11(4):1019-1022. Available online at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/cbi/11/4 (October 3, 2006).

Weaver, W.E. and D.K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads: A Guide for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland roads. Pacific Watershed Associates for the Mendicino County Resource Conservation District. June 1994.

Wemple BC, Jones JA, Grant GE. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195–1207.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-485. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 3 Volumes. Available online at http://www.icbemp.gov/sourcehabitat/docs/ (October 19, 2006).

Whiley, A.J. and B.Cleland. 2003. Wenatchee National Forest Water Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Report. Washington Dept of Ecology. Publication No. 03-10-063. November 2003. Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0310063.pdf

Wright, C.S. and Agee, J.K. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the Eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Ecological Applications, 14(2):443-459. Available online at http://www.esajournals.org/pdfserv/i1051-0761-014-02-0443.pdf (March 7, 2007).

Young, S.P. and E.A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America. Am. Wildl. Inst., 636 pp.

107

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning APPENDIX A - ROAD TREATMENT DEFINITIONS, PHOTOS, AND METHODS

Maintenance Levels Based on road management objectives, each road is given an operational and objective maintenance level (1 through 5), which determines the type and frequency of maintenance. For the purposes of this analysis, briefly defined, a Level 1 (ML 1) road is physically closed, vehicular traffic is eliminated, and maintenance is done only to minimize resource impacts. A Level 2 (ML 2) road is suitable for use by high clearance vehicles and maintained as needed to control erosion and minimize damage to adjacent resources.

Road Decommissioning Road decommissioning is defined as: “Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state” (36 CFR 212.1, Forest Service Manual 7705 – Transportation System [USDA FS 2003]). Decommissioning entails 1)stabilizing and restoring unneeded roads to a more natural state using the methods described below(36 CFR 212.1); 2) re-establishing vegetation and restoring hydrologic and ecological processes interrupted or adversely impacted by the unneeded road; 3) management to block vehicles; 4) removing the road from the Forest Service transportation system database. Decommissioned roads would no longer be maintained. The long-term goal of road decommissioning projects is to reduce or eliminate hydrologic and sediment-related impacts so that instream conditions (i.e. substrate conditions and pool quantity and quality) may improve to natural conditions.

Under the proposed action decommissioning activities have been further defined by category of action. Level a decommissioning entails intensive active treatment (e.g. culvert removal, outsloping, and decompaction of the road surface, revegetation) across most or all of the road or road segment in order to achieve restoration objectives. Level b decommissioning is for road or road segments that need only minor prescriptions (e.g. waterbars, small culvert removal, entrance blockage). Level c decommissioning is for passive decommissioning (no action or entrance blockage). In cases where little or no survey information existed we assumed the treatment could be active Level a decommissioning in our analysis.

Methods The Forest Service Manual identifies five levels of treatments for road decommissioning which can achieve the intent of the definition. These include the following: 1. Block entrance 2. Revegetation and waterbarring 3. Remove fills and culverts 4. Establish drainage and remove unstable road shoulders 5. Full obliteration, recontouring and restoring natural slopes

These five treatments give planners a range of options for stabilizing and restoring unneeded roads. Watershed Analysis (WA), Roads Analysis (RA), and surveys help determine what treatment level or combination of treatments is appropriate. In some situations blocking the entrance may meet restoration objectives. In other situations, restoring hillslope hydrology may require full obliteration recontouring. Local factors such as climate, geology, topography, soil, and road design and construction also factor into the stabilization and restoration objectives.

108

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Decommissioning Photos

Before After Example of legacy streamside logging road before and after decommissioning. Project and photos by Pacific Watershed Associates (www.pacificwatershed.com).

Before After Example of unstable road before and after decommissioning. Project and photos by Pacific Watershed Associates (www.pacificwatershed.com).

Before After Example stream crossing on legacy forest road before and four years after decommissioning. Project and photos by Pacific Watershed Associates (www.pacificwatershed.com).

109

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

APPENDIX B - BROADSCALE TRENDS OF MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS)

Table 12. Broadscale Trends of Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Interior Columbia Basin for species that occur or potentially occur in the Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning project area. Habitat Forest Type and Seral Stage Unique Conservation

Species Viability Capability DRY MESIC Habitats Measures

Snag/Downed

Late

Aquatic

- -

Winter Range S&Gs

Opening Low Density SuccessionAdv. Opening Single Layer SuccessionAdv. Hardwoods Riparian/Wetland Talus/Scree Cliff/CavesF/Caves Meadow/Shrubs Edge Snags Logs NWFP ConservationStrategy NWFP SuccessionalReserve NWFP Log Guidelines FP (A) (B) Marten 4 X F F F B F X X Beaver X X X X X X X X X Mule deer Decline BF BF BF X X X BF F F X X Rocky Mountain elk Decline BF BF BF X X X BF F X X X Mountain goat No Change F BF BF Ruffed grouse BF BF BF X X X BF BF BF BF X Northern flicker BF BF BF X X X BF BF F BF F X White-headed woodpecker 4 X X X X X X Lewis' Woodpecker 4 BF BF BF X X X BF BF BF F X Williamson's sapsucker 3 X X X X X X X Red-breasted sapsucker 3 X X X X X X X X X Downy Woodpecker 3 BF BF BF F X Hairy Woodpecker 2 BF BF X X BF F X Three-toed Woodpecker 3 BF F X Black-backed Woodpecker 3 X X BF F X 110

Environmental Assessment Peshastin and Chumstick Road Decommissioning

Habitat Forest Type and Seral Stage Unique Conservation Species Viability Capability DRY MESIC Habitats Measures Pileated woodpecker 4 BF BF X X BF F X X

(A) Viability: 1= Habitat is broadly distributed with little or no limits to population interactions. 2= Habitat is broadly distributed but some gaps exist. Disjunctive patches generally allow species to interact as a metapopulation. 3= Habitat exists primarily as patches; some populations are isolated. 4= Habitat exists as isolated patches with limited opportunity for population interactions. Local populations may be extirpated. 5= Habitat is very scarce with little or no possibility for interactions of populations. Strong potential for extirpations. These are based on Lehmkuhl et al. (1997). Historical and Current Status of Terrestrial Species and the Effects of Proposed Alternatives. USDA Forest Service. PNW-GTR-409. (B) Habitat Capability: trends in habitat capability based on Lehmkuhl et al. 2001. Effects of Ecosystem management alternatives on elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer. Forest Ecology and Management 153:89-104 and Wisdom et al. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-485. B = Habitat used by this species for breeding; F = Habitat used by this species for foraging; X = Habitat used by this species but no specific behavior was document

111