United States Department of Environmental Agriculture
Forest Assessment Service
Pacific White Man Creek/ Northwest Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Region Fish Habitat Improvement March 2013
Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts Colville National Forest Pend Oreille County Washington
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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
White Man Creek/Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Fish Habitat Improvement
LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY: USDA – Forest Service Colville National Forest 765 South Main Federal Building Colville, WA 99114
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Gayne Sears District Ranger
CONTACT: Amy Dillon, Forest Environmental Coordinator Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts 315 N. Warren Newport, WA 99156 (509) 447-7300
ABSTRACT: The approved alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Colville National Forest (December 29, 1988), including Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment No. 2, and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Environmental Assessment (EA), establishes Forest Management Direction for the Colville National Forest in the form of Goals and Objectives. This project, if approved, would meet some of these Goals and Objectives. The projects focus is to enhance/restore aquatic habitat within the LeClerc Creek watershed.
Alternatives:
A. This alternative is a “no action” alternative; however, present planned management activities would continue. B. This alternative would restore fish habitat on Forest Service lands within White Man Creek and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek. Alternative B also meets the multiple-use objectives of the current Forest Plan, INFISH EA, and the Trout Habitat Restoration Program (THRP) by achieving trout restoration goals. The THRP is part of the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project settlement agreement (DOI 2010). Short-term disturbance, related to the restoration work, will include approximately 4.9 acres at White Man Creek and 7.7 acres at Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek.
This page intentionally blank for printing purposes White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Definitions
List of Acronyms
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom LRMP Land and Resources Management Act Plan also known as the Forest Plan BE Biological Evaluation (plants, fish, MA Forest Plan management area wildlife) MIS Management Indicator Species BMP Best Management Practice (water) (wildlife) BPA Bonneville Power Administration MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map (recreation) BPE Biophysical Environment NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (vegetation) of 1969 CFR Code of Federal Regulations NHPA National Historic Preservation Act CR County Road NFS National Forest System DBH Diameter breast height (a method of NRHP National Register of Historic Places describing a tree’s size) (heritage) EA Environmental Assessment OHV Off-highway Vehicle FEIS Final Environmental Impact PAG Plant Association Group Statement (vegetation) FERC Federal Energy Regulatory RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Commission (fish) FPA Forest Practice Applications (WA RMO Riparian Management Objective state land) (fish) FR Forest Road SHPO State Historic Preservation Office FSM Forest Service Manual (cultural resources) FY Fiscal Year SUP Special Use Permit GBMU or Grizzly Bear Management Unit TES Threatened, Endangered and BMU Sensitive (wildlife, plants) GIS Geographic Information System THRP Trout Habitat Restoration Program (computerized mapping and TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load analysis software) (hydrology) HPA Hydraulic Permit Application USDA United States Department of process Agriculture ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem USDI United States Department of Interior Management Project USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ID or IDT Interdisciplinary Team (wildlife) IGBC Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee WADNR WA State Department of Natural INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy (fish) Resources KNRD Kalispel Natural Resources WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project (a Department physically-based soil erosion model that describes the processes that KV Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (money collected from timber sale cause erosion) purchasers to conduct certain kinds of improvement work in timber sale areas)
Page i
Glossary
Abiotic Pertaining to the nonliving parts of an ecosystem, such as soil particles, bedrock, air, and water.
Age-Class A category into which the average age or age range of trees or other vegetation is divided for classification or use. Age-class is usually used in reference to even- aged stands of trees. It represents the dominant age of the main body of trees in a stand. In some mixed-aged stands, age-class can be used to describe the age of the dominant/co-dominant cohort of canopy trees.
Analysis Area Includes White Man Creek and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek.
Basal Area The cross-sectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand measured at breast height and expressed per unit of land area. Tree basal is used to determine percent stocking.
Best Management Practice(s) A practice or usually a combination of practices that (BMPs) are determined by a state or designated planning agency to be the most effective and practicable means (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) of controlling point and nonpoint source pollution at levels compatible with environmental goals.
The mass of the woody parts (wood, bark, branches, Biomass (woody) twigs, stumps, and roots) of trees (alive and dead) and shrubs and bushes, measured to a specified minimum diameter at breast height (DBH). Includes above- stump woody biomass, stumps, and roots. Excludes foliage.
Closed or Restricted Roads Refers to National Forest System roads with restricted access. Roads proposed for closure would change to maintenance level 1 which are National Forest system roads that are closed with either a closure device (e.g., earthen berm, gate) or naturally by allowing vegetation to invade the road template. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) Diameter at breast height; usually measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground.
District USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts
Ecological Processes Natural activities fundamental to the functioning of a healthy and sustainable ecosystem, usually involving the transfer of energy and substances from one medium or trophic level to another.
Page ii
Ecosystem A dynamic complex of living organisms (plant, animal, fungal, and micro-organism communities) and the associated nonliving environment with which they interact.
Endangered Species A noncritically endangered taxon that is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria A to E of IUCN (1998). (IUCN, World Conservation Monitoring Center. 1998. In: Walter, K.S.; Gillett, H.J., eds. 1997 IUCN red list of threatened plants. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. lxiv + 862 p.)
Erosion The movement of soil materials from one place to another. The movement of soil due to natural processes should be distinguished from that related to forest harvesting, road construction, or other human alterations.
Forest Available for Timber Forest land that is producing or is capable of Production producing industrial wood and is not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute, administrative regulation, or formal conservation reserve purposes. Includes forest with conditions suitable for timber production even if so situated as to not be immediately accessible for logging.
Forest Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and micro- organism communities, and their abiotic environment interacting as a functional unit, where the presence of trees is essential. Humans, with their cultural, economic, and environmental needs are an integral part of many forest ecosystems.
Fragmentation Describes one aspect of habitat capacity. Refers generally to the reduction in size of forest patches with coincident decreases in forest connectivity and increases in patch isolation and amount of forest edge. The fragmentation of a forest into small pieces may disrupt ecological processes and reduce the availability of habitat.
Habitat The natural environment of a living organism, primarily determined by vegetation, climate, soils, geology, and topography.
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) A hierarchical watershed delineation system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey where the number of digits represents the size and/or category (e.g. North Fork Calispell Creek 170102160101 – HUC 12 – subwatershed).
INFRA An internal Forest Service Database, not an acronym, used to track Forest improvements such as roads and trails.
Page iii
Large Woody Debris (LWD) Large woody debris (LWD) refers to the fallen trees, logs and stumps, and root wads, found near or within stream and river channels. LWD helps stabilize shorelines, provides refuge for juvenile and adult fish and vital habitat for trout and other aquatic organisms, and provides food sources and habitat for aquatic insects and wildlife along shorelines. The presence of large woody debris is important in the formation of pools which serve as trout habitat.
Long Term Occurring over or involving a relatively long period of time. In natural resources, generally periods of 50 years or more.
Management Indicator The Management Indicator Species approach singles Species (MIS) out a few representative species for active management and conservation. Essential habitats provided for each indicator species would in turn support many other animals with similar habitat requirements.
Monitoring The periodic and systematic measurement and assessment of change of an indicator.
Native Species Usually, a species known to have existed on a site before the influence of humans. It depends on the temporal and spatial context of analysis, since long- established exotic species are often considered to be native by default.
Obliterate As per Best Management Practice (BMP), effective obliteration of roads is generally achieved through one or more of the following: Temporary culverts and bridges are removed and the natural drainage configuration is reestablished. Road surface is ripped below the level of compaction. Side-slopes are reshaped and stabilized. Road is effectively drained and blocked. Road is returned to resource production through re-vegetation (grass, brush, and/or trees).
Planting Artificial reforestation to regenerate a stand or interplant to supplement natural regeneration. Planting would reintroduce species that may be absent or lacking in the stand as a result of past disturbances. Planting 1 to 3 year old seedlings on the site will help overcome the competition of brush or grasses. Planting helps to rapidly re-establish the next stand and move it towards the desired future condition. Relying on only natural regeneration can often be difficult and unsuccessful in re-establishing the desired mix of species on the site
Page iv
.
Project Area(s) Locations of THRP restoration projects and includes reaches WM1 and WM2 on White Man Creek, and reaches UMB12-17 on Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek
PUD Pend Oreille County Public Utility District or Box Canyon Dam Licensee
Reference Condition Any datum against which change is measured. It might be a “current baseline,” in which case it represents observable, present-day conditions. It might also be a “”future baseline,” which is a projected future set of conditions excluding the driving factor of interest. Alternative interpretations of the reference condition can give rise to multiple baselines
Resilience The ability of an ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change (FSM 2020).
Rip rap Rip rap material is generally hard, durable angular rock material that is typically larger than 6 inches but smaller than 4 feet. It is used for energy dissipation, armoring slopes, building retaining walls, etc.
Sedimentation The deposition of eroded soil materials suspended in the water of creeks, lakes, or other water bodies. Sedimentation takes place when water velocity falls below a point at which suspended particles can be carried.
Single Tree Selection harvest Selection of individual trees or small groups of trees to (HSL) retain a stand with high forest cover while simultaneously providing for an orderly development of trees with a range of ages. Generally uneven-aged management. The result of this treatment is a fully stocked stand that exhibits a variety of stocking and may have small openings created where a new crop of seedlings would become established.
Soil The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants.
Soil Degradation Negative process often accelerated by human activities (improper soil use and cultivation practices, building areas) that leads to deterioration of soils properties and functions or destruction of soil as a whole (e.g. compaction, erosion, salinization, and acidification)
Page v
Soil Erosion The movement of soil materials from one place to another. The movement of soil due to natural processes should be distinguished from that related to forest harvesting, road construction, or other human alterations. Note: Significant erosion needs to be defined by each country and with respect to variation between different landscapes and soils
Species at Risk Federally listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed taxon and other taxon for which loss of viability, including reduction in distribution or abundance, where survival is a concern
Species Diversity The number and variety of species in a given area.
Stream Flow The quantity of water in a watershed based on precipitation quantity and the ability of the watershed to store and slowly release water.
Trout Habitat Restoration The THRP requires the Box Canyon Dam Licensee to Program restore a specified number of stream miles, including portions of LeClerc Creek
.
.
Page vi
White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 1 Location ...... 2 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 2 Management Area Guidelines ...... 3 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 Background and Proposed Action...... 4 1.4 SCOPING THE ISSUES ...... 5 1.5 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING SCOPING ...... 6 1.6 PURPOSE AND NEED OBJECTIVES ...... 6 1.7 DECISION NEEDED ...... 7 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 9 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY.... 9 2.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL ...... 9 Alternative A – No Action ...... 9 Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...... 9 Description of Proposed Project Design for Alternative B ...... 14 Wildlife-Related Project Design Criteria ...... 17 Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance ...... 18 CHAPTER 3 EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION ...... 19 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 19 General Background ...... 19 3.2 FISH HABITAT ...... 20 Existing Conditions ...... 20 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) ...... 26 Effects of Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...... 27 Cumulative Effects ...... 30 3.3 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) ...... 31 Grizzly Bear Habitat ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (TES) AND SENSITIVE VERTEBRATE SPECIES ...... 34 Canada Lynx - (Threatened) ...... 40 Grizzly Bears (Threatened) ...... 41 3.5 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY ...... 43 Existing Conditions ...... 43 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) ...... 45 Effects of Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...... 46 Cumulative Effects ...... 46 3.6 NOXIOUS WEEDS ...... 47 Existing Conditions ...... 47 Effects of Alternative A ...... 48 Effects of Alternative B ...... 48 Cumulative Effects ...... 48 3.7 SENSITIVE PLANTS ...... 49 Existing Conditions ...... 49 Effects of Alternative A ...... 50 Effects of Alternative B ...... 50 Cumulative Effects ...... 50 3.8 SOILS ...... 51
Page vii White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Table of Contents
Existing Condition...... 51 Effects of Alternative A ...... 51 Effects of Alternative B ...... 52 Cumulative Effects ...... 52 3.9 RECREATION ...... 52 Existing Condition...... 52 Effects of Alternative A ...... 54 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternative B ...... 54 3.10 RANGE MANAGEMENT ...... 54 Existing Condition...... 58 Effects of Alternative A ...... 55 Effects of Alternative B ...... 55 Cumulative Effects ...... 55 3.11 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 56 Existing Condition...... 56 Effects of Alternative A ...... 56 Effects of Alternative B ...... 57 Cumulative Effects ...... 57 3.12 EFFECTS ON AMERICAN INDIANS ...... 57 3.13 EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS, MINORITY GROUPS, WOMEN, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 57 CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION ...... 58 CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES ...... 59
Tables Table 1: NFS Management Areas ...... 3 Table 2: White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek Restoration Sites ...... 10 Table 3: Summary of Habitat Surveys Conducted ...... 22 Table 4: THRP Whiteman Creek Limiting Factor Results ...... 23 Table 5: THRP Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Limiting Factor Results ...... 24 Table 6: INFISH Riparian Management Objectives ...... 25 Table 7: Sizes and Distributions of LWD for THRP Surveys and Restoration Projects...... 29 Table 8: Habitats for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Landbirds ...... 32 Table 9: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) ...... 35 Table 10: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) ...... 36 Table 11: LeClerc Creek Range Allotment ...... 38 Table 12: Noxious Weeds in the Analysis Area ...... 47
Figures Figure 1: White Man Creek Restoration Sites...... 11 Figure 2: UMB LeClerc Creek Restoration Sites ...... 13 Figure 3: Dispersed Recreation Sites within LeClerc Creek Watershed ...... 53
Appendices Appendix A – Maps (A-1 through A-8) Appendix B – Scoping – Comments Appendix C – Trout Habitat Restoration Program Appendix D – Best Management Practices
Page viii White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The Land and Resource Management Plan of the Colville National Forest (hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan) represents the preferred alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS, approved December, 1988) and, together with the Record of Decision, as amended by the Regional Forester's Forest Plan Amendment #2 and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), provides direction for management of the Forest and general discussions of associated environmental impacts. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is "tiered" to the Forest Plan FEIS. Projects identified in this EA are proposed to meet some of the Forest Management Objectives identified on pages 4-3 through 4-5 of the Forest Plan. The Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts, in coordination with Pend Oreille County Public Utility District (PUD), are conducting this EA to analyze options for restoring trout habitat under the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project’s Trout Habitat Restoration Program (THRP), and to provide data from which the Responsible Official can make a decision. Treatment options analyzed include fish habitat restoration projects and a no-action option, which would involve no restoration work or associated disturbance. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations (44 CFR Section 10) that implement NEPA require NEPA documents to be concise, focus on the issues relevant to the project, and exclude extraneous background data and discussion of subjects that are not relevant or would not be affected by the project alternatives. Subject areas required to be addressed by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) have also been included. Accordingly, the following subjects are not evaluated in detail for the following reasons:
Subject Analysis Air Quality The proposed project is not in a nonattainment area, and is located in an area that is remote, undeveloped, and receives no traffic. Soil disturbance may create dust; however, the impacts would be negligible. Energy and Natural The proposed project, to restore trout habitat, would not have an adverse Resources effect on energy and natural resources. No energy conservation measures are necessary. Environmental Health The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on environmental health. The project would ensure that emergency services will be available, if needed. Land and Shoreline Use The proposed project location is designated as Management Area 7 (Wood/Forage). The goal of this Management Area (MA) is to achieve optimum production of timber products while protecting basic resources. The project is compatible with existing MA land uses. Socioeconomics Socioeconomic impacts are not expected to result from restoring fish habitat within the LeClerc watershed. Housing No residences are within or nearby the Project areas; the proposed project would not eliminate any residences and would not eliminate any access to existing residences. Noise The Project areas are remote and undeveloped. No vehicles or heavy machinery would be used, so noise in the Project areas would be minimal. Noise associated with cutting down trees, via chainsaws, for LWD placement would occur but the noise would be short term. Public Services The proposed project would not increase the need for public services Transportation Primary access to White Man Creek and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek analysis area is from LeClerc Creek Road, East Fork LeClerc Creek Road and NFS Road 1935. At the junction of NFS-1935/NFS 1935-011, NFS 1935- 011 veers NE to the analysis area and the headwaters of Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek, and NFS-1935 continues NW to NFS-1936 and the
Page 1 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
Subject Analysis White Man Creek analysis area. Transportation on NFS lands is minimal and is not expected to increase above current levels as a result of the trout restoration efforts. This project would not change the existing NFS road system or road management. Utilities The Project areas are on FS lands; no utilities are located anywhere near the Project areas. Visual Quality The Project areas are located in areas the public does not generally occupy. In general, these areas are fairly remote, although existing logging roads provide access to some parts of the proposed restoration sites. Due to the remoteness, the visual impacts would be minimal. The restoration projects are not located within designated scenic timber or scenic winter range areas.
Location The proposed project is located on tributaries to the Pend Oreille River in northeast Washington State, approximately 100 miles north of the City of Spokane, and more specifically, within the LeClerc Creek watershed. The Project sites are located on White Man Creek and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek. Elevations in the White Man Creek analysis area range from 3,200 feet at its confluence with Red Man Creek to 4,800 feet at the upstream (N/W ¼ of Section 29). Elevations in the Upper Middle Branch (UMB) LeClerc Creek analysis area range from 3,200 to 3,600 feet.
The legal description of the analysis area includes all or portions of the following:
White Man Creek: Sections 5 and 8, T. 36 N. – R. 44 E.; Sections 29 and 32, T. 37N. – R - 44E; Willamette Meridian; Pend Oreille County, Washington. Includes survey Reaches RW1 and WM1-6.
UMB LeClerc Creek: Sections 10, 11 and 15, T. 36N. – R 44 E.; Willamette Meridian; Pend Oreille County, Washington. Includes survey Reaches UMB12-18.
A vicinity map is located in Appendix A-1 and a watershed map is located in Appendix A-2.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger Districts, in coordination with the PUD, are proposing to enhance/restore aquatic habitat within the LeClerc Creek watershed. The proposed project restoration work would be located on National Forest System (NFS) and private lands. The purpose of this proposed project is to restore habitat within White Man Creek, a tributary of the West Branch LeClerc, and UMB LeClerc Creek (Appendix A-1). The restoration actions are needed and required under Revised 4(e) Condition 6 of the FERC License for the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project and associated Trout Habitat Restoration Program (THRP) (PUD 2010). The THRP requires the PUD to restore and maintain 164 miles of tributary habitat over 25 years. The THRP includes streams within LeClerc Creek, Calispell, Cee Cee Ah, Indian, Ruby, Cedar, Tacoma, and Mill Creek watersheds. The proposed White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek restoration will fulfill a part of the THRP requirements, and meets the direction of the INFISH.
Project restoration is needed to restore and enhance aquatic habitat in-stream, as well as, providing upland access to restoration sites, including staging areas and access routes. This includes the need to:
1. Address trout habitat conditions at White Man Creek. There are areas that do not currently meet the objectives listed in the INFISH due to lack of canopy and large woody debris in streams.
2. Address trout habitat conditions at UMB LeClerc Creek. There are areas that do not currently meet the objectives listed in the INFISH due to lack of pools, canopy, and large woody debris in streams, and the need to eliminate fish barriers.
Page 2 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
3. Implement projects which address issues identified as high priority for management by members of the Kalispel Tribe. The proposed trout restoration work addresses some of the Tribe’s issues and priorities. Management Area Guidelines Management direction for each Management Area (MA) is provided by the Forest Plan, which describes in detail the Goals, Objectives, Standards, Guidelines, and Management Prescriptions (Forest Plan chapter 4). About 100 acres of NFS land along White Man Creek and 62 acres of NFS and private land along UMB LeClerc Creek are within the analysis area. The goal of each MA is briefly described below.
Table 1: NFS Management Areas The analysis area includes five MAs Percent of Analysis along White Man Creek (RW1 and NFS Management Areas Acres Area WM1-WM6). Of these, only Reaches WM1 and WM2 (MA7) need restoration. The UMB LeClerc Creek White Man Creek (NFS) on NFS lands includes MA7 only 1 5.6 3% (UMB12-16). Reaches 17 -18 are 5 21.9 14% located on Non-NFS lands. See Appendix A-1. 7 45.8 28% 8 16.7 10% Table 1 shows the percent of NFS 11 10.0 6% land allocated to each management prescription within White Man Creek Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek (NFS) and UMB LeClerc Creek analysis 7 40 25% area. Appendix A-3 shows the locations of these management Non-NFS prescription areas.
Stimson Lumber Company 22 14%
Management Prescriptions, related to White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek analysis area, include the goals of each MA, as described briefly below. MA-1 - Old-growth Habitat – The goal is to provide essential habitat for wildlife species that require old- growth forest components and contribute to the maintenance of diversity of wildlife habitats and plant communities.
MA-5 - Scenic/Timber – The goal of these areas is to provide a natural appearing foreground, middle, and background along major scenic travel routes, while at the same time providing wood products.
MA-7 - Wood/Forage – The goal is to achieve optimum production of timber products while protecting basic resources.
MA-8 - Winter Range – The goal is to meet the habitat needs of deer to sustain carrying capacity at 120% of the 1980 level, while managing timber and other resources consistent with fish and wildlife management objectives.
MA-11- Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Recreation – These areas are managed to protect the existing unroaded character and to provide opportunities for dispersed, non-motorized recreation.
1.3 PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action would restore and maintain the “physical parameters” of stream habitat within White Man Creek and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek.
Page 3 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
Background and Proposed Action Over the last couple of years several steps were completed in the THRP process. As stipulated, THRP studies were initiated and general surveys were completed in the summer of 2010 at White Man Creek and in the summer of 2009 at UMB LeClerc Creek, and target surveys were completed in 2011 and 2012. The following describes the steps completed, to date: Identified key watersheds (i.e., LeClerc) Conducted general surveys to identify stream limiting factors Identified streams and stream reaches that needed improvement Conducted in-field target surveys in reaches selected as potential enhancement sites. These surveys were used to develop, monitor, and demonstrate the success of specific restoration measures at restoration sites. Identified restoration sites based on desirable stream habitat and a minimum threshold of 85% of the desirable condition. The reaches surveyed within White Man Creek included RW1 and WM1- WM6, and the UMB LeClerc Creek surveys included reaches UMB12-18 (refer to Appendix A-1). Produced a design report that identifies the work to be done.
White Man Creek Stream surveys on White Man Creek reaches RW1 and WM1-WM6 were completed in 2010, and survey protocols and limiting factor criteria were described in separate reports (EESC 2011a; 2011b; 2011c). Results of the surveys indicated an overabundance of fine sediment and insufficient Large Woody Debris (LWD) (EESC 2012e). Surveys by the Kalispel Tribe (Maroney et al. 1996; Andersen and Olson 2002) indicate that both Brook trout and Westslope Cutthroat trout inhabit the Project area. Brown trout have not been observed in White Man Creek; however, this species has been found in the lower section of the West Branch LeClerc Creek. The White Man Creek analysis area includes approximately 3.7 miles along the mainstem of White Man Creek, from its confluence with the West Branch LeClerc Creek, and includes approximately 100 acres of NFS lands. The analysis area is located in Sections 8 and 5 of T36N R44E and Sections 32 and 29 of T37N R44E (Appendix A-1). Survey results indicated that five out of seven reaches (RW1 and WM3- WM6) meet all habitat attributes; reaches WM1 and WM2, however, will require restoration efforts. The restoration areas would extend approximately 1.4 miles along White Man Creek, within portions of Section 5, T36N R44E and Section 32 of T37N R44E. The Proposed Action will include the placement of LWD in the streams. Pieces of LWD will be placed as needed to increase LWD abundance. The placement of LWD may be in the form of a designed log jam, passive placement (minimal impact on stream hydraulics), or incorporated into the stream bank to prevent bank erosion and improve bank stability. Further details regarding the Proposed Action are provided in Chapter 2, Alternative B (Proposed Action). Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Stream surveys on UMB LeClerc Creek reaches UMB12-18 were completed by the PUD in the summer of 2009. Survey protocols and limiting factor criteria and results are described in separate reports (EESC 2010a; 2011b; 2011c; 2012d). Habitat inventories in UMB LeClerc Creek were also conducted in 1999 by the Kalispel Tribe and indicated that only Brook trout inhabit the fish-bearing waters of the Project area. The UMB LeClerc Creek analysis area includes approximately 40 acres of National Forest System lands within Section 10 of T36N R44E, and 22 acres of private property (Stimson Lumber Company) within Section 11 and a small area at the NW corner of Section 15. The restoration areas would extend approximately 2.3 miles along UMB LeClerc Creek, within portions of Section 10, Reaches UMB12-16 within NFS lands; and private lands in Section 15 (NW Corner) Reach UMB12, and Section 11 Reaches UMB17-18 (refer to Appendix A-1). The Proposed Action will include the placement of LWD and construction of pool habitats. Pieces of LWD will be placed as needed to increase LWD abundance. As with White Man Creek, the placement of LWD may be in the form of a designed log jam, passive placement (minimal impact on stream hydraulics), or incorporated into the stream bank to prevent bank erosion and improve bank stability. A culvert between
Page 4 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need reaches UMB16 and 17 may be removed to restore fish passage, and a portion of the stream would be fenced to exclude cattle, as needed. Further details regarding the Proposed Action are provided in Chapter 2, Alternative B (Proposed Action).
Proposed Action and Potential Impacts: Based on the results of studies and surveys, treatment areas were identified. The proposed action would improve fish habitat related to the THRP, while adhering to the objectives for the Forest Plan including future conditions, and riparian management objectives. The proposed actions are analyzed in Chapters 2 and 3. The proposed action would include:
Restoration within White Man Creek (Reaches WM1 and WM2) would include placement of additional in-stream LWD and associated instream cover.
Restoration within UMB LeClerc Creek Reaches UMB12-17 would include placement of additional in-stream LWD and associated instream cover, and pool habitat construction. A culvert and fish barrier, located at the break between Reaches UMB16-17, could potentially also be removed. To reduce some of the impacts of these projects, the following recommendations would be adopted at the beginning of the project: • All activities would be designed to protect water quality and aquatic resources through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). • Any activity within the stream would comply with Forest BMPs and the requirements of the HPA from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and would occur during low flow periods. • There should be no net increase in miles of National Forest System roads. • No project activities would occur in any Forest Plan designated roadless areas or in unroaded areas greater than 5,000 acres in size. • Project activities within the analysis area at White Man Creek are within Grizzly Bear recovery areas including restoration sites WM1 and WM2. Restoration sites WM2 are within Lynx primary range. Work related to the trout restoration sites would involve minimal disturbance to Grizzly Bear recovery areas or Lynx primary range. None of the restoration sites are within Critical Habitats. • Project activities within the analysis area at UMB LeClerc Creek would occur within Grizzly Bear recovery areas including Reaches UMB12-18, and Lynx primary range within Reach UMB18. Work related to the trout restoration sites would involve minimal disturbance to Grizzly Bear Critical Habitat or Lynx Critical Habitat.
1.4 SCOPING THE ISSUES The Forest Service used multiple methods to determine the major issues that would affect the decision on this project. In summary, the Forest Service involved members of the public, Tribes, interested private groups, and State and Federal agencies by doing the following: Listing the project in the “Projects” newsletter (Schedule of Proposed Actions), which is published quarterly by the Colville National Forest. Requesting consultation with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Spokane Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Letters mailed to adjacent landowners, special use permittees, and other parties on the Forest Service mailing list included a map and a description of the proposed action for their review and comment. Information compiled during this environmental assessment is included in the analysis file for this project.
Page 5 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
1.5 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING SCOPING During scoping, comments and concerns were received from members of the public. A total of five (5) comment letters/emails were received, and are listed below. Appendix B provides the letters/emails received and the comments that were addressed.
The Lands Council commented on the LeClerc Creek Fish Habitat Improvement proposal (October 18, 2012 letter). The Lands Council requested additional information regarding specific habitat features, and activities (refer to Appendix B).
Requested, by Priest Community Forest Connection (PCFC), to remain on the mailing list for this proposed action (October 24, 2012).
Requested, by Scott Jungblom, Pend Oreille County PUD, to remain on the mailing list for this proposed action (October 24, 2012).
Requested, by Pend Oreille County PUD, to include “non-native fish removal” as scheduled under the THRP Construction Activities. Non-native fish removal would occur in 2013 or within the following couple of years (November 5, 2012).
Email from Guy Moura, Interim Program Manager, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Confederate Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Comments: The proposed undertaking is in a Usual and Accustomed area for the Lakes Tribe. The Lakes Tribe is one of the twelve tribes that comprise the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. This is not the Lakes traditional territory. Any interests the Colville Confederated Tribes may have in the project would be amply addressed by local area tribes (November 28, 2012).
1.6 PURPOSE AND NEED OBJECTIVES The project objectives that will be used to design and compare the alternatives are presented in Chapter 2. The purpose and need objective is to improve conditions that affect fish habitat. Cursory objectives are also identified in the EA since they are entrained with the major project objective.
There are areas that do not currently meet objectives listed in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) due to lack of LWD, canopy, and pools, reduction of fish barriers, and reduction of non-native fish species. Trout restoration is needed on White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek to meet project objectives of the THRP. Stream restoration will help improve fish survival, fish passage, and improve structure within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA), and would improve water quality and fish habitat in a watershed designated to be managed for bull trout habitat. The goals of White Man Creek enhancement project are to: Increase instream LWD
To accomplish these goals for the White Man enhancement project, the objectives are to: Add LWD pieces, jams, and/or structures: o MLWD and LLWD in Reach WM1 o LLWD in Reach WM2 The goals of Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek enhancement project are to: Increase pools and pool habitat Increase instream LWD Improve bank stability To accomplish these goals for the UMB LeClerc enhancement project, the objectives are to: Construct pool habitat in Reaches UMB12,14,16 and 17 Add LWD pieces, jams and/or structures in Reaches UMB12-17 for: o Increased pool habitat in Reaches UMB12, 14, 16 and 17 o Improve bank stability in Reaches UMB12, 13, 16 and 17 o Increased LWD in Reach UMB15
Page 6 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
May replace passage barrier at the break between Reaches UMB16-17 in the next couple of years As needed, fence portions of the stream on both banks to exclude cattle, with priority placed on Reaches UMB13, 16 and 17
1.7 DECISION NEEDED The decision needed from the Responsible Official, is whether to implement the trout restoration work proposed on White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek (in-stream and upland areas).
Page 7 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need
Page 8 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes the alternatives that were developed through the scoping process. A reasonable range of alternatives were identified and then evaluated for potential environmental impacts of the proposals (Chapter 3).
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to explore and objectively evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action are proposed. No other alternatives were considered or eliminated. The No-Action Alternative analyzed for this project represents the effects of not implementing any of the proposed activities on National Forest System lands in the area. The Proposed-Action Alternative was developed to respond to the need for action described in Chapter 1, and considered comments received during the scoping process. The proposed activities include features that will reduce, negate or offset potential adverse environmental impacts, with associated monitoring as provided under 40 CFR 1502.14. These two alternatives will be used to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the proposals (see Chapter 3). The alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan as amended, including Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 and the Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment (EA). No new alternatives were identified by the public, and no alternatives were considered but eliminated from further study.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL Alternative A – No Action The proposed action would not be implemented at this time under this alternative; however, existing previously approved management activities would continue. No additional stream restoration activities would be initiated. Restoration work at White Man Creek including placement of LWD. In addition, placement of LWD and construction of pools at UMB LeClerc Creek, and barrier (culvert) removal at the break between Reaches UMB16-17 would not occur. Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative emphasizes improvement of fisheries habitat within White Man Creek and the UMB LeClerc Creek. The restoration within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek is required under the U.S Department of the Interior (DOI) conditions for habitat restoration pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act as part of the new FERC license issued for the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Under Section 4(e), Condition 6, restoration measures within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek will be implemented, based on the results of studies and surveys. Treatment areas by coordinates are shown on Table 2, for the White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek restoration sites. An aerial picture of the White Man Creek restoration sites are shown in Figure 1.
Page 9 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Table 2: White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek Restoration Sites
White Man Creek Reach-Site Latitude Longitude Trees Looking Downstream WM1 - 1 48.65022 - 117.2824 Left WM1 - 2 48.65017 - 117.28217 Left WM1 - 3 48.65036 - 117.28184 Left WM1 - 4 48.65025 -117.28163 Left WM1 - 5 48.65123 - 117.27852 Left WM1 - 6 48.65125 - 117.2785 Left WM1 - 7 48.65111 - 117.27811 Left WM1 - 8 48.65151 - 117.27752 Left WM1 - 9 48.65166 - 117.27682 Left WM1 - 10 48.65175 - 117.27617 Left WM1 - 11 48.65169 - 117.27616 Left WM1 - 12 48.65196 - 117.27524 Left WM1 - 13 48.65237 - 117.27455 Left WM1 - 14 48.65233 - 117.27433 Left WM1 - 15 48.65243 - 117.27388 Left WM2 - 1 48.65674 - 117.27101 Right WM2 - 2 48.65681 - 117.27117 Right WM2 - 3 48.65692 - 117.27147 Right WM2 - 4 48.65712 - 117.27192 Right Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek MB 12- 1 48.62837 - 117.23955 Right (wood imported) MB 12- 2 48.62838 - 117.23945 Right (wood imported) MB 12- 3 48.62838 -117.23921 Right (wood imported) MB 12- 4 48.62869 - 117.23884 Right (wood imported) MB 12- 5 48.62895 -117.23867 Right (wood imported) MB 14- 1 48.63018 - 117.23746 Left MB 14- 2 48.63036 - 117.23726 Left MB 14- 3 48.63065 - 117.23614 Left MB 14- 4 48.63196 - 117.23521 Left MB 14- 5 48.63222 - 117.23509 Left MB 14- 6 48.63272 - 117.23415 Left MB 14- 7 48.63303 - 117.23354 Left or Right MB 15- 1 48.63414 - 117.23106 Left MB 15- 2 48.63409 - 117.23069 Left MB 15- 3 48.63408 - 117.2303 Left MB 15- 4 48.63414 - 117.23013 Left MB 15- 5 48.63424 - 117.22989 Left MB 15- 6 48.63406 - 117.2298 Left MB 15- 7 48.6342 - 117.22952 Left (wood far out) MB 15- 8 48.63427 - 117.22796 Left MB 15- 9 48.63427 - 117.22782 Left MB 15- 10 48.63429 - 117.22746 Left MB 16- 1 48.63446 - 117.22284 Left MB 16- 2 48.63442 - 117.22227 Left MB 16- 3 48.63459 - 117.22187 Left MB 16- 4 48.6346 - 117.22141 Left MB 16- 5 48.63471 - 117.22129 Left MB 16- 6 48.63484 - 117.22115 Left MB17-1 48.63559 -117.21815 Right MB17-2 48.63555 -177.21801 Right MB17-3 48.63571 -117.21759 Left MB17-4 48.63576 -117.21711 Right MB17-5 48.63599 -117.21656 Right
Page 10 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Figure 1: White Man Creek Restoration Sites
As stipulated, THRP projects and Proposed Action will include trout restoration projects along White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek:
White Man Creek Trout restoration within Reaches WM1-WM2 is located in the northwest corner of Section 5 (T36N, R44E) and the southwest corner of Section 32 (T37N, R44E). Restoration within Forest Service lands will include approximately 7,132 feet (approximately 1.4 miles) of treatments along White Man Creek (Reaches WM1 and WM2); other White Man Creek segments (Reaches RW1 and WM3-WM6) were found to have habitat attributes that are functioning effectively (EESC 2012). Therefore, no restoration is required at Reaches RW1 and WM3-WM6. These reaches are shown on the aerial photo below (Figure 1).
The restoration sites will consist of placement of additional large woody debris and associated instream cover. The restoration work at White Man Creek will include fifteen stream restoration sites at WM1, and four (4) stream restoration sites at WM2. Restoration sites on both Reaches WM1 and WM2 will be spread out, with wide distances between each restoration site. The majority of White Man Creek is not easily accessible by roads. There is one old road near the restoration sites, but might not be usable for equipment access. Other alternative methods for transport and placement of LWD will be examined, including salvaging nearby slash or downed wood from outside the riparian zone, and/or cutting nearby trees within the riparian zone. Light gear would be used including hand carried winches with block and tackle and chainsaws, and perhaps pack mules or horses, if needed.
Page 11 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
No loaders or excavators would be used. Trees will likely come from overstocked stands within approximately 150 feet of the creek. Restoration within White Man Creek (WM1 and WM2) would include wood placement (LWD) within the Creek, which will increase instream cover and habitat complexity. Pieces of LWD will be placed as needed to increase LWD abundance to achieve at least the minimum of the required levels. The placement of LWD may be in the form of a designed log jam, passive placement (minimal impact on stream hydraulics), or incorporated into the stream bank to prevent bank erosion and improve bank stability. The addition of LWD will create hydraulic conditions favorable for pool formation, with the idea of using deflection or other associated scouring to help create or maintain around 20 pools. LWD placement will also provide stream cover. The Project work will include approximately 213,750 sq-ft or 4.9 acres of potential disturbance. Based on the surveys, in-stream and upland restoration work at White Man Creek (Reaches WM1-WM2) is proposed in year 2013. Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Restoration within Forest Service lands will include approximately 12,237 feet (approximately 2.3 miles) of treatment along UMB LeClerc Creek (T36N, R44E, Sections 10, 11, and a small area on the northwest corner of Section 15). Restoration will include upland and in-stream areas. The restoration area includes portions of Sections 10 and 15, Reach UMB12, and section Reaches UMB14-17 (no treatments will be required at Reaches UMB13 or UMB18). The restoration efforts include 5 (five) treatment sites and 3 (three) pathways at Reach UMB12. In addition, work in Reaches UMB14- 17, will include 28 treatment sites (refer to Table 2 and Figure 2). The restoration sites will consist of placement of additional large woody debris and instream cover, construction of pools, and potential replacement of a barrier at the upper end of Reach UMB16. At Reach UMB12, the Project work will include upland staging areas and three pathways to access five in-stream restoration sites (see Appendix A-1 – inset). Access is from a dirt road to a large landing used for cattle in the past. The five treatment sites on Reach UMB12 do not have nearby adjacent trees available; therefore, path start points have been delineated where trees can be provided for winching to the stream. At Reach UMB12, wood will be imported, and the staging areas and paths will be required to drag and winch the logs to the stream for placement of LWD. Trees will be felled within Reaches UMB13-17. Trees will come from overstocked stands within approximately 150 feet from the creek. Sites in Reaches UMB14 - 17 will be spread out, with wide distances between each restoration site. As with White Man Creek, light gear will be used to minimize impacts related to access roads and staging areas. The gear would include hand carried winches with block and tackle and chainsaws, and perhaps pack mules or horses, as needed. No loaders of excavators would be used. As part of the restoration efforts, a culvert located at the reach break between reach UMB16 and 17, at a FS road crossing, may be replaced to improve fish passage. The culvert is listed as a passage barrier by WDFW. The PUD may remove the culvert; however, it would not occur in the next couple of years.. Project work at Reach UMB12 will include potential disturbance of approximately 20,000 sq-ft or 0.48 acres, and Project work in Reaches UMB14-17 would include potential disturbance of approximately 315,000 sq-ft or 7.2 acres. Project work would be initiated in 2013.
Page 12 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Figure 2: UMB LeClerc Creek Restoration Sites
Whiteman and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc The addition of LWD will create hydraulic conditions favorable for pool formation, using deflection or other associated scouring to help create or maintain around 30 pools. LWD placement will also provide cover. LWD will be placed on the stream bed without excavation of the bed and there will be limited excavation of the banks. For some deflector structures, there may be some digging into the bank to make certain the logs are in contact with the bed to better ensure flow deflection. At sensitive sites, log placement as deflectors to create pools will be accomplished with little or no digging into the banks. In order to increase the stability of the wood structures, wood will be stacked on top in order to help fix the lower pieces into place. After construction, any sites that have been disturbed during placement activity or have bare ground exposed will be covered with slash, straw, and/or re-seeded, as deemed appropriate for the local conditions. Straw and seed will be from Washington State certified noxious weed free sources. It should be noted that some disturbance of the riparian corridor is expected during activities such as constructing pool habitat and adding LWD to the stream. Every effort will be made to minimize the impact on the riparian zone and streambanks during these activities by using BMPs; however, should extensive damage occur at one or more sites, immediate monitoring of that location will begin following the disturbance. If the area in question does not recover naturally, the PUD will implement a course of action to aid recovery in the disturbed area(s). The particular course of action will depend on the location and extent of the disturbance, but may include one or more of the following:
Fencing the disturbed area Planting shrubs/native plants in the disturbed area Seeding the area with native grass (State certified weed-free)/wetland plants
Page 13 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Some portions of the restoration section are already fenced off from cattle and/or are not substantially impacted by grazing. Additional field review will be conducted to determine which specific areas are in need of fencing to protect streambanks from cattle impacts. Fencing will be constructed of wooden and metal T- posts with three strands of wire. The bottom strand will be barbless; the remaining strands will be barbed. Fencing will be constructed to NFS standards. Additional posts will be set as necessary at the upstream and downstream ends of the reach to close off the enclosure area. Purpose and Need Objective – Trout Habitat Restoration Alternative B would implement projects required and outlined in the THRP (Appendix C). The Project includes restoring and improving trout habitat within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek. Restoration includes placement of instream LWD and associated improvement of instream cover, increases in pools and pool habitat due to placement of LWD, and associated improved bank stability. Description of Proposed Project Design for Alternative B The following design requirements are accepted practices that have proven effective in mitigating adverse effects of trout restoration associated activities. These actions would be taken to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the effects of management activities (40 CFR 1508.22). Best Management Practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices to meet nonpoint-source erosion control needs. The following provides relevant information regarding design elements, management guidance and Project Design Criteria related to the treatment projects. General Specifications 1. The PUD and their contractor shall conduct a pre-implementation field review with the Forest Service and receive written authorization to proceed. This field review will occur during the same season that the physical project will occur. 2. The PUD shall receive, in writing, authorization to proceed from the Forest Service before starting any work that deviates from, or is not clearly defined or identified in these specifications. Authorization only pertains to NFS lands, not private lands. 3. The PUD shall provide necessary safety training for all work crew members prior to starting the project. The PUD shall assume sole and complete responsibility for maintaining safe and sanitary job site conditions during the course of project implementation. 4. The placement of trees in the stream will follow specifications in the Design Report and specifications given in the Hydraulic Permit, its work windows, and conditions specified in the Environmental Assessment as part of the NEPA process.
Fire Specifications
1. Any cut branches will be utilized instream or lopped and scattered to less than a 2-foot depth. 2. All activities, including chainsaw and motorized winch use, would follow the Industrial Fire Precaution Level (IFPL) system. The PUD and their contractors are required to adhere to the requirements of the current IFPL level. IFPL applies to all industrial operations that may cause a fire on or adjacent to lands protected from fire by DNR (WAC 332-24-301); this applies to logging and other industrial operations.
Resource Specifications 1. Only hand/chainsaw felling and hand/motorized winching would be used. 2. Only live standing trees between 25 feet and 150 feet from the bankfull stream channel or wetland area can be used. 3. Only downed trees less than 40 in DBH would be used. 4. Downed wood that spans or overhangs the stream, and is greater than 1 foot vertically above the bankfull channel, can be cut and positioned into the active stream channel. Otherwise, downed wood must be clearly out of the stream channel and/or wetland area and within 150 feet of the channel.
Page 14 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Silviculture Prescriptions
No Harvest: 1. Hardwoods, ponderosa pine, and white pine. 2. Any live standing trees greater than or equal to 21 in DBH (Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2). 3. Any trees with obvious cavities or with nests.
Harvest Allowed: Remove live standing trees from areas that are overstocked (distance between tree boles is 14 ft or less). If overstocked stands are not adjacent to the area where instream wood is needed, then live standing trees can be removed from areas that are well stocked (distance between tree boles is 24 ft or less).
Order of species and size preference to cut (1 being the most preferred, 3 being the least): 1. Lodgepole pine and subalpine fir; and western larch with heavy mistletoe (less than 21 in DBH) 2. Douglas fir, spruce, grand fir, and hemlock (less than 18 in DBH) 3. Douglas fir, spruce, grand fir, and hemlock (18 to less than 21 in DBH); and cedar and healthy western larch (less than 18 in DBH)
In preference #1 above, up to three adjacent trees can be removed in a “group”. Leave at least 20 ft of uncut trees between cut groups. In preferences 2) and 3) above, leave at least two trees between cut trees to make harvest more like a thinning.
Incidental Trees It is anticipated that some trees adjacent to the cut target trees, or within the path of rigging, ropes, and/or cables, will be damaged, knocked down, or felled during operations. The preference is to use these trees as part of the instream structure. If these incidental trees are not usable instream, then they will be cut and scattered throughout the adjacent forest within 2 feet of the ground, in order to reduce fire risk.
Number of Trees The PUD will provide the Forest Service, in advance and in writing, the number of trees needed for a given stream restoration project. This calculation will include the total number of trees needed (tallied by cut and downed) and the average number of trees per mile.
Trees - Other 1. No old growth stands or structural stage 6 or 7 (late or old) stands will be used for treatment within the Project areas. (Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2) 2. Select trees1 and retaining shelter trees2 will be protected. Select trees and shelter trees will be identified by the District Silviculturist before treatment (placement of LWD). Select trees are part of the Forest tree improvement program and are designated for cone/seed collection. 3. Trees will be required at White Man Creek for LWD. Trees would be felled at Reaches WM1- WM2 and will be brought into the treatment sites for placement of LWD. 4. Trees will need to be imported at UMB LeClerc Creek (Reach UMB12). Trees will be felled within Reaches UMB13, 14, 15 and 16 for placement of LWD. 5. To the extent possible, leave on site the tops and branches of the felled trees. Some material may need to be removed or lopped and scattered to less than a 2-foot depth to reduce fire risk. If material is to be removed, try to overwinter to allow leachable nutrients to go into the soil. 6. Leave fine slash to retain nutrients on the site.
1 Select trees are used for the collection of seed to develop genetically improved tree stock and for general reforestation needs. 2 Shelter trees provide a microclimate (shade, temperature), as well as being a seed source in a regeneration unit. Shelter trees surrounding a select tree help reduce the risk of blowdown.
Page 15 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Noxious Weeds 1. Contract provisions would provide for cleaning of equipment prior to move in and use off of landings. 2. Noxious weed prevention would be conducted as prescribed in the Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines and Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision. These documents set forth the practices to be followed to minimize the introduction of noxious weeds and minimize conditions that favor the establishment and spread of noxious weeds.
Sensitive Plants
1. Buffer all sensitive plant sites occurring in proposed Project areas. 2. Flag and avoid all sensitive plant sites. If sensitive plant species are found in the planning area while project activities are occurring, the Forest Botanist or their designee will be consulted as to measures required to protect the species and its essential habitat. 3. When available, use existing roads, unauthorized roads and landings for temporary roads, skidding and landing.[ad1] 4. The Colville National Forest Guide to Seeding and Planting Vegetation would be used for all site restoration activities on disturbed soils. 5. Identification of trees to use as LWD around the Dryopteris carthusiana populations along the Upper Middle Branch LeClerc will be coordinated with the Forest Botanist.
Revegetation 1. Revegetate where soil is disturbed by project activities. The goal is to provide long-term soil cover and reduce the risk of week infestation and erosion. Locally-collected native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation, but non-native, non-invasive plant species may also be used (USDA Forest Service 2008a, USDI FWS 2008). Revegetate disturbed sites and bare soil to prevent erosion.
Water Quality/Fish Habitat 1. Wetland, streams and riparian protection will follow direction of INFISH or, as defined, the NFS District, fish biologist, forest soils scientist, and/or District hydrologist. 2. All log structures will be strategically placed using natural bank features and in-stream controls. There will be no cabling of large wood, nor use of gabion structures. Large rocks may be integrated into the channel bottom or banks where grade control or erosion control is otherwise needed. 3. In-stream work would follow HPA permit requirements to protect water quality and spawning and rearing of Brook trout and Westslope Cutthroat trout at White Man Creek and Westslope Cutthroat trout at UMB LeClerc Creek.
Water and Soil Best Management Practices: Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the primary mechanism to enable the achievement of water quality standards. Appendix D provides Best Management Practices that may be used within the proposed project sites and National Forest system lands.
Soils 1. Activities that result in bare and compact soil would be limited. The LWD utilized would need to be imported, or felled near the treatment sites. Staging areas and paths would be required, if needed, to drag and winch the logs to the stream for placement of LWD. Light gear will be used to minimize impacts related to access roads and staging areas. The gear would include hand carried winches with block and tackle and chainsaws, and perhaps pack mules or horses, as needed. No loaders or excavators would be used.
Page 16 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
2. Activities that result in covered and compacted soil would be limited since heavy equipment would not be used. 3. Erosion Prevention and Control Measures. The kinds and intensity of treatment work shall be adjusted to ground and weather conditions and the need for controlling runoff. Erosion control work shall be kept current immediately preceding expected seasonal periods of precipitation or runoff.
Heritage Resources
1. Any sites not evaluated, or evaluated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, need to be avoided during this project. No ground disturbing equipment would be allowed within the site boundary. All trees near a site boundary need to be felled away from the property.
Wildlife Conservation Measures and Mitigation
Wildlife-Related Project Design Criteria Project design elements displayed in the following table would be incorporated into the Proposed Action. These practices have proven to be effective in avoiding or minimizing potential negative effects of forest management projects to the essential habitats of TES and other wildlife species.
Design Mgmt. Target Species Project Design Criteria Element Guidance Forest carnivores, Cover USDA, 1. No timber harvest within 50 feet of wetlands < 1 acre in size big game, forest adjacent to 1995; and within 150 feet of wetlands > 1 acre. Manage riparian grouse, landbirds riparian areas Forest Plan habitat along streams according to INFISH guidelines. page 4-40 Pileated woodpecker, Old growth Lowe, 1995 2. Do not harvest any stands meeting the North Idaho Zone pine marten, fisher, large trees, Old Growth definition that are identified during future large raptors, etc. special reconnaissance. structures 3. Retain all live trees 21 inch + in diameter (DBH). 4. While providing for worker safety, retain all live trees 14 inch + in diameter (DBH) that are hollow, that have obvious woodpecker cavities, that contain broom rusts, or that contain old raptor nests. Furbearers Habitat Lowe, 1995 5. Ensure that project activities within treatment areas connectivity maintain overhead canopy closure, some understory in patches, or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover. Primary cavity Snags Mellen, et 6. To the extent feasible, retain snags and broken-topped excavators al, 2003 trees that are 10 + inches diameter (DBH). Some 10+ inch snags could be felled within treatment corridors and landings. Others may need to be felled for worker safety. Down logs Lowe, 7. Do not cut or remove in the area any log pieces that are 14 1995, + inch diameter (DBH) at the small end. An exception to the Mellen, et above is where there are large concentrations of 14 inch + al, 2003 logs. In such a case, some logs may be cut/moved in order to allow for equipment at treatment sites, or for worker safety. Removal of 14 + inch logs from the treatment sites would be decided on a case-by-case basis after consultation with the District wildlife biologist. Big game Winter Forest Plan 8. Winter operations would not be implemented. The trout operations page 4-99 restoration activities would be conducted during low flows (late summer) Forested Forest Plan 9. In big game winter range, attempt to retain pockets of cover page 4-98 shade tolerant regeneration/sapling/pole-sized or larger trees. Landbirds Hardwoods Altman, 10. Mark no hardwood trees for removal, with the exception of 2000 those located within treatment corridors.
Page 17 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered
Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance The conservation measures listed in the table above would be incorporated into the design of Alternative B. The following measures would be necessary under certain conditions to mitigate and monitor potential impacts of Alternative B to TES and other wildlife species. Mitigation for TES and Other Wildlife Species
Protect TES Species and Wildlife Activity Sites - If a TES species or an active den, nest, roost, rendezvous site, etc. is found near the treatment sites, consult a biologist as to measures required to protect the species or site. Sensitive Plants – If sensitive species are found in the analysis area while project activities are occurring, a botanist would be consulted as to measures required to protect the species and its essential habitat.
Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring – Revegetation efforts at treatment sites, staging areas and pathways, would be monitored by the PUD to insure successful site revegetation has occurred and reseeded, if necessary. Once a restoration measure has been completed, monitoring for this project will begin one year after completion of construction (summer 2014). Surveys will monitor all habitat attributes inventoried during general surveys. Monitoring will continue for at least three consecutive years (i.e., through at least 2016) to establish near-term success of the project; annual monitoring will cease once all enhancement efforts and habitat variables meet a minimum of 85% of the established success criteria over a three-year running average. Once deemed successful, long-term monitoring of habitat parameters will be conducted once every eight years or as conditions dictate. Annual monitoring reports will be provided to the Fish SubCommitee (FSC) and Technical Committee (TC) to formally document and present the success of individual projects.
Maintenance – The PUD will conduct maintenance efforts pursuant to the approved restoration measure and will routinely visit each site (at least annually, as well as following significant weather events, or as reasonably required by the Technical Committee (Revised 4(e) Condition 6 – Trout Habitat Restoration Program).
Page 18 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
CHAPTER 3 EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a summary of the key environmental effects of the alternatives as described in specialist reports and related documents and studies. The analysis and conclusions about the potential effects are synopsized in the respective resource sections. The documents disclose the analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and are incorporated by reference and are available in the project file, located at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Office in Metaline Falls, Washington. This document also incorporates information from the Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Project EA (2010) as shown on Appendix A-4 (map of Hanlon analysis area).
This assessment of effects assumes compliance with standards and guidelines established in the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), Regional standards, State and Federal laws, and National policies. The analysis was based on following regulations and requirements found in the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the 1976 National Forest Management Act, the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy/Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), and the Direction for Neotropical Migratory Landbirds. These standards, guidelines, policies, and laws provide measures which minimize and sometimes avoid adverse impacts, and require rehabilitation of resources affected by Forest programs. The summary of effects of the alternatives is listed by resource and the discussion centers on effects that are direct, indirect, or cumulative. These impacts can be either beneficial or adverse.
The consequences of implementing each alternative are summarized in terms of changes in the affected environment from the current situation. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2008), identifies a list of environmental factors to be considered in data collection and environmental analysis. Factors which would not be affected by the proposed activity and were considered not relevant in comparison of alternatives are: the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), consumers, civil rights, minority groups, and women. The area does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, farmlands. The alternatives were assessed to determine whether they would disproportionately impact minority or low income populations, in accordance with Executive Order 12898. No local minority or low-income populations were identified during scoping or effects assessment. No minority or low-income populations are expected to be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives.
This project is not adjacent to, nor would it have any effect on, existing wilderness areas, Forest Plan designated roadless areas, or Research Natural Areas. This project would have no effect to designated recovery areas for Grizzly Bear, Lynx primary range or Woodland Caribou recovery areas. General Background Climate The weather of this region is unique in that it is consistent with both maritime and continental climates. The majority of the precipitation in this region comes in winter and spring in the form of snow. The rain- snow transition elevation varies from year-to-year due to annual climate variability. Some years can produce substantial snow deposition at low-to-mid elevations followed by a mid-winter warming trend resulting in rain-on-snow events. The streams in the LeClerc Creek sub-watershed have developed with rain-on-snow events. First Nation Influence Native people of the region engaged in hunting and gathering activities, utilized ceremonial sites, and used major trail systems that connected the Pend Oreille River to the Columbia River. The Project areas are near the traditional use area of the Kalispel Tribe. The Kalispel is a sub-group of the Salishan speaking groups which include the following cultural traditions: Wenatchee, Columbia, Chelan, Methow, Okanogan, Nespelem, Sanpoil, Spokane, Coeur D’Alene, Colville, Lakes and Kalispel. Ethnographic accounts indicate that the eastern edge of Colville National Forest, including the Pend Oreille River Valley, may have also been utilized by the Kootenai, Spokane and Colville tribes (Lahren 1998).
Page 19 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Logging and Homesteading Large-scale, intensive timber harvest occurred throughout the uplands surrounding the Pend Oreille River Valley from 1905 to 1930 and much of the old growth timber was removed. Western white pine, western red cedar, Douglas fir, and western larch were the most valued species (POCSC 2010). Common logging techniques included the use of splash dams, log flumes and skidding in the stream channel as a means to transport logs to sawmills. Most sawmills were dependent on water for power. Mill ponds located near the mills were used to store logs in tributaries or the Pend Oreille River prior to sawing. Log flumes were used in several drainages including the Tacoma, LeClerc, and Ruby Creek drainages (POCSC 2010). Log flumes were common, simplified the in-stream habitat, and decreased the recruitment source for large woody debris. Numerous forest fires occurred between 1910 and 1929 and impacted many watersheds. From 1917 to 1929, an estimated 60 to 70 percent of the LeClerc Creek watershed burned. Early reports document that a few ranchers and homesteaders cleared tracts of land to raise cattle and crops. Much of the homesteading land was transferred to the Forest Service in the 1930s. Harvest methods and removal of timber products from the national forest has changed substantially over time. Early harvest methods (1950s through 1970s) focused primarily on financial objectives of providing low cost wood products. Harvesting often occurred in the locations with the highest volume and most easily accessible stands. Timber harvest often occurred within riparian areas and adjacent to streams. Most of the harvest prescriptions were primarily designed to produce healthy young stands with shorter rotation ages.
3.2 FISH HABITAT Existing Conditions Fisheries within the LeClerc drainage are an important historic use for the Kalispel Tribe. One of their objectives within the drainage is to improve fish habitat and fish populations. The Kalispel Tribe has actively worked with multiple adjacent landowners to improve fish habitat throughout the LeClerc drainage. The PUD is also working to improve fish habitat, via the Trout Habitat Restoration Program (U.S. Department of the Interior, Conditions for Habitat Restoration Pursuant to Section (4e) of the Federal Power Act – Revised 4(e) Condition 6 – Trout Habitat Restoration Program). Existing conditions outlined below are taken mostly from the Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects, Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2010). Regional Existing Population Condition Regionally, most native salmonid numbers and distribution are lower than historic levels. This decline is due to dam construction and operation, water diversions, introduction of non-native fish species, and habitat degradation. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) range throughout the Pacific Northwest. A subspecies, interior Redband trout (O. mykiss gairdneri) ranges from the east side of the Cascades to the Selkirks. Pure interior Redband trout have not been found in the Pend Oreille subbasin. Westslope Cutthroat trout (O. lewisi clarki), a subspecies of Cutthroat trout, range from the upper Kootenay River drainage of British Columbia and Montana; the upper Columbia and Fraser Rivers of British Columbia; the Pend Oreille, Clark Fork, St Joe, and Spokane River drainages; the Salmon and Clearwater drainages; the Lake Chelan drainages, and the John Day River drainage, in Oregon. On the east side of the Continental Divide, the Westslope Cutthroat is native to the South Saskatchewan River and the upper Missouri River drainage (Behnke 1992). Bull trout are native to the Pacific Northwest and are found in North America from the Oregon-California border eastward to Nevada, north through western Montana and western Alberta, westward through British Columbia, and north to at least 60 degrees N latitude in Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Natural climatic warming and loss of coldwater habitat since the Pleistocene period, exacerbated by effects of human activities have reduced their distribution (Cavender 1978).
Page 20 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Watershed Existing Population Condition Limited historic information is available for the fish populations of LeClerc Creek. Smith (1935) mentions that members of the Kalispel Tribe fished for char at weirs in lower LeClerc Creek. “[The weir] was built early in the spring and caught trout and char exclusively.” Rob Cole, a former resident, within the LeClerc Creek watershed, stated that “in the early 1950s, there were heavy concentrations of whitefish and Dolly Vardens [Bull trout] at the mouth of the creek. You could have loaded a pickup truck full of all the D. Vardens you could have caught at the mouth.… D.Vardens 5 to 15 lbs and as long as your arm here and elsewhere.” (personal communication with Rob Cole 1998). The LeClerc Creek watershed has three branches, the West, East and Middle Branches, as well as several fish-bearing tributaries to two of the three branches. LeClerc Creek and its tributaries flow into the Pend Oreille River. The East and West Branches on NFS lands contain Eastern Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Westslope Cutthroat trout (USFS 2005-2007). Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Coastal Rainbow trout (O. mykiss irideus) reside in the lower reaches of this watershed. The East and West branches also contain a very small spawning population of Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (KNRD 1995).The Middle Branch contains only Eastern Brook trout on NFS lands (USFS 2005) above an impassable culvert, and Brook trout, Cutthroat trout, and Brown trout below the culvert. Individual Bull trout have been found in Box Canyon Reservoir, a 55-mile segment of the Pend Oreille River from Box Canyon Dam to Albeni Falls Dam. Bull trout in the reservoir have been most recently captured and documented between 1988 and 2004. The total number of fish captured was 20 individuals. Fourteen of these individuals were spawning age migratory adults. Biotic surveys were completed by USFS personnel in branches of LeClerc Creek (1992, 1994, 2004, 2005 and 2007) to determine fish presence. No Bull trout were found during these surveys; however, juvenile bull trout have been found in the East and West Branches most recently by Kalispel Tribal biologists between 1995 and 2002. Private lands on LeClerc Creek include designated critical habitat for Bull trout (USFWS 2004). LeClerc Creek is considered to be a core area habitat for Bull trout within the Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998). The Westslope Cutthroat trout population in the West and East Branches has been genetically analyzed. Based upon assays at the Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Lab of the University of Montana, 76% and 91% respectively of the Cutthroat trout sampled contained only Westslope Cutthroat trout alleles with no evidence of introgression from Rainbow trout. The remainder had genetic contribution from both Rainbow and Westslope Cutthroat trout (BPA 2001). Bull trout numbers are extremely low and no sampling for genetic purity has occurred. River Basin Existing Habitat Condition LeClerc Creek and its tributaries flow into the Pend Oreille River. The Pend Oreille River between Box Canyon and Albeni Falls dams is a slow run-of-river situation, characteristic of longer retention times, slower water velocities and wider channel width than when the river was in its free-flowing condition. The reservoir supports a biomass of aquatic vegetation. Eurasian water-milfoil, an aquatic noxious weed, and curly pondweed, a non-native plant, comprise a substantial portion of this aquatic vegetation. Former riffles, gravel bars, side channels and pools have been inundated by the present water levels behind the dam. Large woody debris is almost non-existent. The habitat is more suitable for spiny-ray fish than for salmonids due to lack of habitat complexity and increase in shallow water habitat. LeClerc Creek Watershed Existing Habitat Condition The majority of the riparian habitat in the LeClerc Creek watershed consists of forest and shrub land. The LeClerc Creek drainage system consists of three primary tributaries. The West Branch LeClerc Creek flows south from steep headwaters on 6,784 foot Molybdenite Mountain. The Middle Branch also flows generally south, but originates from gentler granitic hills at an elevation of about 4,700 feet. The East Branch flows southwest from 5,700 foot Monumental Mountain. The LeClerc Creek watershed provides suitable fish habitat. Portions of the stream on NFS lands were surveyed between 2004 and 2007 and the R6 Hankin-Reeves Stream Survey protocol was used for these surveys. Segments of LeClerc Creek also lie within private lands and those reaches were not surveyed. Stream surveys were also conducted by the PUD in the Project areas. These surveys were conducted in the last couple of years and are shown on Table 3.
Page 21 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 3: Summary of Habitat Surveys Conducted
(by the PUD in the LeClerc Creek drainage) Stream General Surveys Target Surveys West Branch LeClerc Creek 2010 -Whiteman Creek 2010 2012 - Redman Creek 2012 2012
Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek 2009 2010, 2011
East Branch LeClerc Creek 2010 -Seco Creek 2010 -Fourth of July Creek 2010
In the West Branch of LeClerc Creek, there is one possible natural seasonal blockage presently preventing fish passage between Box Canyon Reservoir and a portion of the West Branch of LeClerc Creek. The surface flow periodically goes subsurface in a section of the West Branch in the western quarter of Section 5, T. 35 N., R.44 E., W.M. (over five miles south of the White Man Creek Project area). It is unclear if the aggradation of streambed material in this stream (Section 5) is due to past natural or human actions. Just south of the White Man Project area, a historic diversion dam is located on the West Branch and is a seasonal, if not yearlong, barrier to upstream fish passage in Section 8, T. 36 N., R 44E, W.M. Several undersized and improperly placed culverts on the Middle Branch of LeClerc Creek, which prevented upstream fish passage permanently or seasonally, have been removed with the road relocation. A natural falls/cascade on lower Fourth of July Creek, a tributary to the East Branch of LeClerc Creek, prevents upstream fish passage beyond the first 0.3 miles of this stream. Project Area Fish and Habitat Attributes White Man Creek Surveys by the Kalispel Tribe (Maroney et al. 1996; Andersen and Olson 2002) indicate that both Brook and Westslope Cutthroat trout inhabit the Project Area; the Tribe conducted habitat enhancement work in three reaches of the creek. Brook trout densities ranged from 6.5 - 20.0 fish/100m2 pre-habitat enhancement, and 9.9 - 45.1 fish/100m2 after habitat enhancement. Cutthroat trout densities ranged from 0.0 - 0.5 fish/100m2 before habitat enhancement, and 0.0 - 0.9 fish/100m2 after habitat enhancement (Andersen and Olson 2002). Appendix A-5 shows the fish distribution in the LeClerc watershed, including White Man Creek. Although Brown trout have not been observed in White Man Creek, this species has been found in the lower section of West Branch LeClerc Creek by the Kalispel Tribe in 2009; however, in 2011, the Tribe found Brown trout further upstream near Diamond City. It has been posited that, until recently, a lower portion of the West Branch went dry in the summer, and Brown trout could not access the middle section during the fall spawning run, whereas in more recent years flows have been sufficiently large to allow Brown Trout passage to this area (T. Andersen, Kalispel Tribe, email correspondence with J. Blum, EESC, January 3, 2011). Stream surveys on White Man Creek Reaches were completed by the PUD in the summer of 2010 (EESC 2011a). Results of the surveys determined that five out of seven reaches (RW1 and MW3-MW6), meet all habitat attributes; Reaches WM1 and WM2, however, will require restoration efforts. Habitat Attributes and limiting factors of 85% (the minimal level that is deemed successful) are shown on Table 4. As shown on the Table, Reaches WM1 and WM2 will require treatment (EESC 2012e).
Page 22 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 4: THRP Whiteman Creek Limiting Factor Results Reach Number Habitat Attribute RW1 WM1 WM2 WM3 WM4 WM5 WM6 Reach Length (ft) 4,316 4,720 2,412 1,740 3411 1,937 3,838
Surface Fines (%) 9 11 48 13 31 7 15
Embeddedness (%) 28 21 N/A2 23 N/A2 19 24
Canopy Cover (%) 78 85 49 70 62 83 86
Stream Cover (%) 32 32 26 46 69 32 25
Undercut Banks (%) 59 60 56 61 58 59 59
Stable Banks (%) 96 98 96 100 99 99 98
Pools/1,000’ 18.5 12.7 20.3 19.0 14.7 21.2 21.9
Pool:riffle ratio 0.83 0.49 1.48 0.73 1.00 0.89 0.90
ALWD/1,000’ 221.1 124.3 85.4 335.1 186.4 142.3 164.2
MLWD/1,000’ 54.1 20.2 41.5 87.5 33.5 58.5 34.0
LLWD/1,000’ 22.9 21.6 13.9 41.1 29.4 28.2 32.5
Channel Stability Good Good Good Good Good Good Good
Passage Barrier? No No No No No No No 1 Does not include approximately 1,500 ft of marsh area. 2 Cobble embeddedness in this reach is not applicable, because there was essentially no cobble in the habitat units that were measured. - habitat attribute values that meet desirable conditions. - habitat attribute values that meet minimum acceptable levels but do not meet desirable conditions. - habitat attribute values that fall below minimum acceptable levels.
Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Habitat inventories conducted in 1999 by the Kalispel Tribe indicate that only Brook trout inhabit the fish- bearing waters of the Project area. Densities of Brook trout ranged from 38/100m2 to 151/100m2 in the reaches that comprise the Project area (Maroney and Andersen 2000). Appendix A-5 shows the fish distribution in the LeClerc watershed, including UMB LeClerc Creek. Fish habitat surveys were completed in 2009 (EESC 2011b) in UMB LeClerc. Results of the stream surveys found that reaches surveyed in the UMB LeClerc Creek requires restoration. Habitat Attributes and limiting factors of 85% (the minimal level that is deemed successful) are shown on Table 5 (EESC 2012d).
Page 23 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 5: THRP Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Limiting Factor Results
Reach Number Habitat Attribute 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Reach length (ft) 984 365 2,805 3,272 1,462 1,619 2,714
Surface Fines (%) 33.1 82.2 55.7 91.8 42.6 29.4 38.5
Embeddedness (%) N/A 1 52.6 46.4 56.7 N/A 1 39.5 40.9
Canopy Cover (%) 71.8 82.6 82.3 80.7 83.0 80.6 88.3
Stream Cover (%) 24.6 61.5 36.5 24.0 23.4 36.3 29.1
Undercut Banks (%) 47.1 57.0 59.8 56.8 41.2 45.4 48.9
Stable Banks (%) 66.3 37.0 76.3 74.1 54.8 61.4 76.0
Pools/1000 ft 7.1 13.7 8.9 19.0 7.5 8.0 8.8
Pool:riffle Ratio 0.47 0.83 0.63 N/A 2 0.58 0.30 0.28
ALWD/1000 ft 139.5 144.4 148.3 48.9 98.8 138.0 242.6
Channel Stability Ok Poor Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
Passage Barrier? No No No No Yes 3 No No 1 Cobble embeddedness in this reach is not applicable, because there was essentially no cobble in the habitat units that were measured. 2 Pool:riffle ratio in this reach is not applicable, because no riffles were encountered 3 Source: WDFW 2010 - habitat attribute values that meet desirable conditions. - habitat attribute values that meet minimum acceptable levels but do not meet desirable conditions. - habitat attribute values that fall below minimum acceptable levels.
Restoration efforts on White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek will involve mainly placement of LWD within the streams. There is one culvert within the Project area, at the reach break between UMB LeClerc Creek Reaches UMB16 and 17 at a FS road crossing. This culvert is listed as a passage barrier by WDFW (2010) and may be removed as part of the THRP restoration efforts. Fish-bearing streams, as well as locations of roads, barriers, and land ownership are shown in Appendix A-1. INFISH Riparian Management Objectives Desired future conditions are also represented by the INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMO). The four RMOs include water temperature, large woody debris, width/depth ratio, and pools per mile. These objectives shown on Table 6 are used to assess health of the system and project the minimum needed for good habitat. Further information and details are included in Table 6.
Page 24 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 6: INFISH Riparian Management Objectives Habitat Feature Interim Objective Large Woody Debris >20 pieces per mile; >12 inches diameter; >35 feet in length Width/Depth Ratio Mean wetted width, mean wetted depth, <10 Pools per Mile >56 for streams less than 20 feet wide No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (the average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest consecutive 7-day period Temperature measured on an annual basis). Maximum water temperatures below 15 Degrees C. within adult holding habitat and below 9 Degrees C. within spawning and rearing habitats.
Large Woody Debris (LWD) The INFISH riparian management objective is to have a minimum of 20 pieces of large down wood (12 inches in diameter at 35 feet from the large end) in each mile of stream. This is achieved through the standard of managing the RHCAs to provide these large pieces of wood to the stream channel (INFISH 1995). A majority of the deficient reaches have some commonality in that low levels of LWD are most often related to these segments of streams with roads located within the riparian area. These roads have eliminated a portion of any potential contributing source of instream wood. In addition, the increased access to the remaining riparian area to cattle, dispersed recreation uses and firewood cutters for many years also has reduced contribution of instream wood. There are very few trees in these valley floors large enough to meet the INFISH standard for large wood if they were to fall in the stream. The lack of recruitment sources in these reaches is the reason there are low numbers of large woody debris. Bankfull Width Depth (BFWD) Ratio The width to depth ratio as described in INFISH is for wetted width depth. This has been changed for this analysis to bankfull width to depth (BFWD). The reason for this change is that it is easier to take repeated measurements of bankfull width to depth. The BFWD RMO has been set at 13 for this analysis. In previous analyses on Hankin and Reeves data across the Forest, a BFWD ratio below 13 was found to be indicative of good bank and channel stability. This is being met in most cases. Dispersed recreation and livestock use of localized riparian areas in these reaches may be having an effect causing higher BFWD ratios. Excessive sediment entering the Project area creeks can cause pools to fill and stream channels to widen. Pools per mile (PPM) The INFISH pools per mile RMO is not being met on any surveyed reach in the LeClerc Creek watershed. However, it is more suitable to compare the pools per mile with the average for other managed watersheds. The ``Characterization of Inventoried Streams in the Columbia River Basin'' (McKinney et. al.1996) lists the average pools per mile for managed watersheds in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. This data uses the pools per mile collected through the Hankin and Reeves Survey Method. This data gives a more appropriate indicator than the INFISH riparian management objectives. The average for streams in the LeClerc Creek watershed that are between 10 and 25 feet wide in moderate gradient systems is 10 to 20 pools per mile. Water Temperature Complete year round data are unavailable; partial data for the East, West and Middle Branches (May through October) exists for 1996, 2007 or 2008. Data was collected through the use of hydrothermographs. Measured water temperature listed in the LeClerc watershed indicates that there are water temperatures during the summer months that exceed state water quality standards (60 Degrees F). These areas include the uppermost reaches of the West Branch, the Middle Branch and the East Branch below the confluence with the Middle Branch. Water temperatures in a majority of the West Branch are within state water quality standards. Since sufficient information is not available, it is unclear if the East Branch above the confluence with the Middle Branch meets these standards. State standards notwithstanding, these water temperatures during the summer months, are at or above the tolerance levels of Bull trout fry and juveniles. Temperatures in excess of about 15 Degrees C. (59 Degrees F.) are thought to limit Bull trout distribution (Allan 1980; Fraley and Shephard 1989; Goetz 1991; Oliver 1979; Pratt 1985; Ratliff 1992;
Page 25 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Shephard and others 1984b). Goetz (1989) believed that optimum temperatures for rearing were about 7 to 8 Degrees C. (44.6 to 46.4 Degrees F.). In Washington, Wydoski and Whitney (1979) reported spawning activity was most intense at 5 to 6 Degrees C (41 to 42.8 Degrees F.).
High water temperatures appear to be directly related to the elimination and reduction of riparian habitat particularly in the Middle Branch of LeClerc Creek but also elsewhere in the larger LeClerc Creek watershed. Riparian vegetation has been replaced by gravel roads in certain locations. In other areas, the native vegetation has been harvested or burned historically and replaced with smaller trees and brush. Many riparian areas, particularly in the Middle Branch, have been overgrazed with shrubs and forbs being replaced with non-native grasses. Instream large woody debris numbers are low, primarily due to past riparian harvest and fires. Historic and present increase in sediment over natural levels, as well as unstable, eroding streambanks, has widened certain segments of stream channels. This widening decreases water depth which may, in turn, increase water temperatures. This condition is especially important during the summer months. Summary The LeClerc Creek watershed has been impacted in the past from homesteading, timber harvest, past fires, dispersed recreation and cattle grazing. The historic and present impacts, such as railroad and road construction, have simplified channel habitat and reduced or virtually eliminated portions of riparian vegetation along portions of this watershed. Most reaches have low numbers of large instream wood and pools per mile. Summer water temperatures are also at or above the tolerance levels of Bull trout fry and juveniles. The current condition of the channel habitat is directly related to the existing condition and capability of the riparian habitat. Decreased function of the riparian vegetation to stabilize the streambanks, provide overhead shading and provide adequate recruitment of future instream large woody debris appears to be the primary factor. This is particularly apparent on the Middle Branch LeClerc Creek but can be found throughout the analysis area. These poor habitat conditions, together with competition from non-native fish and habitat degradation in the Pend Oreille River, are responsible for the decline of native species within LeClerc Creek and in the greater Pend Oreille Subbasin. Effects of Alternative A (No Action) No change in the existing environment would occur under this alternative. Therefore, the Kalispel Tribe objective of improving fish habitat within the LeClerc drainage would not be met with this alternative. Likewise, the THRP efforts would not be completed. INFISH riparian management objectives would not be met. This alternative would not restore fish habitat on Forest Service lands within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek, and would not meet the multiple-use objectives of the current Forest Plan, INFISH, and the THRP by achieving trout restoration goals. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A Stream Temperature This alternative would have no direct or indirect effect to water temperature. Pool Frequency The existing levels of soil movement into the streams from natural and other sources, such as roads or pathways, would continue. Sediment entering the stream can fill pools, reducing their quality of eliminating the pool habitat altogether. Existing stream and riparian habitat conditions, including pool frequency, are anticipated to remain stable or slightly improve within the Project areas. Under this alternative, pool numbers are not anticipated to noticeably change over existing levels. Due to Forest and Fish Rules, there is some level of protection of perennial streams to reduce the level of sediment entering the streams. This alternative, within the Project areas, would slowly move conditions toward the attainment of this Riparian Management Objective (RMO). Large Woody Debris Under the No Action Alternative, existing riparian vegetation within the Project area would not be affected. Riparian vegetation would continue to mature and provide recruitment for future instream wood, which is a major factor in the creation of pools, and would slightly increase over time due to the maturation of riparian trees along stream reaches. Large woody debris numbers would remain stable as old instream
Page 26 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation wood is replaced by a continual source. This alternative would slowly move conditions toward the attainment of this RMO.
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio The No Action Alternative is expected to continue to meet the BWD ratio on most reaches. Channel morphology is anticipated to remain stable at existing levels. Compliance with the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH The potential effects of the No Action Alternative on the four relevant RMOs have been analyzed in the Existing Conditions section and Table 6. These RMOs were developed to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat features, to meet the life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed (INFISH 1995). For reasons above, the No Action Alternative has not been found to retard the attainment of these RMOs, outlined above, in the long term. Habitat factors not included within INFISH RMOs: Embeddedness The No Action Alternative does not increase sediment levels in stream reaches within the Project areas since the existing condition of roads, pathways and streambanks would not be changed. Over time, the sediment may decrease as vegetation condition improves. Riparian Vegetation The No Action Alternative would not affect the existing condition and function of the existing riparian vegetation. Riparian condition would improve over the long term. Fish Populations Existing stream and riparian habitat conditions are expected to remain consistent under this alternative. Fish populations in the Project areas would continue to include Eastern Brook and Westslope Cutthroat trout in the White Man Creek Project areas, and Brook trout only within the UMB LeClerc Creek. All species are tolerating degraded instream conditions (low frequency of pools, high embeddedness level, and high summer water temperatures). Westslope Cutthroat trout populations are more abundant in the higher-gradient stream segments where stream and riparian habitat conditions are less degraded. No long-term expansion of these subpopulations is expected under existing habitat conditions. Effects of Alternative B (Proposed Action) Fish habitat improvement projects are proposed under this alternative. Restoration work related to fish habitat improvements includes the following: Trees would be used to provide LWD. LWD helps stabilize shorelines, provides refuge for juvenile and adult fish and vital habitat for trout and other aquatic organisms, and provides food sources and habitat for aquatic insects and wildlife along shorelines. The presence of large woody debris is important in the formation of pools, which serve as trout habitat. These trees would be felled for use of LWD within treatment sites on White Man Creek (WM1 and WM2) and on Reaches 12-17 of the Upper Middle Branch LeClerc. Trees would come from overstocked stands approximately 150 feet away from streams. Reach 12 of the UMB LeClerc would require some wood to be imported due to lack of trees in this area. A culvert would be removed at UMB LeClerc Creek between Reaches 16 and 17 to provide fish passage.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B Stream Temperature The limited timber harvest required for LWD at treatment sites would not likely cause significant change in stream temperature. No new roads would be constructed in the analysis area. This alternative is not expected to prevent or retard movement toward achievement of the water temperature RMO on the White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek Project areas. LWD placement in these streams will provide shading and/or cover, which may reduce temperatures. No significant direct or indirect effects are anticipated.
Page 27 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
As part of the restoration efforts, a culvert located between Reaches 16 and 17 on UMB LeClerc Creek, at a FS road crossing, will be eliminated to improve fish passage. The culvert is listed as a passage barrier by WDFW. The PUD will remove the culvert. The replacement of the existing culvert with a fish passable stream-way, may remove some existing riparian vegetation that provides overhead shading. However, the disturbed area would be revegetated and overhead shading would be reestablished in the long term. This effort is not expected to affect stream temperature at the treatment sites. No direct or indirect impacts are expected due to removal of the culvert. The proposed action, instead, would move the existing conditions toward achievement of this RMO on the White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek, through the anticipated decrease in summer water temperatures due to improvement in LWD and overhead shading. Water temperature in the White Man and UMB LeClerc creeks should improve somewhat due to the proposed action. Pool Frequency Based on THRP survey results, reaches in White Man Creek (WM1-WM2) for pool habitat (pools/1,000 feet); are considered to have habitat attribute values that meet desirable conditions. The pool:riffle ratio attributes at WM1 meets minimum acceptable levels but do not meet desirable conditions. Reach WM2 includes habitat attribute values that meet desirable conditions. Pool habitat (pools/1,000 ft) attributes at UMB LeClerc Creek, Reaches 12, 14 and 16; fall below minimum acceptable levels. Pools/1,000 feet at UMB LeClerc Creek Reaches 13 and 15, however, were found to have desirable conditions for pool habitat (EESC 2012d; 2012e). The function of riparian vegetation is to provide instream wood recruitment, which is a major factor in the creation of pools. This alternative proposes the addition of large woody debris within the proposed Project areas (WM1-WM2) and UMB LeClerc (reaches 12-17) to increase the frequency and improve the quality of pool habitat. This wood, in many situations, would increase scour and either create new pools or deepen existing pools. The proposed action alternative proposes the addition of large woody debris within the White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek Project areas to increase the frequency and improve the quality of pool habitat. This LWD, in many situations, would increase scour and either create new pools or deepen existing pools. In the short term, there may be a temporary increase in sediment input into the streams during placement of LWD, and removal of a culvert at UMB LeClerc Creek to allow for fish passage. Compliance with appropriate BMPs should reduce any short term adverse effect on instream habitat adjacent and downstream of the restoration sites. For these reasons, the effects of restoration activities within the Project areas are expected to increase the number and improve the quality of pools in the long-term; the effects of the proposed action alternative, within the Project areas, are not expected to retard the attainment of this RMO. No significant direct or indirect impacts are expected for this alternative. Large Woody Debris This alternative proposes the addition of LWD within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek, to increase stream stability and instream cover, as well as increasing the frequency and improving the quality of pool habitat by increasing scour, creating new pools or deepening existing pools. Placement of LWD is not expected to affect the function of the riparian vegetation, and will not diminish the overall function of the riparian vegetation. The harvest of trees at White Man Creek (Reaches WM1-WM2) and UMB LeClerc Creek (Reaches UMB12-17) restoration sites, within the RHCA, and importation of trees at UMB LeClerc Creek (Reach UMB12), are required for LWD at restoration sites. Table 7 shows the sizes and distributions of LWD proposed for restoration sites; 110 LWD pieces/1,000 feet of stream according to the distributions outlined in Table 7 below, are required in order to meet 100% of the Project restoration, however, is considered successful if LWD criteria are met at a level of 85% (EESC 2011b and 2011c).
Page 28 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 7: Sizes and Distributions of LWD for THRP Surveys and Restoration Projects Minimum Size PIECES OF WOOD/1,000 FT 4 inch Diameter and 1 m (3.28 ft) Length 55 4 inch Diameter and Bankfull Width Length 33 12 inch Diameter and Bankfull Width Length 22
Placement of LWD at restoration sites is not expected to diminish the overall function of the riparian vegetation. Over time, vegetation in the Project areas would mature and eventually start contributing to the overall numbers of instream wood. The availability of large instream wood for cover, foraging, sediment collection, and pool formation should increase for fish populations on NFS lands within the Project areas. Under this alternative, the function of the riparian vegetation to provide instream wood recruitment, which is a major factor in the creation of pools, would increase due to the improvement of riparian health. For this reason, the effects of the proposed action alternative are not expected to retard the attainment of this RMO. No significant direct or indirect effects are expected for this alternative. Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Establishment of RHCAs, per INFISH, would adequately filter out soil movement from most of the proposed activities (tree removal and culvert removal). Compliance with BMPs would reduce any potential sediment input as a result of the restoration work, and therefore reduce the potential of project-related increases in bankfull width/depth ratios. Aggradation of the channel is not anticipated to occur due to the restoration projects on White Man and UMB LeClerc creeks. Any initial increase in on-site erosion is expected to be minor and would pass through the stream system. Since significant sediment is not expected to accumulate below the Project activities, but disperse further downstream, the bankfull width/depth ratio of the particular streams is not expected to increase. There may be a temporary increase in sediment from some of the proposed restoration activities. This sediment would likely settle in low gradient channels within LeClerc Creek, but would be flushed out during peak flows during the spring of each year or during other high flow events. This flushing action would avoid any long-term accumulation of sediment under this alternative that would widen stream channels and increase the bankfull width/depth ratio. For these reasons, no increases in the ratio are expected in the short-term under this alternative. Instead, the ratios are anticipated to decrease on White Man Creek and UMB Leclerc Creek over time due to the proposed restoration actions within this alternative. Compliance with the Forest Plan as amended by INFISH The potential effects of the proposed action on the four relevant RMOs have been analyzed in the previous sections. The proposed action alternative would, through the addition of large woody debris, improve the condition of riparian vegetation needed for the purpose of providing bank stability, detritus, contribution of instream wood and overhead shading. Improvements in overhead shading and large wood recruitment should move towards attainment of the water temperature in the long term and maintain or attain the INFISH RMO for large woody debris and water temperature. This action alternative would initially increase sediment introduction into the lower end of White Man Creek and the UMB LeClerc Creek through implementation of the proposed placement of LWD in the streams and removal of a culvert on UMB between Reaches 16 and17. In the long term, sediment input would be reduced as riparian and streambank conditions improve through instream habitat improvement and reestablishment of riparian vegetation. The effect of the proposed restoration activities would be to improve pool habitat quality by reducing sediment and increasing scouring action, thereby increasing the average depth of pools. Improvement in riparian and channel habitat should slowly decrease the bankfull width/depth ratios. For the reasons given above, Alternative B has not been found to retard the attainment of these RMOs.
Page 29 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Habitat factors not included within INFISH RMOs include: Embeddedness Establishment of RHCAs, per INFISH, would adequately filter out any soil movement from the proposed restoration activities. Direct sediment input may occur where restoration activities are proposed within riparian vegetation and/or the stream channel. Placement of LWD in the streams and removal of a culvert at UMB LeClerc Creek between Reaches 16 and17 are not expected to result in any significant increase in embeddedness. Restoration efforts are expected to be temporary, and any potential sedimentation into streams would be minor. Any direct and indirect sedimentation from restoration activities is expected to be reduced after completion of the stream treatments. Riparian Vegetation This alternative is not anticipated to affect the function or quantity of riparian habitat within the Project areas. Functional riparian vegetation provides shade, detritus, large instream wood cover, bank stability and acts as a filter to reduce soil movement into stream and river systems. A small amount of riparian vegetation may be disturbed during implementation of the restoration work; riparian vegetation could be disturbed due to the need for access to the treatment sites. Disturbance of riparian vegetation would be minor, and revegetation of disturbed areas would be re-established over time. The function of riparian vegetation for shade, bank stability, detritus, large instream wood, cover and to filter out soil movement should continue to be adequate for fish populations on NFS lands in the Project areas. Fish Populations Instream habitat condition is dependent upon riparian habitat condition. The proposed restoration activities, such as the placement of instream large wood and revegetation, would improve riparian and instream condition over time. Summer water temperatures are anticipated to decrease as a result of the improvements of riparian habitat condition along White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek. This decrease in water temperatures should improve fish habitat. Fish populations in the Project areas would continue to be represented by the present suite of species. Brook and Westslope Cutthroat trout inhabit White Man Creek, and Brook trout inhabits UMB LeClerc Creek. These species would continue to be located in the higher gradient stream segments, where stream and riparian habitat conditions are less degraded. The UMB LeClerc Creek has only Brook trout throughout most of its length due to upstream fish passage barriers. The removal of a culvert on UMB LeClerc Creek (between Reaches 16 and 17) and other habitat improvement work including placement of LWD in streams, are expected to improve fish habitat. Bull trout have been found in the East and West Branches of LeClerc Creek watershed, but not within White Man Creek or UMB LeClerc Creek. Implementation of the Projects proposed with alternative B would meet the Kalispel Tribe objective of improving fish habitat within the LeClerc drainage and the conditions of the THRP. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects of Alternative B include those occurring on other ownerships within the watershed as well as Forest Service management activities. Cumulative effects related to fish habitat are generally related to vegetation disruption, soil erosion and resulting downstream sedimentation into streams. INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) include the following:
Stream Temperature Lack of major timber harvesting in the Project areas should result in stable riparian function and condition. Placement of LWD and related riparian overhead shading will help reduce high stream temperatures during the summer months, and stream treatments would help move towards achievement of this RMO. This would occur through the anticipated decrease in summer water temperatures due to a large improvement in overhead shading, and an improvement in channel form of portions of the creeks and associated riparian growth over time within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek. Downstream cumulative effects to stream temperature would likely be beneficial. Pool Frequency Logging of trees for use of LWD within the streams could result in short term downstream sediments. Pool habitat may be affected by restoration projects, which would increase the sediment input in the short
Page 30 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation term. Possible filling of pools on low gradient sections of streams located downstream of restoration activities would be expected to be minor. With the introduction of instream LWD, restoration of instream habitat, and reduction of current sediment sources, pool habitat is expected to increase as potential sources of sediment are reduced. Downstream cumulative effects to pool frequency would be negligible. Large Woody Debris The placement of instream large wood, where it is presently lacking on White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek, would have beneficial effects, due to the overall restoration of the riparian and instream habitat. Downstream cumulative effects would be minimal. Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio INFISH RHCAs would prevent most stream channel modification through the filtering of any overland soil movement and protection of streambank integrity. Disturbance due to restoration work within the stream channel would be short term. Cumulatively, the restoration projects should not detrimentally affect functioning channel habitat in the Project areas. Embeddedness Direct sediment input into fish habitat due to fish restoration projects, including the placement of LWD, and removal of a culvert at UMB LeClerc Creek (between Reaches 16 and17), will cause a temporary increase in sediment introduction into low gradient segments within the Project areas. These sediment sources may temporarily increase the embeddedness level of streambed substrate and filling of pool habitat; however the cumulative impact would be minimal. Riparian Vegetation Under the proposed action, riparian condition and function is expected to improve on stream systems within the Project areas. The function of riparian vegetation for shade, bank stability, detritus, large instream wood, cover and to filter out soil movement should improve for fish populations on NFS lands. Downstream cumulative effects would be minimal. Fish Populations Restoration work within the riparian areas would cause a temporary, minor decrease in the amount of functional riparian vegetation and a temporary increase in sediment introduced at the restoration Project areas. However, the quantity and quality of riparian vegetation would increase in the long term and streambed erosion would be minor. The proposed restoration would provide shading that should slightly reduce high summer water temperatures for salmonids that prefer colder waters. No significant cumulative effects are anticipated due to implementation of the proposed restoration projects.
3.3 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) Management indicator species, as listed in the Forest Plan, include Grizzly Bear, Caribou, Big Game, Franklin’s Grouse, Northern Three toed Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Pine Marten, Woodpeckers, Barred Owl, Marten, Beaver, large Raptors/Great Blue Heron, Northern Bog Lemming and Trout. Rather than attempt to manage for each of the hundreds of wildlife species found on the Colville National Forest (CNF), this MIS approach singles out a representative species for active management and conservation. Essential habitats provided for each indicator species would in turn support many other animals with similar habitat requirements. Indicator species listed for the CNF were selected for one or more of the following reasons:
they are endangered or threatened with extinction, they are believed to be sensitive to the effects of forest management on a major biological community (such as old growth forests), they require specialized habitats that could be sensitive to forest management practices, they are species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped.
Standards and guidelines for indicator species habitat management are found on pages 4-38 to 4-42 of the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1988), hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan. These required measures were intended to ensure that timber harvest and other forest management activities would not lead to the loss of viability of MIS populations.
Page 31 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
New research conducted since the Forest Plan went into effect has greatly improved our knowledge of the habitat requirements of forest wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. This has led to several Forest Plan amendments which updated how we manage MIS habitats on National Forests in the region. The Inland Native Fish Strategy (USDA,1995) provided new direction for the management of riparian habitats to meet the needs of native fish.
The USDA Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan was issued in September of 2000. This plan requires NFS to assess and disclose the effects of forest management on landbirds in environmental documents. The following year, President Clinton signed an executive order pertaining to landbird management by Federal agencies. The Forest Service and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service completed a memorandum of understanding pertaining to landbirds. Both of these documents provide direction to conserve and restore landbird habitats on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
Table 8 displays the MIS listed for the Colville National Forest. Additional information is located in the Biological Evaluation (2013) and Management Indicator Species (2013) Reports and are located at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Office, Washington.
Table 8: Habitats for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Landbirds Documented Habitat Species Effects Essential habitats / other comments in Area? present? grizzly bear yes yes may affect, not (Ursus arctos) likely to See Grizzly Bear Habitat described below adversely affect woodland caribou no no May effect, not (Rangifer likely to Effects covered in the biological evaluation tarandus) adversely affect (BE) for this project (Borysewicz, 2012). The project sites are not located within woodland caribou critical habitat. northern bog no no No effects lemming No high elevation bogs in the project areas. (Synaptomys borealis) beaver yes yes May effect, not (Castor likely to This species requires low gradient streams canadensis) adversely affect with abundant nearby willows, aspen, cottonwoods, etc. deer / elk yes yes May effect, not likely to Big game animals require a mosaic of adversely affect habitats that include forested cover and open foraging sites. Winter ranges are limiting due to their restricted areal extent, wherein animals must find sufficient food resources to survive until spring. trout yes yes May effect, not likely to Effects covered in the fisheries BE. adversely affect pine marten suspected yes (Martes Not likely to These three species require late and old americana) adversely affect structural stage forests that include large barred owl yes yes live and dead trees (21”+), large down logs (Strix varia) (14”+), and good overhead canopy closure pileated yes yes (>50%). Marten are most closely woodpecker associated with higher elevation, subalpine (Dryocopus fir / spruce and lodgepole pine forests. pileatus) Marten require forested corridors to travel across fragmented landscapes.
Page 32 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 8: Habitats for Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Landbirds Documented Habitat Species Effects Essential habitats / other comments in Area? present? primary cavity yes yes Not likely to Woodpeckers require dead and defective excavators adversely affect live trees for reproduction, roosting, and foraging. They also use down logs and stumps for foraging. northern three- suspected yes May affect, not This species prefers mature subalpine fir / toed woodpecker likely to spruce, lodgepole pine, or lodgepole pine / (Picoides adversely affect mixed conifer stands at higher elevations. tridactyla) dusky (blue) suspected yes May affect, not This grouse requires mature, limby Douglas grouse likely to fir trees growing along ridgetops for winter (Dendragapus adversely affect roosting. Brood habitat is in meadows, obscurus) clearings, or open stands with an abundance of ground forage. spruce suspected yes May affect, not This species requires high elevation, dense, (Franklin’s) likely to young (< 20 years old) lodgepole pine grouse adversely affect forests with scattered mature spruce. (D. canadensis) large raptors / yes yes May affect, not These species require large live or dead great blue heron likely to trees for nesting. Foraging needs differ (Ardea herodias) adversely affect depending on the species. waterfowl yes yes May affect, not Waterfowl require lakes, ponds and likely to wetlands with emergent vegetation. Some adversely affect species are cavity nesters. landbirds yes yes May affect, not The project area has the following priority likely to habitats identified for the Northern Glaciated adversely affect Mountains Sub-province (Altman, 2000); dry forest, mixed mesic forest, riparian woodland, riparian shrubs, unique habitats including subalpine forest and montane meadows.
Effects of the Project to MIS Species Alternative A – No action would be taken and existing species and habitats would be maintained in the project area in accordance with the Forest Plan.
Alternative B – This alternative would restore fish habitat, increase pools and pool habitat and improve bank stability. Alternative B also meets the multiple-use objectives of the current Forest Plan, INFISH EA, and the Trout Habitat Restoration Plan (THRP) by achieving THRP goals.
Short-term disturbance may occur along the riparian area at specific reaches along the project area from LWD placement. Trees selected for use as LWD would be harvested from overstocked stands within 150 feet from the placement site. All sites disturbed from project work will be rehabilitated by covering bare ground with slash and/or straw and re-seeded, as deemed appropriate for the local conditions. Straw and seed will be from certified noxious weed-free sources.
The small number of trees felled for this project is not expected to change the overall forest structure and would not alter existing stand designations. The impact to MIS species and landbirds is expected to be limited to LWD placement sites. An increase in habitat is possible with the LWD placement in the streams and creation of in-stream pools and improved bank stability allowing for stream cover and woody vegetation to become established.
Page 33 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Cumulative Effects Cumulative Effects – The LeClerc Creek watershed is roughly 103 square miles in size; large enough to support MIS and landbirds. Thus, the watershed is a reasonable area to use for an assessment of cumulative effects. The White Man and UMB LeClerc Creeks Restoration Project account for 12.6 acres of potential disturbance in the LeClerc Creek Watershed and will restore 3.7 miles of stream for native trout species.
Cumulative Effects to Designated Habitat Areas – There would be no cumulative impacts to designated core habitat areas resulting from the White Man and UMB LeClerc Creeks Project. Trees harvested for LWD will be from overstocked stands.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat Connectivity – The project is not expected to impact the habitat connectivity due to the relatively small number of trees needed for the project and use of tree selection guidelines.
Cumulative Effects to Large Tree Habitat – The White Man and UMB LeClerc Creeks project will not affect large tree habitat. NFS prescriptions will be used and LWD will be harvested from overstocked stands.
Because of the relatively small number of trees that will be felled, the Project is not expected to significantly alter forest structure and habitat. Placement of LWD will have a short-term impact on riparian areas at specific sites, but will be restored upon completion of in-stream work.
Refer to the Management Indicator Species (2013) Report, located at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Office, Washington.
3.4 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (TES) AND SENSITIVE VERTEBRATE SPECIES The Project areas contain habitat for several federally-listed threatened or endangered species that were considered in the analysis. The Threatened Canada Lynx and Grizzly Bears and proposed Threatened Wolverine, may occur within the project actions areas Project area(s). The endangered Woodland Caribou recovery area is located many miles north from of the Project areas. None of the Project areas are within Critical Habitat.
A full analysis for each species is located in the Biological Evaluation (available in the project file), located at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Office, Washington. Threatened, endangered and candidate species, sensitive vertebrates species, and habitats for sensitive invertebrates that are known to occur at or near the proposed Project areas are shown on Tables 9, 10, and 11.
The following tables describes the effect of the proposed White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek Fish Habitat Improvement Projects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, including the rationale for each determination.
Page 34 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 9: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) Habitats for threatened (T), endangered (E), and candidate (C) species listed for the CNF Habitat Documented Alternatives Habitat description / other Species Status present? in area? Determination comments Bull trout T Yes No A and B: Bull trout are not found in or (Salvelinus may affect, not nearby White Man Creek or confluentus) likely to UMB LeClerc Creek. adversely affect. Canada lynx T Yes Yes A and B: Portions of the Project areas (Lynx may affect, not are within the Molybdenite canadensis) likely to Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). adversely Lynx occupy mid-high affect elevation forests (typically above 3,500 feet). Foraging habitat is in extremely dense, young stands of lodgepole pine, other conifers, or mixed conifer / hardwood stands (snowshoe hare habitat). Lynx den in stands having late and old structure with jackpots of down logs (also habitat for red squirrels, an important alternate prey species). Other considerations include habitat connectivity and seclusion from human disturbance. grizzly bear T Yes Yes A and B: The Project areas are within (Ursus arctos) may affect, not the Selkirk Mountains Grizzly likely to Bear Recovery Area. Spring adversely forage habitats include low - affect mid elevation riparian areas, meadows, parklands, etc. Summer / fall foraging sites include mid - high elevation, berry producing shrub fields. Grizzlies often den in alpine or subalpine areas with deep soils. Seclusion from human disturbance is a primary mgt. objective. woodland E Yes Yes A: no effect The Project areas are located caribou B: may affect, within the Selkirk Mountains (Rangifer not likely to Woodland Caribou Recovery tarandus adversely affect Area. The Project areas are caribou) not located within designated critical habitat for caribou. Suitable caribou habitat includes late and old structural stage stands in the cedar/hemlock and subalpine
Page 35 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 9: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) Habitats for threatened (T), endangered (E), and candidate (C) species listed for the CNF Habitat Documented Alternatives Habitat description / other Species Status present? in area? Determination comments fir/spruce series, above 4000 feet in elevation. Late winter/calving habitat is in open stands of subalpine fir/spruce with arboreal lichens on high ridge systems. Seclusion from human disturbance is a management concern.
Ute ladies- T No No A and B: Effects to this species are tresses may affect, not covered in the botanist’s (Spiranthes likely to report for the projects. Not diluvialis) adversely found in the project areas. affect. whitebark pine C No No A and B: Whitebark pine is a high (Pinus No effect elevation tree species that albicaulus) does not occur within the vicinity of the project. Wolverine/same Proposed Yes No A and B: Effects to wolverines and gray as gray wolf T Not likely to wolf are covered in the (Gulo gulo cause a trend to sensitive species section of luteus) federal listing this report.
Yellow-billed C No No A and B: No This species requires river cuckoo effect floodplains that support dense (Coccyzus willow and cottonwood americanis) stands. This habitat does not occur in the Project areas.
Table 10: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) Habitats for Sensitive Vertebrate Species Listed for the CNF Habitat Documented Effects Habitat description/other comments Species Present in area? American No No Not likely No tall cliff faces or other rock features that peregrine to peregrines could use for nesting exist in the falcon (Falco adversely Project area. Good quality potential foraging pereginus) affect habitats are located at least 10 miles west of the Project area on the Pend Oreille River and adjacent private lands. bald eagle Yes Yes Not likely Eagles forage on rivers and large lakes with (Haliaeetus to cause a abundant fish. For nesting / perching, they leucocephalus trend to select large trees that stand above the main ) federal forest canopy, and usually within one mile of a listing foraging area. Winter roosts may be in old growth stands with good canopy closure. common loon No No Not likely There are no large lakes or rivers with (Gavia imner) to abundant fish within proximity to the Project adversely areas. affect
Page 36 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 10: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) Habitats for Sensitive Vertebrate Species Listed for the CNF Habitat Documented Effects Habitat description/other comments Species Present in area? gray wolf Yes Yes Not likely Wolves are closely tied to habitats that support (Canis lupus) to cause a abundant big game populations. Limiting Same as trend to human-caused mortality is a primary mgt. wolverine federal concern. listing great gray owl Yes No Not likely This owl requires open, grassy habitats such (same for to cause a as open forest stands, openings created fisher) trend to through timber harvest, meadows, pastures, (Strix federal and open wetlands in the Project areas. nebulosa) listing harlequin duck Yes No No impact Harlequins breed on cold, fast-moving mountain (Histrionicus streams with adjacent dense shrub / timber histrionicus) stands and an absence of human disturbance. They winter on boulder strewn coastal waters.
Lewis’ Yes No Not likely to Principally associated with open or park-like woodpecker adversely ponderosa pine stands and cottonwood riparian (Melanerpres affect areas. They may also nest in burned-over lewis) stands of Douglas fir, mixed conifers, and riparian woodlands. moose Yes Yes May affect In the summer, moose feed on submergent (Alces and emergent aquatic plants in areas of slow americanus) moving water, ponds and wetlands. They forage on shrubs year-round including willows, maples, evergreen ceanothus and serviceberry. Forest clearings, including burned or logged areas, in 15-30 year old successional stages are heavily used. mountain goat No No No affect Project areas have no extensive rock / cliff (Oreamnos habitats that provide essential habitats for this americanus) species. n. leopard frog Yes No Not likely This species requires wetland and pond (Rana pipiens) to cause a habitats with much concealing adjacent cover. trend to federal listing pygmy shrew Yes No Not likely Found in conifer stands with dense ground (Sorex hoyi) to cause a vegetation. May be associated with disturbed, trend to seral habitats. In Washington, pygmy shrews federal have been captured in upland, even-aged listing second-growth conifer forests. red-tailed Yes No Not likely On the CNF, this species is most prevalent at chipmunk to cause a higher elevations in the moist, Englemann (Tamias trend to spruce and subalpine fir plant associations ruficaudus) federal where stand understories are dense. listing sandhill crane No No Not likely Project areas have no isolated, large tracts of (Grus to marshes or wet meadows that are more than ¼ canadensis) adversely mile from open roads. affect
Page 37 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Table 10: LeClerc Creek Instream Fish Habitat Projects (PUD) Habitats for Sensitive Vertebrate Species Listed for the CNF Habitat Documented Effects Habitat description/other comments Species Present in area? Townsend’s No No Not likely Project areas have no known caves or mines big-eared bat to that could be used for roosting or hibernation. (Corynorhinus adversely There are no suitable abandoned buildings that townsendii) affect could be used by a nursery colony. white-headed Yes No May Primarily birds of mature, ponderosa pine woodpecker beneficiall forests, this species forages on large, decayed (Picoides y impact snags and ponderosa pine trees greater than albolarvatus) 24 inch size. wolverine Yes No Not likely Wolverines typically den in higher elevation (Gulo gulo to cause a rock slides, caves, and crevices; often in luteus) same trend to glacial cirque basins. They forage in all higher as gray wolf federal elevation forested habitats but particularly listing those where carrion can be found. They require seclusion from human disturbance.
Table 11: LeClerc Creek Range Allotment Habitats for Sensitive Invertebrates Listed for the CNF Sensitive butterflies Habitat Documented Habitat description / other comments and moths Present in area? Effects ? eastern tailed Yes No Not likely This species thrives in disturbed environments. It blue to uses a variety of lightly wooded, dry habitats and (Cupido adversely weedy areas. It is found in vacant lots, parks, comyntas) affect canals and creeks and fallow fields. Caterpillars feed on both native and exotic plants in the pea family. Great Basin Yes No Not likely Associated with openings and edges in forest fritillary to habitats including; montane meadows, forest (Speyeria adversely clearings, exposed rocky ridges, and stream egleis) affect banks. Forested habitats themselves are not used. meadow Yes No Not likely Colonies are very local and endemic in the fritillary to Pacific NW. Preferred habitat is open, boggy, (Boloria adversely wet meadows. Also found in aspen parklands bellona) affect and pine woodlands between 2000 and 5000 feet in elevation. Caterpillars feed on violets.
Peck’s skipper Yes No Not likely Habitats include mountain meadows, marshy (Polites to edges of potholes and roadsides. Wet, grassy peckius) adversely meadows are preferred. affect Tawny-edged Yes No Not likely Mid to low elevation grassland skipper to (Polites adversely themistocles) affect Rosner’s Yes No Not likely Habitat for this species includes openings and hairstreak to edges in coniferous forest around western red (Callophyrus adversely cedar.
Page 38 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation nelsoni affect rosneri) Sensitive Habitat dragonflies Documented Present Effects Habitat description / other comments and in area? ? damselflies subarctic bluet No No Not likely Populations of these species are localized and (Coenagrion to rare in the Pacific Northwest. In Washington, interrogatum) adversely they are associated with high-elevation ponds, affect bogs, fens, and boreal wetlands. On the CNF, subarctic No No Not likely they have been documented at Bunchgrass, darner to Rufus, Granite, Davis and Little Davis meadows. (Aeshna adversely Subarctic bluet has also been found at Frater subarctica) affect Lake; a mid-elevation lake / wetland complex that zigzag darner No No Not likely are influenced by cold air drainage. (A. sitchensis) to adversely affect delicate No No Not likely In WA, both species have been found only at emerald to Bunchgrass Meadows, a Research Natural Area (Somatochlora adversely on the CNF. Bunchgrass Meadows is an franklini) affect extensive, high elevation, sedge wetland. It is whitehouse No No Not likely similar to boreal bogs located much further north emerald (S. to in Canada and is thought to be a remnant of the whitehousei) adversely last ice age. Habitat does not exist in the project affect areas.
Habitat Sensitive Documented Present Effects Habitat description / other comments mollusks in area? ? fir pinwheel Yes No Not likely Most often found in moist and rocky Douglas fir (Radiodiscus to forest at mid-elevations in valleys and ravines abietum) adversely and sometimes in western red cedar. It is often affect found in or near talus or under fallen logs. magnum Yes No Not likely This species prefers very moist habitats with mantleslug to permanent or persistent water sources. It is often (Magnipelta adversely associated with rock talus, deep leaf and needle mycophaga) affect duff, and large woody debris. In Washington it is found in subalpine fir plant associations.
Alternative A – No action would be taken and all existing species and habitats would be maintained in the project area in accordance with the Forest Plan.
Alternative B – This alternative would restore fish habitat, increase pools and pool habitat and improve bank stability. Alternative B also meets the multiple-use objectives of the current Forest Plan, INFISH EA, and the Trout Habitat Restoration Plan (THRP) by achieving THRP goals. Effects of the Project to TES Species Project activities within the Project areas at White Man Creek are within Grizzly Bear recovery areas including restoration sites WM1 and WM2. Restoration sites WM2 are within Lynx primary range. Project activities within the analysis area at UMB LeClerc Creek would occur within Grizzly Bear recovery areas including Reaches UMB12-18, and Lynx primary range within Reach UMB18. None of the restoration sites are within Critical Habitats. Woodland Caribou are located many miles north of the Project action areas.
Page 39 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
The following includes details regarding the Canada Lynx and Grizzly Bear. Both of these species are within the Project action areas. As stated before, additional information regarding TES species (2013) is included in the NFS Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District of the Colville National Forest Canada Lynx - (Threatened) The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in March of 2000. Canada lynx are considered to be a low-density species with their distribution closely tied with that of the snowshoe hare, their primary prey. In northern Idaho, northeastern Washington and northwestern Montana, lynx generally occur in moist, cold habitat types (Koehler and Brittell 1990). East of the Pend Oreille River, the lynx primary range includes lands lying above 3,500 feet. As specialized predator, lynx have distinguished themselves from other competitors by unique adaptations. Their large feet and long legs permit them to move easily over the snow, enabling them to find a niche at higher elevations where snow persists much of the year.
The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) were developed to provide a consistent approach to conserve Canada lynx on federal lands in the conterminous United States (Ruediger et al. 2000). The LCAS outlines the conservation measures and guidelines for management within delineated Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), which are the principle unit for evaluating and analyzing potential effects on lynx and lynx habitat.
The primary range is divided into LAUs based on watershed boundaries and the average home range size of an individual lynx. Portions of the Project areas (action areas) are within the Molybdenite Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). Reach WM2 on White Man Creek and Reaches UMB17-18 Middle Branch LeClerc Creek are located within Lynx primary range. Table 9 provides further information regarding existing conditions related to the Canada lynx.
Effects to Lynx Habitat - Project effects of the White Man and UMB LeClerc Creek restoration projects would include the loss of several live trees for placement of LWD. Lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, Englemann spruce, and cedar/hemlock cover types are generally found in the area.
Tree felling and hand crew work at the restoration sites could remove or crush low vegetation at the individual work sites. Damage to small trees, shrubs, and forbs would likely occur. However, any areas of crushed vegetation and exposed soil are expected to quickly re-vegetate. Project impacts would be minimized since the restoration sites are spread out with wide distances between treatments. Effects to lynx prey habitat would be insignificant.
Effects to Den Habitat - There are no known lynx den sites within the vicinity of the restoration sites. The incorporation of down logs could reduce the quality of potential den sites along the restoration areas. Existing logs would not be totally denuded. Portions of any live trees cut down could be left on site if they exhibit pronounced taper or heart rot. Because these impacts would be spread out between the restoration sites the impacts would be minimal.
Human Disturbance - High decibel motorized equipment (e.g. chainsaws) would be operated over several weeks to complete the restoration work. The noise and human presence associated with these activities could potentially disturb and displace a lynx from a nearby day bed. Lynx could choose to avoid the restoration areas, forgoing access to adjacent foraging habitats.
The restoration activity would not start until August 1 or later, reducing the potential for disturbance to a natal den early in the denning period. Activities would occur during daylight hours. Lynx appear to be most active from dusk to dawn. In addition, there are anecdotal reports suggesting that lynx are tolerant of human presence and moderate levels of noise from chainsaws and tree cutting equipment (Ruediger, et al, 2000).
The project would not develop any structures at the restoration sites, except for the placement of LWD within the creeks. The project would not lead to an increase in motorized access or snow compacting activities within the range of lynx.
Page 40 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Effect Determination Project planning standards in the LCAS include concerns related with minimizing or discouraging snow compacting activities, and maintaining habitat connectivity (LCAS pages 7-9 to 7-10). Although the proposed tree cutting for placement of LWD would take place within lynx habitat at White Man Creek (Reach WM2), and UMB LeClerc Creek (Reaches UMB17-18), the relatively small number of trees felled per site would not be expected to change the overall forest structure and would not alter the existing designation of the stands; such as stands that are currently lynx foraging habitat that would continue after project implementation.
For these reasons, the proposed action would not be expected to have significant impact to lynx habitat and would be determined to be designated as “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” for the reasons below:
Project activities will take place at low elevations (below 3,500 feet) and Canada lynx are not normally found below elevations of 4,000 feet. The trout restoration projects would not result in significant impacts and would be in compliance with applicable standards and guidelines.. The proposed project will not include road or permanent trail construction, and the completed project would not allow for greater access or increased human disturbance. Proposed tree cutting for placement of LWD would take place within lynx habitat at White Man Creek (Reach WM2) and UMB LeClerc Creek (Reaches 17-18). The relatively small number of trees that would be felled would not be expected to change the forest structure or the lynx foraging habitat, which would continue after project implementation.
Grizzly Bears (Threatened) The grizzly bear was listed as threatened in 1975. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (IGBG 1986), the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 1993), the CNF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989), and the Amended Biological Opinion for the Continued Implementation of the CNF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDI 2001), all provide direction for managing habitat for grizzly bears.
The objective for grizzly bear in the Forest Plan is to provide habitat sufficient for 10 to 12 bears and is considered the full habitat capacity. The objective of the Plan for grizzly bear remains at full established potential. Grizzly bear habitat on the Colville National Forest lies within the Selkirk Mountain Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. The designated recovery area within the Forest is east of the Pend Oreille River.
The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identifies specific recovery areas in the western United States. Recovery areas “contain grizzly population centers (areas key to the survival of grizzlies where seasonal or yearlong grizzly activity under natural, free-ranging conditions is common) and habitat components needed for the survival and recovery of the species or a segment of its population” (IGBG 1986). Grizzly habitat management and grizzly-human conflict avoidance are the highest management priorities for public lands in recovery areas. Each grizzly bear recovery area is divided into several bear management units (BMUs). A BMU is roughly 100 square miles in size, the area required by an adult sow with cubs.
White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek Analysis Area are located within the LeClerc Bear Management Unit BMU. The Project areas are within Grizzly Bear recovery area, and within Management Prescription 7, which emphasizes lands suitable and available for timber management with an emphasis of wood/forage.
Grizzly bears inhabit the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District of the Colville National Forest. The Forest Service receives occasional reports of grizzly bear sightings in the BMU; however, it is difficult to positively confirm most sightings. Grizzly bears exploit a variety of habitats on a seasonal basis.
Grizzly bears move seasonally to forage in the areas of abundant food sources, and to look for den sites. In the fall, grizzlies move to higher elevations to exploit wild berries, fruits and nuts. Also in the fall, they seek out den sites on high, mountain slopes (often above 6,000 feet) where deep snow will remain until spring and insulate the den site. Grizzly bears often enter their dens in October or November, and remain in hibernation for up to six months. Upon leaving their dens in the spring, they travel to lower elevations
Page 41 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation to reach vegetated areas, sometimes exploiting avalanche chutes with emerging grasses, forbs, and budding shrubs. Although they tend to move downslope in the spring, grizzles will follow vegetative green-up as it moves upslope through the spring into the summer. By the summer months, grizzlies are again exploiting higher elevation (usually above 3,000 feet), including mountain meadows.
Only 64 percent of the LeClerc BMU is public land. Most of the private land in the LeClerc BMU is owned by Stimson Lumber Company, but there are other forestland owners and private residences. Because less than 75 percent of the BMU is public land, forest management projects on public lands should not result in a net increase in open and total road densities, or a decrease in core habitat. Table 9 Table 1 provides further information regarding existing conditions related to the Grizzly Bear.
Project Effects to Grizzly Bears Project effects of the White Man and UMB LeClerc Creek restoration projects would include the loss of several live trees for placement of LWD. Forests are dominated largely by cedar and hemlock and include berry-producing shrubs, riparian areas and meadows.
Effects to Bear Forage Existing forage plants might be trampled or removed over a small area within the project work areas. Any exposed soils should quickly re-vegetate. The project would not impact any riparian plants growing on the margins of the White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek. Project effects to grizzly bear forage plants would be insignificant. Project activities would occur after August 1. Thus, there would be no disturbance to grizzly bears during the critical spring period when they must quickly replace body fat lost during hibernation.
Project Effects to Hiding Cover Project activities would occur at the trout restoration sites, and at specific locations. Some shrubs or small conifer trees could be trampled, crushed or otherwise injured by the restoration work. Due to the small footprint of the projects, however, there should be no significant impacts to hiding cover.
Project Effects to Den Habitat This project would occur from August 1 to mid-October; outside of the winter denning period. The project would not affect any caves, crevices or other natural cavities that could be used for denning.
Human Presence and Noise Human presence and the noise associated with high decibel motorized equipment (e.g., chainsaws) would be operated over several weeks to complete the restoration work. The noise and human presence associated with these activities could potentially disturb and displace grizzlies-effectively reducing the amount of habitat available to bears. Although motorized equipment will be used for the proposed restoration areas, the habitat parameters would still be within existing standards for the LeClerc BMU. Seclusion from the activities of man is one of the most important limiting factors for the grizzly, because of conflicts arising from grizzly, bear and human interactions and competition for use of the same areas.
Effects Determination Because of the small footprint of each restoration site, effects to grizzly bear forage plants or hiding cover should have insignificant effects to grizzly bear. The trout restoration work will occur outside of the critical spring period for bears. The project will occur outside of the denning period and will not affect potential den habitats. The noise associated with chainsaws and other activities during restoration work may cause local reductions in core habitat. However, because habitat parameters would remain within present standards, the projects as proposed, “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect,” grizzly bears.
For the reasons listed below, the proposed action would not be expected to have significant impact to grizzly bears or grizzly bear suitable habitat.
No Project activities would occur from April through June 15 to limit the potential disturbance to grizzly bears during the expected season of use of the proposed action areas. Project activities will be limited to a short window during the drier summer months (August to mid-October), a
Page 42 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
period when grizzly bears are moving to higher elevations to exploit greater food sources and to breed. The proposed action would not result in a reduction of core habitat. The proposed restoration work would not result in an increase in open motorized route density (OMRD), or total motorized route density (TMRD), and there would be no change in public access. All of the proposed activities would take place within the zone of influence of an open or restricted motorized route, meaning no activities would take place in core habitat, and would take place in areas that currently receive some level of motorized disturbance. The proposed project will not involve road or permanent trail construction, nor will the completed restoration projects allow greater access for humans or increase human disturbance.
Recent timber sales on all ownerships in the BMU have improved growing conditions for sun-loving green forage plants and berry-producing shrubs. These benefits are usually greatest in areas of regeneration harvest that are subsequently broadcast burned. However, even partial harvests (thinning, selection prescriptions) can improve growing conditions for existing forage plants. Habitat improvement work proposed within the Project areas would complement recent projects the NFS has undertaken to improve forage habitats. Seclusion – In the first several decades of road construction in the BMU, opportunities for human/bear encounters, and the risk of bear mortality increased. Only since the late 1980s/early1990s has the open road density decreased in the BMU. During that time, the FS gated most of the secondary roads in the area to provide seclusion for grizzly bears. Almost all new roads built on all ownerships in the BMU have been similarly closed. Starting in the mid-1990s, the FS replaced many gates on restricted roads with earthen berms/boulders, and plantings. This was done to make more effective closures, and increase the area of core habitat in the BMU. In spite of these management actions on NFS lands, the total road density (open and closed) in the BMU has increased substantially since the early 1990s, and the total acres of core habitat has decreased, due to road building on private lands. Current management to maintain secure habitat is to ensure “no net loss of core habitat.” Some restoration project activities would occur during the active bear season. However, the potential for the proposed restoration work to disturb bears during the critical spring period would be negligible, due to project timing restrictions. The White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek project would not contribute to any significant cumulative reductions in core habitat within the BMU. Cumulative Effects Currently, there is activity in the Hanlon Stewardship Sale which is in the LeClerc BMU. Most equipment operations/timber removal from Hanlon is scheduled to occur during the denning period, and is designated to meet grizzly bear management guidelines. Therefore, no cumulative effects to habitat would occur. There are no other significant forest management projects currently underway in the area. Therefore, there should be no cumulative effects resulting from the trout restoration projects. The White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek projects would not contribute to any significant effects.
There are no other significant restoration projects proposed within White Man Creek or the UMB LeClerc Creek, or within the Molybdenite Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). No cumulative effects resulting from the restoration projects are expected, except the increase in human disturbance during the trout restoration work, which will be short-term.
3.5 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Existing Conditions The LeClerc Creek watershed is located in Pend Oreille County, and includes the East, Middle and West branches of LeClerc Creek. The Proposed Projects are located on White Man Creek, a tributary to the West Branch of LeClerc Creek, and on the UMB of LeClerc Creek. The analysis area is located within NFS lands at White Man Creek, and within NFS and private lands at UMB LeClerc Creek. This area is managed for production of timber products while protecting basic resources and forage (USDA 1988b).
Page 43 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
A "watershed" is an area draining into a river, lake, or other waterbody. The Washington Department of Ecology, Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) provides water quality information maps and water quality information for watersheds in the state of Washington. Ecology and other state natural resources agencies have divided the state into "Water Resource Inventory Areas" (WRIAs). The Pend Oreille Watershed (WRIA 62, river basin) encompasses approximately 1,300 square miles of the Pend Oreille River watershed within northeastern Washington State (Appendix A-8). There are 20 Watershed Administrative Units WAUs (WAU, sub-basins) within WRIA 62. The Project areas are located within the “LeClerc Creek” WAU. Federal agencies, such as the NFS, frequently use an alternative watershed system based on USGS Cataloging Units or "HUCs" (Hydrological Unit Code). The federal system is similar to the WRIA system except that the basin groupings differ and the units extend beyond the Washington state boundary into Canada, Oregon, and Idaho. The United States is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller hydrologic units which are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are arranged or nested within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique HUC consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system (USGS, 2012). The geographic scope of the project analysis for watershed resources includes one 5th code watershed, LeClerc Creek (1701021602) Middle Pend Oreille River. This watershed contains seven 6th code subwatersheds (also known as prescription watersheds). Analysis Methods and Key Issue Indicators The assessment of existing conditions describes the proposed projects and surrounding areas and provides a basis for comparing the effects of management alternatives. Existing condition synthesis was obtained from historical and current fieldwork, GIS-generated reports, and historical hydrology files, historical records, aerial photographs, published scientific literature, and current on-going research and monitoring (Hanlon EA 2010). The analysis compares the effects of five watershed resource indicators, (described below) for West Branch LeClerc Creek and Middle Branch LeClerc Creek watersheds. Though discussed independently, there is considerable interaction between these indicators within the watershed and stream channel system. The watershed key issue indicators used for this project were: Watershed Condition, Sediment Yield, Channel Morphology, Water Quality, and Water Yield
Watershed condition helps gage the effects of past disturbances in a watershed, such as roads in the project watersheds. Sediment yield addresses sediment content as it affects water quality. Channel morphology is a means of measuring the “function” status of a channel based on its physical dimensions, patterns, and profile. Water quality addresses the chemical characteristics that could affect the quality of municipal water and secondary source waters as per the Safe Drinking Water Act. Water yield reviews the amount of water coming off a location since it affects the peak flows in a channel and could affect the water discharge. The LeClerc Creek watershed involves physical processes such as watershed condition, sediment yield, channel morphology, quality and water yield. The time period for the water and sediment yield analysis from project activities are generally 10 years. However, most effects from timber harvesting for LWD, instream pool construction, removal and reintroduction of target fish species, and passage barrier replacement would result in minimal disturbance and would likely recover within the next five (5) years. Sediment yield effects from project activities are expected to be recovered within that time period since no new permanent roads are being constructed.
Page 44 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Rosgen Classification System (Stream Type): The Rosgen Classification system includes a classification of a stream that assigns an alphanumeric designation (e.g., C3a) to a stream reach based on observable physical features that depict dimension, pattern, and profile of the channel. The third descriptors (i.e. a, b, or c) describe a very high gradient or a very low gradient. If the stream has an average gradient for that stream type, then no third descriptor is needed. The NFS has utilizes the Rosgen stream classification system, which is based on measurement of physical stream parameters such as slope, sinuosity, valley confinement, substrate size distribution, and floodplain width. Rosgen Stream Type Example: E4b E - explains the entrenchment, which initially designates the stream type. In this example, E means slightly entrenched. 4 - explains the substrate size. In this example, 4 means gravel. b - explains the stream gradient. In this example, b means 2% to 3.9% slope, which is considered high for an E4 stream. West Branch LeClerc Creek With regards to road density, West Branch LeClerc Creek is in the moderate risk watershed condition category. There are approximately 3.2 road miles/square mile, and 60 road/stream crossings in the West Branch LeClerc Creek watershed. Risk at stream crossings is a combination of two factors – probability of failure, and the cost (in terms of sediment delivery) of failure. Risk is managed by reducing the probability of failure, and the cost (in terms of sediment delivery) if a failure were to occur. Overall, the main channel of the West Branch LeClerc Creek is considered to be in fair to good condition (USDA 2010). Stability is fair to good, with reaches ranging from properly-functioning-condition to functioning-at-risk. White Man Creek tends to be Rosgen B3 or B4 channel types in narrow valley forms which may explain their lack of off channel habitat (POCSC 2010). Middle Branch LeClerc Creek The main channel of the Middle Branch LeClerc Creek is considered to be in fair to good condition. The Creek shows signs of over-widening in certain sections. Stability is fair to good and range from properly-functioning- condition to functioning-at-risk (USDA 2010). In general, UMB LeClerc Creek would likely be considered in the range of a Rosgen B channel type, which are typically moderately entrenched and less steep than Type A streams. Water Quality The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), Clean Water Act, 303(d) list classifies state waters into five categories from “meeting standards-Category 1” to “implementing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)-Category 5”.3 Water Quality Improvement Projects, or TMDLs, determine the amounts of pollutant loading that a given water body (river, marine water, wetland, stream, or lake) can receive and still meet water quality standards. Where water bodies do not meet water quality standards for a particular pollutant, TMDLs are implemented. Category 5 of the 303(d) list of assessed water quality information is described below for the Pend Oreille Water Resource Inventory Area – WRIA 62 (WDOE 2008). Water quality parameters within WRIA 62 included dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH, total phosphorus, temperature, toxics and other. Category 5 of the 303(d) list includes water quality impairments resulting in the need for TMDL. No water quality impairments were found at or near the Project areas Effects of Alternative A (No Action) The natural ecosystem processes and existing management activities would continue. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A In terms of the watershed and hydrology in the Project areas this means:
4 The Dept. of Ecology’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report classifies all of the state's waters into one or more of five different categories, which correspond to the five categories of the report: Category 1: Meets tested standards for clean waters; Category 2: Waters of Concern; Category 3: Waters of the State with Insufficient Data and Information to Determine if Any Standards are Attained; Category 4: Impaired or Threatened for One or More Standards and has a TMDL; 4a indicates water bodies with completed and approved TMDLs that are being implemented; Category 5: TMDL Needed (This is the 303(d) list).
Page 45 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
There would be no direct effects to the watershed/hydrology and no fish restoration work would be implemented. None of the proposed restoration projects would be implemented and the risk of sediment delivery would remain as is. Watershed Condition – would not improve. Sediment Yield – No Action may result in long-term negative effects to the values at risk because fish restoration enhancements would not occur and sediment delivery would continue as is. If no new roads are constructed sediment yield would gradually improve. Channel Morphology – would not be directly affected since this alternative would not conduct any restoration projects. Current trends (negative or positive) would continue. Water Quality – None of the proposed restoration projects would occur. Due to lack of LWD and instream canopy, streams will continue to have impaired streams, due to exceeded levels of stream temperatures, dissolved oxygen and pH. Water Yield – The current levels of water yield and peak flows would be expected to continue as is. Since this alternative would not implement any project activities, no cumulative effects would result. Effects of Alternative B (Proposed Action) No significant effects to hydrology and water quality would occur with Alternative B. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B In terms of the watershed and hydrology in the Project areas this means:
Watershed Condition – Overall, the restoration projects would be beneficial. Fish restoration would be improved under this alternative and INFISH and THRP objectives will be addressed. Sediment Yield – There would be an immediate short-term increase in sediment due to placement of LWD within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek, construction of pool habitats, and replacement of the barrier at UMB LeClerc Creek between Reaches 16 and 17. However, the overall disturbance would be small. The proposed action, including habitat restoration efforts, and associated overall reduction in sediment risk and a net decrease in sediment yield would be beneficial. RHCAs between the treatment areas and the streams would also help prevent sediment delivery to stream channels. Channel Morphology – There would be minimal short-term changes to channel morphology, although, overall morphology would be maintained and somewhat improved since many of the known sediment delivery sources would be rehabilitated. Water Quality – In both the West Branch LeClerc Creek/White Man Creek and the Upper/Middle Branch LeClerc Creek watersheds, risks to beneficial uses would be reduced and water quality issues associated with TMDLs4 would be addressed with improvements in water temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH. The proposed restoration efforts would have a net beneficial effect and will help work towards the TMDL Desired Future Condition. Water Yield – Proposed fish restoration activities, within West Branch LeClerc Creek/White Man Creek and the Upper/Middle Branch LeClerc Creek, would not result in significant fluctuations in flows. Replacing the culvert at UMB LeClerc between Reaches 16 and 17 would enable better flow yields for passage of fish. Water yields would be the same, unless a cofferdam is required to remove the culvert. If so, only short term effects would occur. Cumulative Effects Common effects for this analysis involve reasonably foreseeable fish restoration on NFS lands. The activities and expected effects are as follows:
Restoration activities: Washington State BMPs, as stated in the Forest Practices Act, would be applied and the amount of disturbance would be limited. Thus, no significant issues for sediment production and delivery is anticipated even though there could be short-term site-specific sediment increases and short- term fluctuations during work within streams.
4 Total maximum daily load.
Page 46 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
To reduce disturbance, existing Forest Service roads would be used to access restoration sites, and/or will be accessed by existing pathways or by walking through existing vegetative openings or areas with minimal vegetation. Compaction, water infiltration, and surface runoff may occur, but not likely to result in downstream cumulative effects. Restoration work would be conducted during low flow periods; therefore, no extreme flows would likely occur. Effects of cutting trees for LWD within the streams would likely be undetectable in the White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek basins. Due to the small amount of the watershed affected and the types of treatments proposed, no increase in peak flows would be expected and there would be no effect on cumulative effects in this watershed.
3.6 NOXIOUS WEEDS Existing Conditions A variety of noxious weeds are found in and around the analysis area. Documented weed infestations within these areas are addressed in the Colville National Forest Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Management (USDA 1998). The State designates categories for each weed, based on its prevalence in the County. Table 12 shows the weeds present around the analysis area and their category.
Table 12: Noxious Weeds in the Analysis Area Category Weeds Definition A None found Class A weeds are non-native species whose distribution in Washington State is still limited. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations are the highest priority. Eradication of all Class A plants is required by law. B- plumeless thistle (on National Forest Class B weeds are non-native species which are presently designate land) limited to portions of the state. These species are leafy spurge (on private land) designated for control in regions where they are not yet common bugloss (on private and widespread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a National Forest System land) high priority. In areas where Class B species are already B spotted knapweed abundant, control is decided at the county noxious weed dalmation toadflax control board level with containment as a primary goal. For yellow hawkweed species listed as Class B Designate, control is required. For orange hawkweed species listed as Class B Non-Designate, control is required oxeye daisy in vehicle corridors and areas of limited distribution and sulfur cinquefoil encouraged in areas of large infestations. C Canada thistle Class C weeds are species that are already present and common St. Johnswort (also known widespread across the state and control is encouraged in as goatweed and Klamath weed) areas of large infestations, but not required. houndstongue common tansy
Houndstongue, particularly in the Middle Branch, has exploded in the last few years. Seeds are being carried by livestock, wildlife, pets, vehicles, and people from the road and stream corridors to adjacent meadows, and even under some open-canopied forest stands. Because the dried plants with sticky, Velcro-like burrs, stand for several years after they go to seed, the seed available to spread multiplies exponentially. Control measures would be expensive, and to be effective, would need to include backpack spraying in areas not accessible to OHVs and mechanical removal of old plants and burrs. The other weed that is present in large numbers in certain areas is yellow hawkweed. Although orange hawkweed does occur in the analysis area, yellow hawkweed is, by far, the most abundant of the non-native hawkweeds. In some areas where roads have been closed to vehicle traffic for most or all of the year, particularly in moister areas, hawkweed has formed mats on most of the roadbed. In almost every case the weed has not spread to adjacent undisturbed stands, but in areas where the canopy has been opened it is spreading rapidly.
Page 47 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Effects of Alternative A Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A Based on current trends and the Colville National Forest’s ability to treat noxious weeds, it is expected that most noxious weed species and infested acres would likely increase slightly within the analysis area, despite the Colville National Forest currently treating noxious weeds that occur. Plumeless Thistle would likely increase slightly in the amount of acres infested due to its ability to move away from areas of disturbance, such as road corridors and landings, and establish in semi-open forested areas which are more difficult to locate and treat. Due to the plant’s windblown seed, it could likely spread where suitable habitat exists. Houndstongue would continue to persist and increase. The Velcro type seeds of this plant attach themselves to passing livestock, wildlife, horses, pets and people and establish in new areas where they fall off. This plant has the ability to establish in open meadows and open canopy forests in the area. Yellow hawkweed infestations would likely increase slightly within the analysis area, but with a limited distribution, control is achievable. Yellow hawkweed invades deep soils in forest openings such as meadows and is also common in roadbeds on roads that remain closed to motorized use most of the year. Usually the plants establish in disturbed areas, but once established can spread to dominate entire openings and move into the forested environment. Populations of yellow hawkweed have not spread to undisturbed canopies within the analysis area but are common in areas of prior harvest activity that has opened the canopy. Orange hawkweed is limited in distribution in the Project areas, especially as compared to yellow hawkweed. Common bugloss is expected to re-establish in small populations due to known populations on private lands adjacent to the analysis area and former infestations on NFS lands. These populations should be able to be effectively controlled. Knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, sulfur cinquefoil, St. Johnswort, and oxeye daisy are all well-established throughout the analysis. Emphasis would be placed on controlling large infestations with spot treatments along roadways, dispersed recreation sites, and meadows as needed. These plants would continue to persist in the Project areas as seeds and plant material are dispersed by domestic livestock, wildlife, vehicles, OHVs and people. Effects of Alternative B The proposed restoration activities pose minimal risk to the establishment of new noxious weed populations. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B Noxious weeds produce a large amount of seed and are well adapted to quickly establish in favorable habitat where opportunity exists. This amount of potential noxious weed habitat resulting from the project is not likely to create a substantial increase in the amount of acres infested with noxious weeds if prevention standards are followed and continued. The Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (October 11, 2005) provides new standards for prevention of noxious weeds. There are three that apply to the Trout restoration projects, which are:
1. Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread, will be addressed in grazing allotment management plans, vegetation management plans, and other land management assessments. 2. Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will operate outside the limits of the road prism require the cleaning of all heavy equipment prior to entering National Forest System Lands. 3. Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plan prevention practices into rangeland management. Cumulative Effects Noxious weeds have likely occurred within the analysis area for many decades, and the NFS has been treating noxious weed populations in the area since approximately 1992. New noxious weed threats continue to advance
Page 48 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation onto NFS lands as they have for many decades, and the Forest Service continues to treat these areas based on priority. Noxious weed populations are continually evolving because new invader species are becoming established and transportation of noxious weed reproductive parts allows for the infestation of other areas. Due to fish restoration activities that will continue for many years, under the THRP, there will likely be noxious weeds in the foreseeable future. These activities equate to a constant threat of noxious weeds becoming established within the Project areas due to noxious weed seeds being transported by vehicles, equipment, and nearby livestock to disturbed soils. Past and on-going noxious weed treatments on NFS lands have had a substantial impact of reducing the extent of noxious weed populations in the analysis area compared to private property. With use of the general specifications listed in Chapter 2, the activities in the proposed action would not cumulatively affect noxious weeds within or outside the Forest Boundary negatively. The acres of noxious weed infestations are not likely to increase substantially as a result of the restoration activities.
3.7 SENSITIVE PLANTS Existing Conditions In the summer of 2012, a survey of rare plants on portions of White Man Creek and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek were conducted at proposed trout restoration sites. The restoration work consists of placement of large woody debris within the creeks, and likely associated potential disruption of soils and vegetation that may occur due to proposed restoration activities. The rare plant surveys at White Man Creek (Salix Associates 2012a), and Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek (Salix Associates 2012b) included restoration sites along White Man Creek, Reaches WM1 and WM2 (19 restoration sites), and along UMB LeClerc Creek, Reaches UMB12-17 (33 restoration sites). Figures 1 and 2 (of this EA – Chapter 2) provides aerial photos of the restoration areas. Table 2 shows the sides of the creek that the disturbance would occur at each activity site (refer to Table 2 – Chapter 2). The following provides a summary of the survey results. The complete Rare Plant Survey documents are available in the project file, located at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Office in Metaline Falls, Washington. Surveys of rare plants and lichens include those listed as Sensitive and Strategic by the Colville National Forest. Lists of these species were provided by the Forest Botanist (K. Ahlenslager). The lists include vascular plants, nonvascular plants and lichens which are documented or suspected on the Colville NF. They also include the associated or expected habitats for these species. The purpose of the surveys were to locate and document any occurrences of designated Sensitive and/or Strategic Forest Service plant or lichen species, following standard rare plant and lichen survey methodology and documentation protocols. A list of sensitive and strategic species and habitats is located in the project file. Rare plant surveys essentially are a visual search for the presence of target species within a designated area. Forest Service protocols for locating lichens and bryophytes were used in addition to vascular plant protocols, which include collection and laboratory examination of suspected rare species. All target species generally are identifiable during the summer months. Noxious weed surveying was also done concurrently with the rare plant survey (included in the project file). Lists of vascular plant species observed in Reaches UMB12-17 and WM1- WM2 can also be found in the project file. The survey intensity employed in the field was a combination of: Moderate: Moderate search intensity through an area with the intention of locating any unique area or habitats with a high potential for rare plant populations. Complete: Intensive searching in areas adjacent to or near rare plant populations or in habitats with a very high potential of having rare plant populations. Results of the surveys found no target rare plant species and lichens (sensitive and strategic) within White Man Creek (WM1-WM2). In general, the creek in both reaches appears to be in excellent condition, with little impact evident from any recent activity. No infestations of noxious weeds were observed in the survey area, but are present nearby. The non-invasive, non-native plants observed were few. Grazing by cattle was evident in the
Page 49 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation upland meadow between the two reaches and some noxious weeds were found, although none within the designated restoration sites. No rare lichens were found, and only a few exotic species were present in the upper survey reaches. Results of the surveys at the UMB LeClerc Creek restoration sites found the rare Dryopteris carthusiana (DRYCAR) in the survey area (UMB12-17). Numerous plants of this population are spread throughout the middle and upper reaches of the survey area, although it is present but scarce in the lower reaches. No other populations of NFS Sensitive or strategic plant species were observed in the UMB LeClerc Creek restoration project survey area. No infestations of noxious weeds were observed in the survey area, but are present nearby. One population of an unidentified Hieracium was located that could be a noxious weed. In general, the creek through this series of reaches appears to be in fairly good ecological condition. At both White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek restoration sites, the surveyed reaches appear to be relatively free of noxious weeds; however, ground-disturbing activities and inadvertent transport of weed seed could increase noxious weed invasion in the area. No occurrences of rare species were previously known within the project areas or within two miles of it, according to the documented occurrence list provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (2012). Sensitive and strategic rare plants reports and lists are available at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District. Effects of Alternative A Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A There would be no new management related changes to the existing management activities. Natural processes would continue to dominate. On-going activities such as dispersed recreation, noxious weed treatments, and established special use permits would continue. No new activities would be initiated to accomplish proposed project goals. Effects of Alternative B Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B This discussion of direct and indirect effects of sensitive plants is taken from the Rare Plant Surveys for White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek (Salix Associates 2012a, 2012b). Potential impacts from the proposed project to vegetation and fungi in the survey area include direct impacts related to the restoration work and indirect impacts related to increased risk of noxious species introduction and establishment. During the initial phase of the creek restoration, direct impacts to vegetation and fungi could result from the use of winches to move logs to the creek. Impacts might include clearing and crushing of vegetation or fungi, damage to plant roots or mycorrhizas from compaction of soils by winching, and soil disturbance. Winching downhill could increase erosion potential. The extent of direct impacts at any particular site would depend on existing vegetation, fungi and soils; topography; distance to felled trees; winching methods, and other methods used to protect and restore existing vegetation, fungi and soils during restoration operations. The introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds are other potential project impacts to vegetation. Although some noxious, invasive weed species are already widespread in and adjacent to the Project areas, during and following construction, populations could spread and colonize new areas as a result of the movement of people, equipment or materials contaminated with weed seeds. In addition, natural weed seed dispersal would likely occur from nearby areas to disturbed areas, because they are particularly vulnerable to infestation by weeds. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of the fish habitat restoration work would be minimal. No reasonably foreseeable activities, combined with NFS activities, are anticipated to result in a cumulative negative impact to plant species or populations including on Region 6 Special Status Species Plant Lists.
Page 50 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
3.8 SOILS Existing Condition Pend Oreille County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan 2010) categorizes the soils of WRIA 62 in three local regions: the Selkirk Mountains, Pend Oreille River Valley, and Southern Pend Oreille County. Selkirk Mountains: Soils on the slopes of the Selkirk Mountains tend to be fine-textured and only moderately (20 to 40 in.) deep, such as Belzar silt loam. Concave slopes sometimes hold deeper soils, such as Ahren loam. The terrace and floodplain soils of the river valley tend to be deeper, and some are coarser-textured. They may also have a seasonally high water table. Pend Oreille River Valley: The ancient lakebeds of the Pend Oreille River Valley are made up of fine- textured sediments (clay, silt, and fine sand). A fringe of glacial till occurs in the valley, often forming a transition between the mountains and the lake deposits. South of Usk, this till is part of a terminal moraine from the most recent glaciation. The gently sloping Newbell silt loam is associated with the glacial till on the valley edge, while soils such as the Anglen and Martella silt loams are found on terraces that mark the gradual retreat of the glacier. Soils of the valley floor include the Blueslide silt loam, Cusick silty clay loam, and Kegel loam. These soils formed in lakebed sediments, and are deep, fine-textured, and wet. Southern Pend Oreille County: Low mountains, level glacial floodplains, and lakes characterize this landscape unit. The low mountains of Southern Pend Oreille County include both intrusive rocks and metamorphic rocks similar to those found further north. Glacial floodplains surround the mountains. Massive floods that poured through the area when glacial Lake Missoula repeatedly breached a 2,000- foot ice dam in northern Idaho left these relatively level deposits of sand and gravel. Soils on slopes, such as the Mobate-Rock outcrop complex, tend to be shallow. Their texture varies with the underlying rock, but wind-borne loess and volcanic ash have given many Pend Oreille County soils fine-textured upper horizons. Deep, highly permeable soils such as the Kaniksu and Orwig sandy loams developed on the glacial floodplains. Project restoration within White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek are located within the Pend Oreille River Valley, and near the edge of the Selkirk Mountain range. The USDA custom soil resources report provided information on soils (USDS 2013). Soils at stream reaches along White Man Creek reaches WM1 and WM2 are surrounded by mostly Newbell silt loam, 0 to 25 percent slopes (#86). This soil consists of a depth of more than 80 inches to the water table, and is well drained. Small lowland pockets exist near the creek (Borosaprists, ponded #22). These lowland areas are generally 0 to 2 percent slope, 0 inches to the water table, and very poorly drained. Soils along UMB LeClerc Creek are located at reach 12 (soil #86), reaches 13 to 14 (#64), and reaches 14-17 (#146). These reaches are described as: Newbell silt loam (#86): 0 to 25 percent slopes. This soil consists of a depth of more than 80 inches to the water table, and is well drained. Manley silt loam (#64): 0 to 40 percent slope. Depth to water table is more than 80 inches, and is well drained. Uncas muck (#146): 0 to 3 percent slope. Depth to water table is about 6 to 18 inches, and is frequently flooded. Appendix A – Map (A-1) shows the Project reaches. Effects of Alternative A Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A Detrimental soil conditions due to road, pathways/trail construction, the construction of landings, and ground- based timber harvest will continue. Additional detrimental soil conditions caused by the proposed action would not occur. Detrimental soil conditions from the proposed action would be less than 1%.
Page 51 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Effects of Alternative B Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B The amount of timber that would be harvested for LWD placement would not result in significant effects soil biota, soil quality, and soil erosion. Timber removal can change soil biota through changes in stand density, soil temperature, moisture, species composition, and composition of the forest floor. Minor changes in soil biology may occur; however, these are consistent with the changes in stand conditions and are not detrimental soil conditions. Soil quality would not be impacted. With BMP’s and the lack of use of mechanical equipment, soil erosion would not be significant. Observations on the eastern part of the Colville National Forest suggest that light to moderate compaction lessens within 10-20 years, primarily due to biotic activity. Deep compaction appears to last for a longer time, and some homestead era compaction is still evident. The primary detrimental soil condition would be from compaction. Overall detrimental soil conditions caused by the propose action would be less than 1%. The proposed action would not cause Regional and Forest Soil Quality Standards to be exceeded. Detrimental soil conditions would be less than 20%. Compaction of soils at the restoration sites should not be significant since existing roads will be used to access the restoration sites and/or the crew will walk to the restoration sites, reducing impacts to soils and vegetation. All work will occur by hand falling and hand winching thus the creation of detrimental soil conditions would be extremely limited, less than 1% of the work site. Best management practices would be employed to reduce the impacts to soil resources during restoration work. The fish restoration work will include placement of wood in the streams at various locations to improve fish habitat. This would have no impact on soil productivity. Cumulative Effects Warila and Boyle (1995) think that cumulative effects may follow from forestry practices if the practices are repeated closely enough in time that effects of previous practices have not fully recovered, and/or practices that occur closely enough in space so that the extent of the landscape area affected increases. For soil productivity, cumulative effects are derived from multiple actions and activities occurring over a timeframe of decades, and in the precise same location. At the landscape level, the creation of roads is the soil impact with the greatest potential for cumulative effects. Permanent roads are not included for the THRP projects. At the Project areas, cumulative effects are not likely to exceed 20% detrimental soil conditions. Compaction is the impact that is most likely to accumulate, because it can last for decades. Soil erosion could result in downstream cumulative effects; however, with BMPs, soil disruption and associated erosion would be minimal.
3.9 RECREATION Existing Condition The analyses area is located in the middle of Pend Oreille County within the LeClerc Creek watershed. No developed recreation sites are located within, or nearby the Project areas. However, dispersed camping, picnicking, sight-seeing, wildlife viewing, berry picking, mushroom picking, firewood cutting, hunting, hiking, horse and OHV riding are available in or nearby the proposed THRP restoration projects. The LeClerc Creek Wildlife Area is 614 acres in one unit, located in Pend Oreille County along the east side of the Pend Oreille River, about 25 miles northwest of the town of Newport. The elevation in the vicinity varies from 2,000 feet along the Pend Oreille River to more than 3,500 feet on the ridges. The area was acquired in 1972 with federal Pittman-Robertson and State Wildlife funds to enhance habitat for big game. The Wildlife Area is located approximately one (1) mile north of the White Man Creek restoration area.
Page 52 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Dispersed Camping Dispersed camping in the vicinity of the proposed fish restoration projects include the Diamond City/West Branch Campground/Ballpark Area and Hanlon Meadow Area (Figure 3). These areas are located within three (3) miles of the Project areas.
Figure 3: Dispersed Recreation Sites within LeClerc Creek Watershed
Diamond City/West Branch Campground/Ballpark Area Diamond City was a large logging camp from the late 1920s until about 1940. All the buildings have been removed, but concrete footings and one fireplace still remain. The Forest Service maintained a campground about 0.5 mile south of Diamond City (West Branch CG) in a meadow that is known as the “West Branch” or the “Ballpark”. The campground was closed in the late 1970s and the NFS provided amenities (tables, toilets, fire rings) were removed. Currently, the Diamond City/West Branch Campground/Ballpark area contains about 15-20 dispersed campsites. About 10 campsites are in the Ballpark; an open meadow is adjacent to West Branch LeClerc Creek. Most of the sites are found along the edge of the meadow within the RHCA for West Branch LeClerc Creek. Seven sites are experiencing heavy to extreme resource impacts.
Page 53 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
There are a few overflow sites in the surrounding area. All are located in a wooded setting along the West Branch LeClerc Creek. One was closed to vehicle access use a few years ago. These sites generally receive a moderate level of use and have moderate resource impacts. During hunting season occupancy ranges from 25-50% during the middle of the week, and 90-100% on weekends.5 Hanlon Meadow Area Hanlon Meadow is located near the Middle Branch LeClerc Creek. About 8 campsites are located in the Hanlon Meadow area; three (3) in Hanlon Meadow and five (5) on Forest Road 1935 about ⅓ mile south of the meadow. Hanlon Meadow is a 15-acre homestead meadow. Part of the meadow is fenced for livestock. Campsites are located adjacent to some trees in the meadow, and along the edges. Two sites have moderate resource impacts, and one has heavy resource impacts. Visitors with horses are more likely to use these sites. None of these sites are immediately adjacent to streams. Off-highway Vehicles NFS lands in the Pend Oreille Valley lhave high levels of OHV activity, and have no designated OHV trails. Forest Road 1935115 (Hanlon Cut-off) is the only NFS road open to mixed use6. Because of the grizzly bear recovery area, most side roads are closed with gates or barriers, on both NFS and Stimson Lumber Company lands. These closures limit the opportunity to expand designated OHV routes in this area. OHV access is guided by the Colville National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The area between West Branch LeClerc Creek and the Pend Oreille River also receives a lot of OHV activity. The most riding is on Stimson Lumber Company roads that have been closed. Effects of Alternative A The no action alternative, in the short-term and long-term, is not likely to change the recreation experiences and opportunities in or near the restoration sites. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternative B Impacts to dispersed recreation opportunities within or nearby the restoration sites would be negligible. Two dispersed recreation areas are located within the LeClerc Creek watershed and nearby the vicinity of the proposed restoration sites. However, this project does not propose activities at dispersed sites, and there are no reasonably foreseeable projects. No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to recreation (including dispersed camping and OHV use) would result due to fish restoration activities.
3.10 RANGE MANAGEMENT Existing Condition Portions of the LeClerc Creek Allotment are within the Project areas. This allotment has been divided into smaller sub-units or pastures, which supports 101 permitted livestock annually. Grazing within these allotments occurs in correlation with the Allotment Management Plan that has been established. The grazing season begins on June 1 each year and extends into fall ending on September 30. According to past monitoring information grazing use is occurring at acceptable levels and within the specified use levels. The allotment has several livestock management fences to support livestock grazing within the allotments. Most of the range improvements are in satisfactory condition. Generally, the loss of primary range due to conifer encroachment has been offset by the transitory range created through the even-aged timber management practices of the 1970s and 1980s. Many of these harvested areas were seeded for wildlife and livestock forage. Unfortunately, since many of the harvested units included riparian and wet areas, cattle access and use has resulted in scattered areas where resource impacts such as bank trampling have occurred in the past. These
5 Estimates of use are from Nan Berger, personal communication, July 27, 2009. 6 Mixed use means that both OHVs and street legal vehicles may use the road.
Page 54 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation effects have been mitigated through various methods including fencing of sensitive riparian areas, increased cattle management by the permittee, and salting to help draw cattle out of riparian areas and into upland areas. Grazing use monitoring data collected suggest that there is ample forage present to support the current level of stocking and use in the LeClerc Creek Allotment. Appendix A-9 shows the Grazing leases within the LeClerc Creek watershed. White Man Creek and UMB LeClerc Creek are both located within these grazing allotments. Effects of Alternative A Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A Short-term effects of this alternative would result in little or no change in the range resource compared to the existing condition. Livestock would continue to graze on the allotment and range improvements (such as fences, water developments and corrals) would exist on the landscape and be used to manage grazing. Short-term effects of this alternative would result in little or no change in the range resource. Livestock would continue to graze on the allotment and range improvements (such as fences, water developments, and corrals) would exist on the landscape and be used to manage grazing. Effects of Alternative B Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B Although some tree removal will be required for placement of LWD in the creeks, the fish restoration projects would not result in significant direct or indirect impact to rangelands. Cumulative Effects The geographic cumulative effects are limited to the NFS allotment boundaries for areas contained within the Project areas. White Man Creek is located entirely on NFS allotment lands. Although land ownership within the Hanlon area (Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek) is a mixture of NFS lands and privately owned land, no Term Private Land Grazing Permit has been issued. Therefore, these lands are not considered in determining grazing capacity or when making allotment management decisions. The cumulative effects of current and past timber harvest, road activity, wildfire and increased recreational use and development have all complicated the management of grazing within the analysis area. The activities in the proposed action combined with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not cumulatively negatively affect range management within the Forest Service grazing allotments. Even though the Project restoration sites are within range allotments, there would be no significant cumulative effects to range management.
3.11 PAST, ONGOING AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES Alternative A, does not include any new activities, and would not add or result in cumulative effects to the resource. Alternate B addresses past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities. These activities include timber harvest, road activity, wildfire management, and increased recreational use and associated cumulative effects. Development has also complicated the management of grazing within the analysis area. Other ongoing and foreseeable activities include fishing, dispersed camping, hunting, OHV riding, snowmobile use, firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting, river recreation, road maintenance, noxious weed treatment, fire suppression, commercial thinning, and future eradication of non-native fish and the restoration of native fish species. The activities in the proposed action combined with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to cumulatively or negatively affect fish habitat, Management Indicator Species and Landbirds, Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive species, water, noxious weeds, sensitive plants, soils, and range management are not expected to result in significant cumulative and foreseeable impacts. Trout restoration efforts would continue to restore in-stream and associated riparian environments in the current and foreseeable future.
Page 55 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
3.12 HERITAGE RESOURCES Existing Condition Past Human Land Usage During the past 6,000 years, the region has been utilized by diverse groups of people for a variety of activities. The Project areas lay within the traditional use area of the Kalispel Tribe. Ethnographic accounts indicate that the Kalispel practiced wintertime deer drives and maintained resident fisheries along the Pend Oreille River. In addition to hunting deer and fishing, the Kalispel harvested camas (Camassia sp) (Lahren 1998). There are currently no known Native American cultural resource sites (on National Forest System lands) within the Project areas. The Project areas were largely unoccupied by non-Native Americans until the turn of the century. The early 1900s was a period of settlement and development of lumber, mining and agriculture industries. Investigation and Survey Results The following provides a summary of the research and survey results. The complete documents are available in the project file, located at the Newport-Sullivan Lake Ranger District Office in Newport, Washington. Background research by Historic Resource Associates (HRA 2012a and 2012b) staff revealed that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites directly within the Project areas, and no previous cultural resources studies conducted within the Project areas. An investigation was conducted to identify potential historic properties by reviewing available literature, analyzing topographic and historic maps, and conducting an archaeological survey. A visual assessment was conducted for any potentially significant above-ground historic-era resources that may be impacted by the construction activities within the areas of proposed ground disturbance. Prior to fieldwork, HRA staff reviewed archaeological site records and cultural resource survey reports on file at the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and in HRA's reference library. In November 2012, HRA archaeologists conducted a 100-percent archaeological pedestrian survey and subsurface survey, where appropriate, at 19 restoration sites along White Man Creek and 33 restoration sites along UMB LeClerc Creek. HRA also conducted a visual assessment for any potentially significant above-ground historic-era resources that may be impacted by the construction activities within the areas of proposed ground disturbance. Ground exposures (e.g., exposed bank, trails, ditches, root-tips, etc.) encountered in or outside of transects were examined closely for the presence of subsurface features and/or cultural materials. No historic standing structures were observed in the Project areas. Given the size of known cultural resources in the vicinity, and distribution of artifacts, the subsurface testing is considered sufficient coverage of the survey areas. Excavated soils were screened through ¼-inch hardware cloth. All probes were backfilled immediately following their termination and recording, and the turf replaced. The soil descriptions are consistent with the soil types mapped for the areas. The probes yielded no archaeological remains. The archaeological survey and visual assessment resulted in the identification of one cultural resource in close proximity to the White Man Creek restoration Project area. Site CF491 has been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP; however, due to the site's location, direct impacts to the site may occur (HRA 2012a). The archaeological survey and visual assessment also resulted in the identification of one cultural resource in close proximity to the Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek restoration Project area. Site FS1182 has been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP; however, due to the site’s location, direct impacts to the site may occur (HRA 2012b). Effects of Alternative A There would be no change from the current condition. Heritage sites would continue to gradually deteriorate over time, subject primarily to natural forces (i.e., weather conditions, unexpected wildfire, etc.). Natural forces could destroy or considerably damage standing or downed historical structures, affecting potential National Register eligibility characteristics of these properties.
Page 56 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 – Effects of Implementation
Effects of Alternative B Project activities have the potential to damage heritage sites by machinery, falling trees, etc., or indirectly as a result of discovery through increased access to each site. Research and surveys were conducted by HRA and the results indicated one cultural resource at White Man Creek and another cultural resource at UMB LeClerc Creek. Both have been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Cumulative Effects Under Alternative B, historic properties within the analysis area would experience minimal cumulative effects from this project. There are no cumulative effects from adjacent landowners. Future activities associated with Alternative B within the analysis areas, following site-specific mitigations and design elements listed in Chapter 2, would have no significant foreseeable cumulative effects on the historic properties.
3.13 EFFECTS ON AMERICAN INDIANS The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians were consulted, and no impacts to American Indian social, economic or substance rights are anticipated. No impacts are anticipated related to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Kalispel Tribal members use the National Forest for recreation, religious purposes, and to gather forest products such as firewood and huckleberries. Tribal members’ use of this area of the National Forest would not be disproportionately affected when compared to other people for any of the alternatives considered with this project.
3.14 EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS, MINORITY GROUPS, WOMEN, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE This section is based on information in the US Census and from personal communications with various interdisciplinary team members. No adverse effects to consumers or civil rights were identified through the effects analysis. The alternatives were assessed to determine whether they would disproportionately impact minority or low- income populations in accordance with Executive Order 12898. Approximately 18% of the people in Pend Oreille County have an income that is below the federal poverty level (US Census 2000). Low-income people no doubt use the National Forest for recreation and to gather forest products such as firewood and huckleberries. We have no evidence that low-income people use this area of the National Forest disproportionately when compared to other people. Any alternative selected would not disproportionately affect minority communities or low-income people.
Page 57 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 4 – Consultation
CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION The opportunity for public participation in the analysis of this project was initiated through a scoping letter sent to the public, Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, and other non-Forest Service persons and interested parties on October 22, 2012, and listed the Scoping document in the Colville National Forest’s Projects Publication. October 2012. Five letters were received. Comments received during scoping are located in Section 1.5 and Appendix B of this EA. Comments received during the 30-day comment period will be included in that Final EA.
Page 58 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 – References
CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES
Allan, J. 1980. Life History notes on the Dolly Varden charr (Salvelinus malma) in the Upper Clearwater river, Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. Fish and Wildlife Division. Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy, Corvallis, OR. 128 pp. Andersen, T.A., and J. Olson. 2002. Kalispel resident fish project. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. Project No. 195-00-100, Contract No. 95-BI-37227.
Bednarczyk, Jerry. 2009. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Economic Analysis. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 5 pages. Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society.
Bolyard, Chase. 2009a. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Noxious Weeds Specialist Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 24 pages. Bolyard, Chase. 2009b. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Range Specialist Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 10 pages. Borysewicz, Michael A. 2009a. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Analysis of Effects to Management Indicator Species and Landbirds. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 44 pages. Borysewicz, Michael A. 2009b. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Biological Evaluation of Effects to Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 72 pages. Burdick, Carl. 2009. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Heritage Program Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 5 pages. Burroughs, Edward.R. and John.G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station GTR-INT-264. 18 pp. Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish Game 4:139-74. Cole, Rob. 1998. Personal Phone Communication with Tom Shuhda, US Forest Service, Colville National Forest Colville National Forest Stream Surveys, 1992, 1994, 2004, 2005, 2007, Middle Branch and East Branch of Le Clerc. Region 6 Hankin and Reeves Surveys, Located in the Colville National Forest Stream Survey Files in the Supervisor’s Office, Colville, WA. DOI, 2010. US Department of Interior. Pend Oreille County Public Utility District. Revised 4(e) Condition 6 - Trout Habitat Restoration Program, Settlement Agreement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Project No. 2042-153. 02/19/2010. Di Rienz, Kim. 2009b. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Specialist Report for Lands and Special Uses. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 5 pages. EESC. 2010. Middle Branch LeClerc Creek General Habitat Surveys. Prepared for Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project Fish Sub-Committee. Submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County as part of the Trout Habitat Restoration Program. March 25, 2010.
EESC. 2011a. White Man Creek General Habitat Surveys. Prepared for Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project Fish Sub-Committee. Submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County as part of the Trout Habitat Restoration Program. February 7, 2011.
Page 59 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 – References
EESC. 2011b. General survey stream inventory assessment protocol for Box Canyon tributaries. Prepared for Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project Fish Sub-Committee. Submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County. Revised March 2011.
EESC. 2011c. Target survey stream inventory assessment protocol for Box Canyon tributaries. Prepared for Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project Fish Sub-Committee. Submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County. Revised November 2011.
EESC. 2012d. Trout Habitat Restoration Plan. Project Pre-Proposal. Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Enhancement Project. Prepared for Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project Fish Sub-Committee. Submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County. Revised January 2012.
EESC. 2012e. Trout Habitat Restoration Plan. Project Pre-Proposal. White Man Creek Enhancement Project. Prepared for Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project Fish Sub-Committee. Submitted by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County. Revised February 2012.
EPA. 2008. LeClerc Creek Water Quality. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 303(d)-5 list.
Glines, Nancy. 2009a. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Recreation Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 26 pages. Glines, Nancy. 2009b. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Soil Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 61 pages. Hickenbottom, Jennifer. 2009. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Watershed Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 162 pages. Historical Research Associates, Inc. 2012a. Cultural Resources Assessment for White Man Creek Enhancement Project. Pend Oreille County, WA. December 2012a. Historical Research Associates, Inc. 2012b. Cultural Resources Assessment for Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek Enhancement Project. Pend Oreille County, WA. December 2012b. Kalispel Natural Resources Department. 1997. Kalispel Resident Fish Project Annual Report 1995 prepared for the US Department of Energy; Bonneville Power Administration. Lahren, Sylvester L. 1998. “Kalispel.” Handbook of North American Indians-Plateau. Volume 12. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D. C. Link, Tom. 2009. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Silvicultural Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 63 pages. Luce, Charles H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology 5(3):265-270 Maroney, J.R., and T.A. Andersen. 2000. Habitat inventory and salmonid abundance for Middle Branch LeClerc, Seco, and Saucon creek. Kalispel Natural Resource Department. February 2000.
Maroney, J., C. Donley, J. Scott, and N. Lockwood, Jr. 1995. Kalispel Resident Fish Project. BPA Report DOE/BP-37227-1. Project No. 1995-00100. 172 p.
McKinney, S. et al. 1996. A Characterization of Inventoried Streams in the Columbia River Basin. R-6 Fish Habitat Relationship Technical Bulletin No. 11. USDA Forest Service. Mellen, K., B. Marcot, J. Ohman, K. Waddell, S. Livingston, E. Wilhite, B. Hosteter, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2003. DecAid, the Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees, and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 1.10. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, OR.
Page 60 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 – References
Pend Oreille County. 2010. Comprehensive Plan. Document 10-17-05. 2011 Update, Adopted 1-23-12. http://www.pendoreilleco.org/documents/Planning/Comp_Plan_Update/BOCC%20Adopted%20Comp%20Plan%2 001-23-2012.pdf
POCSC. 2010. Pend Oreille County Shoreline Characterization. June 2010. Final Report. Bohrn and Associates. Salix Associates. 2012a. Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creek. Pend Oreille County, WA. Rare Plant Survey. December 2012. Salix Associates. 2012b. White Man Creek. Rare Plant Survey. Pend Oreille County, WA. December 2012. Shuhda, Tom. 2009a. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Analysis of Effects to Aquatic Environment. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 32 pages. Shuhda, Tom. 2009b. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Biological Evaluation for Bull Trout. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. Colville National Forest, Washington. 20 pages. US Census Bureau. 2008. State and County Quick Facts, Pend Oreille County, Washington. On-line Database. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53051.html. US Congress. 1974. Public Law 106-580 amended, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974. (16 USC 1601) Washington DC.
US Congress. 1976. Public Law 94-488, National Forest Management Act of 1976. 94th Congress. Washington DC. USDA Forest Service. 1988a. FEIS Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation. Pacific NW Region. Portland, Or. USDA Forest Service. 1988b. Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service. 1988c. Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, including Appendices A-L. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. Intermountain, Northern and Pacific Northwest Regions. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Le Clerc Creek Watershed Assessment. Colville National Forest, Sullivan Lake Ranger District. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. 1998. Colville National Forest Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Colville National Forest Weed Prevention Guidelines. USDA Forest Service Memo 2080, November 18, 1999. Colville National Forest, Colville, WA 7 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2000 Revision. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Strategic Plan. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants and accompanying Record of Decision. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. November 14, 2005. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS/ROD/ROD-R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2007. Colville National Forest Environmental Management System (EMS). Colville, WA. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/ems/colville/ USDA Forest Service. 2008. Special Status Species Lists--Sensitive Vascular and Non-vascular Plants and Strategic Vascular and Non-vascular Plants, Pacific Northwest Region, January 2008. Unpublished Report. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 2010. Colville National Forest. Hanlon Timber and Fuels Management Projects Environmental Assessment. USDA FS, Region 6, Pacific NW Region, Portland, OR.
Page 61 White Man & Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Environmental Assessment Chapter 5 – References
USDA Forest Service. 2013. Colville National Forest. White Man/Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Bioligical Evaluation of Effects to TerrestrialThreatened, and Sensitive Species. USDA FS, Region 6, Pacific NW Region, Portland, OR. March, 2013. USDA Forest Service. 2013. Colville National Forest. White Man/Upper Middle Branch LeClerc Creeks Analysis of Effects to Management Indicator Species and Land Birds. USDA FS, Region 6, Pacific NW Region, Portland, OR. March, 2013. USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Pend Oreille County Area, Washington. Accessed March, 2013. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Species of Concern, and Designated Critical Habitat, in the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office Area of Responsibility in Eastern Washington State and Northern Idaho, (Revised 5/4/2009), Eastern Washington State. Spokane, Washington. Available: UCFWO%20listed-candidate%20spp%205-4-2009.pdf. USFWS. 1998. Recovery Plan for Bull Trout in the Northeast Washington Recovery Unit. Region 1, Portland, OR. USFWS. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Populations of Bull Trout; Final Rule. USGS. 2008. Washington Department of Ecology. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 62). Hydrologic Unit Map. 2012. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.htm. 2008. WA Department of Ecology. 2008. Washington Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 62. 303(d) List. Dept. of Ecology’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Map: 323, 324, 338, 350. 03/11/09. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/ gis/maps/wria/wria.htm. WDFW. 2010. A summary of stream crossings and fish passage barriers, Pend Oreille watershed (WRIA 62). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Olympia, Washington.
WDNR. 2012. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Rare plant information. Accessed online: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html
Page 62