Environmental Assessment (EA) Will Describe Effects Associated with the Proposed Action with Indicators

Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment

Forest Service

April 2011

Glass Angel Restoration Project

Naches Ranger District Okanogan - Wenatchee National Forest Yakima County, Washington

For Information Contact: Jim Bailey Naches Ranger District 10237 Highway 12 Naches, WA 98937 (509) 653-1479

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Glass Angel Restoration Project

Page Chapter I Proposed Action, Purpose and Need Location I-1 Project Area Determination I-2 Management Direction and Guidance I-5 Existing Conditions I-12 Purpose and Need for Action I-14 The Proposed Action I-18 Decisions to be Made Based on this Analysis I-22 Scoping Summary and Public Involvement I-23

Chapter II Alternatives Considered Introduction II-1 Alternative Formulation II-1 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study II-2 Alternative Development II-3 Alternatives Considered In Detail II-6 No Action II-6 The Refined Proposed Action Vegetation Treatments II-6 Invasive Species Management II-29 Travel and Access Management II-31 Monitoring II-40 Adaptive Management II-44 Comparison of Alternatives II-46

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

Chapter III Affected Environment Environmental Consequences VEGETATION AND FUELS III-2 AIR QUALITY III-34 INVASIVE SPECIES III-43 WILDLIFE III-55 VISUAL RESOURCES III-106 RECREATION III-113 SOIL AND WATERSHED RESOURCES III-121 FISHERIES HABITAT and WATER QUALITY III-141 AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY III-166 RANGE OPERATIONS and MANAGEMENT III-176 HERITAGE RESOURCES III-182 TRAVEL AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT III-184 ROADLESS AREAS AND PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS III-187 ECONOMICS III-187 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES III-191

Chapter IV Organizations, Agencies, and Persons Consulted IV-1

Chapter V References Cited V-1

Appendix A Public Involvement Summary A-1

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

Appendix B Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Glossary of Terms B-1 Acronyms and Abbreviations B-16

Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures Invasive Plant Management C-1 Prescribed Burning C-3 Air Quality C-3 Wildlife Resources C-3 Soil, Water, and Aquatic/Riparian Resources C-4 Range C-6 Heritage Properties C-6 Recreation/Visual Resources C-7

iii

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Glass Angel Restoration Project

List of Tables Table Subject Page I.1 NWFP land allocations within the Glass Angel Project Area I-5 I.2 Wenatchee Forest Plan Land Allocations within the Glass Angel Project Area I-5

II.1 Landscape Metrics used for Landscape Departure Analysis and their Definitions II-3 II.2 Theoretical Prescriptions for Primary Landscape Objective/Treatment Groups and II-4 their Rationale II.3 Treatment methods II-7 II.4 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-13 Commercial Timber Sale Unit(s) 3, 4, 5 Non-commercial stand number 71, 206 Old and Large Tree Foundation Present II.5 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-15 Non-commercial stand number 369, 450, 420, 475, 351, 442 Old and Large Tree Foundation Present II.6 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-16 Commercial Timber Sale Unit(s) 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 Non-commercial stand number 123, 239, 276 Old and Large Tree Foundation Present II.7 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-18 Commercial Timber Sale Unit(s) 5 Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent II.8 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-19 Commercial Timber Sale Unit(s) 7 Non-commercial stand number 118, 460, 480, 386 Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent II.9 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-21 Commercial Timber Sale Unit(s) 12, 16 Non-commercial stand number 88, 227 Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent II.10 Glass Angel Prescriptions II-23 Commercial Timber Sale Unit(s) 1, 2 Non-commercial stand number 419, 220, 188, 68, 229, 189, 225, 296 Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent II.11 Angel Prescriptions for Prescribed Fire II-24

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

Table Subject Page Old and Large Tree Foundation Present or Absent II.12 Fuels Treatments II-28 II.13 Monitoring Items II-41 II.14 Comparison of Alternatives II-47

III.1 Past and foreseeable activities in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek III-1 Watersheds. III.2 Series/Type within the Glass Angel project area. III-3 III.3 Successional Stages within the Glass Angel project area. III-3 III.4 Crown Closure within the Glass Angel project area. III-4 III.5 Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type Classes were improved…historic III-8 reference conditions. III.6 Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type Classes were improved…future III-8 reference conditions. III.7 Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type to Potential Vegetation Group III-9 Type Classes were improved…historic reference conditions. III.8 Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type to Potential Vegetation Group III-9 Type Classes were improved…future reference conditions. III.9 Reference conditions for large/very large trees. III-11 III.10 The density of large and very large trees following mechanical treatment for some III-14 representative units. III.11 Subjective predictions of the effect of prescribed fire… III-15 III.12 Estimates of pre and post-treatment canopy cover in some representative units. III-16 III.13 Principles of fire resistance for dry forests. III-27 III.14 Relative ability of proposed vegetation treatments in the mixed-severity fire regime III-28 to meet the Purpose and Need of forest restoration. III.15 Rate of Spread and Flame Length by Fuel Models common to the Glass Angel III-29 project area. III.16 Flame lengths associated with critical levels of fireline intensity that are associated III-30 with initiating crown fire… III.17 FOFEM indicated probability of mortality (from crown scorch or cambium kill) by III-31 diameter and flame length. III.18 Airsheds of concern and proximity to the Glass Angel analysis area III-36 III.19 Emissions produced by a 1,000 acre fire under “typical” conditions. III-36 III.20 Summary of the toxic chemical agents identified in woodsmoke. III-38

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

Table Subject Page III.21 Biomass available and emissions potentially not released into the airshed because III-39 of biomass utilization. III.22 Aerodynamic particle size multiplier. III-41 III.23 Emission factor…by particle size per mile of unpaved road traveled by one fully III-41 loaded logging truck. III.24 State noxious weed occurrences within the Glass Angel project area. III-46 III.25 Indicators potentially contributing to invasive species spread. III-48 III.26 Federally listed species known to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National III-56 Forest III.27 Species of Concern (FWS 4/15/2008) and Regional Forester Sensitive Terrestrial III-62 Wildlife Species (USFS 1/2008) on the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest (FWS 4/15/2008) III.28 Management Indicator Species and their associated habitat for the Wenatchee NF III-67 (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990) III.29 NRF habitat degraded by spotted owl activity centers. III-82 III.30 Changes to northern spotted owl habitat by Northwest Forest Plan land allocations III-84 and spotted owl critical habitat. III.31 Effects determination for federally listed species for all alternatives III-87 III.32 Effects determination for Forest Service Sensitive Species for Action Alternative. III-93 III.33 Changes to snag densities after vegetation treatments. III-95 III.34 Priority habitat for landbird conservation in the Glass Angel Restoration Project III-105 Area, with representative focal species and key habitat features. III.35 Required Visual Quality Objectives for the Glass Angel Restoration Project. III-109 III.36 Effects of Treatments on Visual Quality Objectives. III-110 III.37 Recreation Activities Occurring within the Glass Angel Project Area. III-113 III.38 Summary of Soil Characteristics for Soil Mapping Units. III-123 III.39 Soil Disturbance Summary for Commercial Harvest and Biomass. III-130 III.40 Evaluation Summary – Soil and Watershed Resources. III-135 III.41 Nile Creek Drainage Fish Distribution (miles). III-142 III.42 Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Known Fish Distribution (miles). III-142 III.43 Nile Creek drainage, LWD/Mile. III-146 III.44 Rattlesnake Creek watershed, LWD/Mile. III-147 III.45 Nile Creek drainage, Streambank Stability by Reach. III-148 III.46 Rattlesnake Creek Watershed, Streambank Stability by Reach. III-148 III.47 Pool Frequencies – Nile Creek drainage. III-149 III.48 Pool Frequencies – Rattlesnake Creek watershed. III-149

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

Table Subject Page III.49 Road use for allotment management in the Glass Angle project area. III-178 III.50 Existing road miles and densities within the project area. III-185 III.51 Cost/return analysis. III-189 III.52 Suppression cost savings/acre, by fire size. III-190

IV.1 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team IV-1 IV.2 Other Participants IV-1

A.1 Chronological Summary of Public/Agency Involvement A-1

vii

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

List of Figures Figure Subject Page I.1 Glass Angel Restoration Project; Vicinity Map I-1 I.2 Methodology for Determining the Glass Angel Restoration Project Area I-3 I.3 Glass Angel Restoration Project; Base Map I-4 I.4 Glass Angel Restoration Project; Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocation I-8 I.5 Glass Angel Restoration Project; Wenatchee Forest Plan Land Allocation I-9 I.6 Representation of the current condition; a typical stand in the cool, moist forest I-18 type. I.7 Representation of the same stand after treatment. A complex patch is portrayed I-18 on the right side of the figure. I.8 Vented ford I-20

II.1 Determining the need for Refined Proposed Action(s) or Alternatives. II-2 II.2 Defined Primary Landscape Objective/Treatment Prescriptions. II-5 II.3 Structural Classes II-8 II.4 Structural Classes – another representation II-9 II.5 FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 4: Young Forest Multi-Strata. II-14 II.6 FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 4: Stem II-14 Exclusion Open Canopy. II.7 FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 5: Young Forest Multi-Strata. II-14 II.8 FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 5: Stem II-14 Exclusion Open Canopy II.9 FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 8: Young Forest Multi-Strata. II-17 II.10 FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 8: Stem II-17 Exclusion Open Canopy. II.11 FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 13: Young Forest Multi-Strata. II-17 II.12 FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 13: Stem II-17 Exclusion Open Canopy. II.13 FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 7: Young Forest Multi-Strata. II-20 II.14 FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 7: Stem II-20 Exclusion Open Canopy. II.15 FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 12: Young Forest Multi-Strata. II-22 II.16 FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 12: Stem II-22 Exclusion Open Canopy. II.17 Refined Proposed Action – vegetation management (vicinity) II-25 II.18 Refined Proposed Action – vegetation management: Glass project area II-26 II.19 Refined Proposed Action – vegetation management: Angel project area II-27

viii

Glass Angel Restoration Project Table of Contents

Figure Subject Page II.20 Representation of a simple ford. II-32 II.21 Proposed Action – proposed road closures and decommissioning; proposed II-34 FR1605 ford improvement (vicinity) II.22 Proposed road closures and decommissioning; proposed FR1605 ford II-35 improvement; Glass project area. II.23 Proposed road closures and decommissioning; Angel project area. II-36 II.24 Meadow/Trail 697 location (vicinity) within the Glass project area. Red lines show II-38 approximate west and east edges of the meadow in relation to the lower, project area map. II.25 Trail 697 Reroute: Refined Proposed Action and Adaptive Management Response. II-39 II.26 Adaptive Management; forest restoration II-43 II.27 Adaptive Management; fuels reduction alternatives II-44 II.28 Adaptive Management; commercial harvest alternatives II-45 II.29 Adaptive Management; OHV Trail 697 reroute II-46

III.1 Stand numbers within the Glass project area. III-10 III.2 Diameter distribution of retained and removed trees for Unit 5 Stand 107. III-13 III.3 Diameter distribution of retained and removed trees for Unit 5 Stand 488. III-13 III.4 Diameter distribution of retained and removed trees for Unit 7 Stand 386. III-13 III.5 Diameter distribution of retained and removed trees for Unit 7 Stand 328. III-13 III.6 Species and diameter distribution with logging only. III-20 III.7 Species and diameter distribution with both logging and prescribed fire. III-20 III.8 Stand structure with logging only. III-20 III.9 Stand structure with both logging and prescribed fire. III-20

III.10 Relative size of a PM10 particle. III-41 III.11 Glass invasive species treatment areas. III-44 III.12 Angel invasive species treatment areas. III-45 III.13 The narrowness of the existing Trail 697 corridor… Photo courtesy of III-116 Yakima/Kittitas Forest Watch Association. III.14 Range Structure Locations III-181

Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

CHAPTER I

Proposed Action, and Purpose and Need

This chapter describes the proposed actions for the Glass Angel Restoration Project along with a description of the project area and the Purpose and Need for the proposed action. An outline is included of legislative requirements and environmental documents. This environmental analysis finds its basis in the Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990) and its amendments. The decisions to be made, based on this analysis, are also reviewed. A summary of scoping and public involvement for this project is presented. This Environmental Assessment (EA) will describe effects associated with the proposed action with indicators.

Location Figure 1.1: Glass Angel Restoration Project; Vicinity Map

The Glass Angel Project Area encompasses 11,395 acres and is broken into two distinct treatment areas located in the Nile Creek, Dry Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek drainages. Prominent geographic features, Glass Creek and Angel Lake, identify the two areas. The two project areas will be referred to as the Glass project area and Angel project area throughout this document. The overall location is west of Naches, Washington in Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Sections 16 through 20, Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Sections 11 through 15, 22, 23, and 24, and Township 15 North, Range 14 East, Sections 9, 10, 11, 14 through 17, 20 through 23, 26 through 29, 32, 33, and 34. Landmarks within the project area include Glass Creek, Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Angel Lake, Devils Table, and the Bethel Ridge Road. Forest Roads providing access to the project area include 1600, 1605, 1500, 1503, 1501, and their associated collector and spur roads.

I-1 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Project Area Determination Restoration of forest ecosystems requires a landscape perspective, which is essential for effective restoration of ecological processes and functions (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, 2010). The process outlined in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy (2010 version), and summarized here, guided the Glass Angel project. Three hydrologic units (sub watersheds) – the Nile Creek, Dry Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek units defined a setting, which was named the Dry Orr Landscape (approximately 70,000 acres). A landscape evaluation using the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) tool defined the restoration treatments needed, established the context of restoration project areas within the broader landscape, and set priorities for where restoration should occur. EMDS visually represented, by stand, the relative degree of departure of the vegetative condition, the susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire, and the ability to support selected focal wildlife species. Specialists identified areas of contiguous departure, similar vegetation, forest type (dry, mesic1, or wet), logical topographic boundaries, and areas of operational functionality (e.g., roads, ridges, streams, or other barriers that could be used as prescribed fire containment boundaries). These criteria identified Potential Landscape Treatment Areas (PLTA’s) within the analysis area.

Glass Angel describes two PLTA’s within the Dry Orr Landscape, named by the prominent geographic features; Glass Creek and Angel Lake. Detailed stand information, derived from photo interpretation, Resource Specialist knowledge, and field reconnaissance, further advanced the EMDS inputs, which in turn refined the components of departure for the Glass portion of the project area. These ecosystem components were considered and weighted with respect to the natural range of variability and a future range of variability that considered climate change.

Because information was lacking for the Angel portion of the project area at the specificity required to develop a comprehensive EMDS analysis at the stand level, it was used only to define the PLTA, and not to characterize refined levels of departure or in determining treatments. Best professional judgment of resource specialists and existing knowledge and data contained in the Rattle EA (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 2003) was used to determine treatment needs and methods of treatment.

The methodology described above is represented in Figure 1.2.

A desired condition was derived from EMDS outputs and higher-tiered plans, guides, and direction (see Desired Future Condition, page I-11. From these, Needs For Action were identified and defined a Purpose For Action (see Purpose and Need For Action, beginning on page I-14). The Purpose and Need For Action in turn led to the development of a Proposed Action (beginning on page I-17). As further information became available through field reconnaissance, a Refined Proposed Action was developed.

1 Refers to moist to moderately moist soil conditions and the forest vegetation supported under these conditions. Under mesic conditions, soil moisture is predictably adequate for plant growth during the growing season. I-2 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Figure I.2. Methodology for Determining the Glass Angel Restoration Project Area Hydrologic Units Delineated Nile, Dry, & Rattlesnake Sub-watersheds

Dry Orr Landscape Analysis

Ecosytem Management Decision Support (EMDS) Coarse Analysis

Potential Landscape Treatment Areas (PLTA's) identified

Glass Angel Project Area selected for treatment

Existing knowledge (Rattle EMDS EA), Resource Specialist Detailed Analysis knowledge of the area, field recon

Glass Proposed Actions Angel Proposed Actions

I-3 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Figure I.3. Glass Angel Restoration Project; Base Map

I-4 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Management Direction and Guidance This project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1990 Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Records of Decision for the Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan or NWFP, 1994, 2001), and the Record of Decision for R6 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service, 2005) provide this direction. Hereafter, we refer to the combination of these plans in this document as the amended Wenatchee National Forest Plan (WFP). These documents assign the following land allocations to the Glass Angel project area:

Table I.1: Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations within the Glass Angel Project Area. NWFP Land Angel Project Area Glass Project Area Allocation Acres (% of area) Acres (% of area) Administratively 59 (<1%) 0 (0%) Withdrawn1 Congressionally 36 (<1%) 46 (1%) Withdrawn2 Late Successional 15 (<1%) 4,259 (95%) Reserve Managed Late 394 (6%) 197 (4%) Successional Area Matrix 6,388 (93%) 0 (0%)

Table I.2: Wenatchee Forest Plan Land Allocations within the Glass Angel Project Area WFP Allocation Angel Project Area Glass Project Area Acres (% of area) Acres (% of area) Dispersed Recreation, 59 (<1%) 0 (0%) Unroaded, Motorized3 (RE2B) General Forest (GF) 3,594 (52%) 3,818 (85%) Key Deer and Elk 646 (9%) 0 (0%) Habitat (EW1) Riparian Reserve 1,258 (18%)4 746 (17%)4 Scenic Travelway, 2,558 (37%) 638 (14%) Partial Retention (ST2) Wilderness (WI)2 36 (<1%) 46 (1%)

2 No activities are being proposed within Congressionally Withdrawn/Wilderness Areas or Administratively Withdrawn Areas. The landscape analysis and placement of geographic boundaries included these areas as part of the evaluation, but treatments of any kind were not proposed or considered. 3 with potential trails for motorbikes, hikers, and horseback riders 4 Riparian Reserves overlay other Wenatchee Forest Plan allocations. This land allocation is not displayed on the corresponding map (Figure I.5). I-5 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Northwest Forest Plan Management Direction by Land Allocation The Northwest Forest Plan allocations of Late Successional Reserve (LSR), Managed Late Successional Area (MLSA), and Riparian Reserve overlay the original Wenatchee Forest Plan direction.

Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of late- successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. These reserves are designed to maintain a functional, interacting, late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem

Managed Late Successional Areas (MLSA) are similar to Late-Successional Reserves but are identified for certain owl activity centers on the eastside where regular and frequent fire is a natural part of the ecosystem. Certain silvicultural treatments and fire hazard reduction treatments are permitted to help prevent complete stand destruction from large catastrophic events such as high intensity, high severity fires; or disease or insect epidemics.

Matrix consists of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands, according to standards and guidelines.

Wenatchee Forest Plan Management Direction by Land Allocation Dispersed Recreation, Unroaded, Motorized (RE2B) is managed to provide dispersed, unroaded recreation in a semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunity setting. This land allocation is generally located in natural appearing landscape settings and is for application to unroaded areas in which trails are evident and maintained for existing or potential 4x4 routes in addition to trails for motorbikes, hikers, and horseback riders.

General Forest (GF) provides for long-term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products at a high level of investment in silvicultural practices. Management will vary from intensive timber management typified by regular spacing, relatively even age and height, to those stands.

Key Deer and Elk Habitat (EW1) is to manage deer and elk winter range to meet habitat requirements for sustaining optimum carrying capacity. Deer and elk winter ranges are generally on the edge of the Forest, adjacent to or intermingled with, other land ownerships, at low elevations, south and/or east facing slopes with reduced snow depth and early melt-off of snow. Because of these conditions, these areas are highly desired for winter and/or early spring recreation activities and dry out early to become high fire danger areas.

Riparian Reserves overlay all other management allocations where streams, ponds, and wetlands are present and treatments within them are designed to meet and not retard attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and the WFP soil standards and guidelines set forth objectives relative to the maintenance and restoration of sediment regimes, in-stream flows, and site productivity. Proposed activities must maintain the existing condition or lead to improved conditions in the long-term.

I-6 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Scenic Travelway, Partial Retention (ST2) provides a near natural appearing foreground and middleground along scenic travel corridors. The proposed uses and vegetation management within the allocation will be integrated with the natural landscape so that activities are visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, 2005) provides a framework for preventing invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread, protecting ecosystems and human health, and collaborating with our partners and the public. This ROD describes desired future conditions for invasive species within the Region as:

Healthy native plant communities remain diverse and resilient, and damaged ecosystems are being restored. High quality habitat is provided for native organisms. Invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of the forest to provide goods and services communities expect. The need for invasive plant treatment is reduced due to the effectiveness of prevention actions.

Left blank for formatting

I-7 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Figure I.4. Glass Angel Restoration Project; Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocation

I-8 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Figure I.5. Glass Angel Restoration Project; Wenatchee Forest Plan Land Allocation

Guidance In 1997 the Wenatchee National Forest completed an assessment of the LSR/MLSA network (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997) concluding that several of the reserves, including the Haystack MLSA, that were composed of dry forests were at high risk of loss of late- successional forest habitat from fires and insects. They recommended that treatments occur within LSRs and MLSAs to reduce the risk of large-scale habitat loss to fire and to restore dry forests to more sustainable conditions. Concurrence for these recommendations was received from the Regional Ecosystem Office in a letter dated October 8, 1997. Additional scientific reviews of spotted owl recovery have also recommended restoration treatments to reduce the loss of spotted owl habitat to uncharacteristic high-severity wildfires in dry forests (Courtney, et al., 2004) (Courtney, et al., 2008).

I-9 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Forest Service Manual 2000 (US Forest Service, 2010) in its objective of reestablishing and retaining ecological resilience of National Forest Service lands and associated resources to achieve sustainable management and provide a broad range of ecosystem services. Healthy, resilient landscapes will have greater capacity to survive natural disturbances and large scale threats to sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future environmental conditions, such as those driven by climate change and increasing human uses. The Manual defines ecological restoration as:

The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions.

Additional guidance for this project can be found in the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010). According to the Dry Site Strategy:

A concerted effort is needed to restore the sustainability and resiliency of forested ecosystems on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (OWNF). Numerous assessments that provided a long list of peer-reviewed publications have identified that our forests are more susceptible to uncharacteristically severe fires and epidemic levels of insects and disease, and habitats are declining for late- successional and old forest associated species (Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Hessburg et al. 1999a, Franklin et al. 2007). While our aging forest road network provides needed access for recreation and restoration treatments, it also affects the condition of aquatic ecosystems, requiring expensive repairs and untimely closures when slopes fail. These conditions are likely to be exacerbated by climate change (Franklin et al. 2007, Binder et al. 2009, Vano et al. 2009) adding an even greater sense of urgency.

The objectives of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy are:

1) Address new science and management direction including the incorporation of climate change 2) Provide a consistent definition and approach to forest restoration 3) Increase the restoration footprint through a process that identifies high priority, strategic treatment areas 4) Improve integration and planning and implementation efficiency 5) Improve monitoring and adaptive management

The Naches Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analyses (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1995) is a landscape-level assessment, developed under the direction of the amended WFP. Review of this analysis helped develop the purpose and need for the Glass Angel Restoration Project. The objectives in the Naches Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analysis include increasing ecosystem sustainability by restoring historic tree stocking levels, species compositions, and successional stages across the landscape. Additional objectives noted in these documents are to reduce fuel loadings to levels within the historic range and to reestablish the natural role of fire in the landscape. In reference to wildlife, the Naches

I-10 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analyses recommend maintaining travel ways, dispersal corridors, and riparian corridors as well as assuring that road systems provide a level of access that is compatible with big game habitat effectiveness.

Desired Future Condition Based on the management direction and guidance above, and the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) tool, the desired future condition of the Dry Orr Landscape and the Glass Angel project area is one in which:

 Key components of the composition, structure, and pattern of forest vegetation are within a weighted average of natural and future range of variability.  Forest vegetation is resilient to a climate changing to a warmer condition5.  Restore and/or protect appropriate proportions of structural classifications on the landscape  Forest composition, structure, function, and pattern are appropriate to the forest type and within the inherent range of variability. o Forest over- and understory (shrubs, herbs, and grasses) composition is consistent with that which would be characteristic of the specific plant association group. Invasive species occur in low concentrations or are not present. o The dry forest is a mosaic of variable size patches and gaps with large diameter ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir at the core of these patches. Open canopy structures make up the vast majority of the stands. o Endemic levels of pathogens provide for the structural needs of dry forest dependant wildlife. o Fuel loadings are such that fire can function as a natural process on the landscape at intensities that are within the inherent range of variability. o The dry/mesic transition zone is one in which characteristics of both forest types blend. . Forest structure is one in which patches are larger, and gaps are smaller than would be found in the dry forest type. . Closed canopy structured stands are frequent. . The grand fir series with a western larch component become a more frequently dominant type.  Protection of life, property, critical infrastructure, and resources can be achieved within normal risk inherent to wildland firefighting in a light fuel loading, dry forest type. o Continuous fuel loadings and forest structure that lead to extreme fire behavior in the WUI are eliminated.  Scenic integrity is maintained or improved at the present level of visual wholeness or intactness. o Human caused alterations (to form, line, color, and texture) blend into the landscape with the existing character so the landscape appears natural.  Forest Service System Roads serve the needs of the public, allow for recreation opportunities, and minimize adverse resource impacts.  The forest continues to provide:

5 Climate change projections for eastern Washington suggest that winter snow packs may decline, and the duration and severity of the summer dry period may increase (Bachelet, Neilson, Lenihan, & Drapek, 2001), (Mote, et al., 2003), (McKenzie, Gedalof, Peterson, & Mote, 2004). I-11 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

o Clean water o Clean air o Wildlife habitat o Recreation opportunities o Commodities

Existing Conditions Vegetation Condition The Glass project area is dominated by cool and cold moist forest vegetation. This is also true of the southern ⅓ (higher elevations) of the Angel project area. The moist forest type may also be referred to as a mixed fire severity regime, and exhibits a range of stand structures and historically experienced low, moderate, and high severity fires. Mixed fire regimes may be more widespread than stand replacement regimes in the Inland Northwest and have fire intervals averaging between 100 and 300 years. Individual mixed-severity fires typically leave a patchy, erratic pattern of mortality on the landscape, which fosters development of highly diverse communities. Overall, these fires kill a large proportion of all tree species, especially those such as grand fir and Engelmann spruce, which tend to be the shade-tolerant species favored by fire exclusion. Conversely, mixed-severity fires kill a smaller proportion of the fire-resilient species - including western larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir, which are long-lived species that are replaced successionally by shade-tolerant species with fire exclusion. Field reconnaissance and landscape evaluation suggest that because of previous management, i.e., timber harvest followed by broadcast burning, the current condition of species composition and stand and landscape pattern are departed from the reference condition. The reference condition describes the historic condition and considers the anticipated future condition accounting for climate change. Those past management practices that have caused a departed condition include patch clear cutting and selective logging of large diameter overstory trees leaving a disease-prone understory of shade tolerant, late successional trees.

The size and shape of patches (pattern) affects stand development, the movement of fire, and wildlife use. Structure refers to the vertical development of a stand, and its description infers the distribution of size and age classes. Disease and insects are a particular influence, and treatment often requires that particular age and size classes in a stand be removed to expedite its progress in developing-large diameter trees, a key component of late successional forests. Late successional forests provide habitat for several focal wildlife species including the northern spotted owl. However, the existing condition in many of these stands within the Glass Angel project area suggests that they may not be capable of providing long-term, sustainable habitat for these species, and many are not currently supplying habitat.

Climate change is likely to increase the challenges for sustainable forest management in eastern Washington, including issues associated with wildfire and forest insects and pathogens (Franklin, Hemstrom, Van Pelt, & Buchanan, 2008). East-side forests are particularly dependent on winter snowpack and climate change is expected to have significant direct and indirect effects on forest ecology in eastern Washington (Mote, et al., 2003), (Keeton, Mote, Franklin, Austin, & Roger, 2007). These effects include:  Changes in physiology and ecology of organisms, including trees and forest pests, due to increased temperatures and summer moisture deficits.  Elevational and latitudinal shifts in the distribution of species and forest communities.  In some cases, increased moisture stress will increase tree species vulnerability to insects and diseases, especially on the driest sites in densely forested stands.

I-12 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

 Increase in the severity and frequency of summer droughts may lengthen fire seasons and result in larger and more severe wildfires. A statistical relationship between climatic warming, lengthened snow-free seasons, and the frequency and size of wildfires has already been established for some parts of western North America (Westerling, Hidalgo, Cayan, & Swetnam, 2006).

The eastern portion of Glass project area on southern aspects and the northern ⅔ of the Angel project area (in general the lower elevations) is dominated by dry forest vegetation. Historically, dry forest plant communities were maintained by frequent, low intensity surface fire. This process promoted the development of low and variable tree densities, light and patchy ground fuels, simplified forest structure, and favored fire-tolerant trees, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and a low and patchy cover of associated fire-tolerant shrubs and herbs. Much of the project area was treated within the last ten years with the Buzzer, Venom, Fang, and Rattle Timber Sales and the Angel Lake Underburn.

Invasive Species Condition Further changes in species composition have resulted from establishment and spread of invasive and undesirable species. Several species have been documented, including: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Infestations occur predominantly along the shoulders of roadways, on landing locations in previously harvested areas, and sporadically on hillsides in open timber stands. Approximately 1,150 acres (~10%) within the Glass Angel project area are either currently infested or have the potential to become infested. Ninety-eight percent of the Angel project area and 39 percent of the Glass project area contains potential vegetation groups that are considered moderately or highly susceptible to adverse impacts from these species (Quigley & Arbelbide, 1997).

Montane Meadows Condition In the Glass project area, one large meadow in particular is suffering the effects of surrounding overstocked stands coupled with adverse human use. The timbered stand on the up-slope side of the meadow is a multi-strata closed canopy which is reducing snow-pack retention, and is intercepting water that historically would have infiltrated through to the meadow. An unauthorized trail contours the slope and incises the meadow. The effect of this meadow incision is to drain local groundwater storage and transmit flows downstream more rapidly. This process leaves little effective ground storage and prevents carry over water storage into a drought year.

Travel and Access Management Condition Within the Glass project area, there are 15.95 miles of National Forest System Roads (referred to in this document as Forest Road, or FR), including 1.74 miles of closed roads. The remaining 14.21 miles of open road results in an open road density of 2.02 miles per square mile. Within the Angel project area, there are 23.28 miles of Forest Road, including 4.83 miles of closed roads. The remaining 18.45 miles of open road result in an open road density of 1.71 miles per square mile of system road.

I-13 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Currently, FR1605 crosses Nile Creek with an unimproved ford. Vehicles crossing this creek cause chronic turbidity and sedimentation and have the potential to kill fish. High turbidity levels can affect the ability of fish gills to absorb dissolved oxygen.

The open road system in the project area is in generally good condition. However, there are instances where redundant or inadequately maintained roads are resulting in resource degradation or habitat security concerns. Roads being considered for closure or obliteration are redundant, are causing resource damage, or are excess to the needs of management of the National Forest System.

Trail Conditions Human use contributes to adverse effects within the montane meadow. OHV Trail 697 is causing disruption of water tables in the montane meadow located in Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Section 13 and Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Section 18.

OHV Trail 697 currently crosses the Nile Creek floodplain and is causing chronic short-term effects to water quality (turbidity). There is a need to restore riparian habitat where OHV Trail 697 crosses the Nile Creek floodplain

Purpose and Need for Action

The intent of this project is to prescribe and implement a set of treatments that rely on the principles of landscape and stand-level restoration ecology. These treatments should move the landscape to a condition that will become more resilient to changing climates and disturbances, and will behave in a manner that restores ecological processes, patterns, and functions. In order to define the purpose and need for action, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) needed to describe the historical variability by defining the bounds of system behavior that remain relatively consistent over time and compare this with the current condition. This was done through a combination of field reconnaissance and data collection, photo interpretation, application of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) tool, and field verification of model inputs and outputs. The IDT compared the existing condition information to desired conditions developed consistent with the amended Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and other guidance. Based on this comparison, the following purpose and need was developed:

I-14 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Within the Glass Angel project areas, there is a Need to  protect, enhance, or accelerate the development, and increase the proportion of old forest structure  protect, enhance, or accelerate the development of old trees, and large and very large trees  allow forest insects and pathogens to function at endemic levels to provide wildlife habitat and stand diversity  establish or enhance a foundation of old, large and very large, fire resilient tree species forming a structure of single-tree, simple clumps, and complex patches, with gaps or openings in the dry forest type  continue the encouragement/propagation of a desirable composition of fire resilient species within the dry forest type o ponderosa pine o Douglas-fir o western larch  develop, enhance, and maintain spatial variability, including clumps and canopy gaps in the dry forest type

Therefore, a Purpose of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to  Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern)

Within the Glass Angel project areas, there is a Need to  protect Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) habitat from loss to wildfire:  enhance/accelerate the development of Late Successional Old Forest structure needed by NSO for nesting, roosting, and foraging  in the dry forest communities, enhance/accelerate the development of Late Successional Old Forest structure needed by white-headed woodpecker (WHWO) for nesting and foraging  allow Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe to function at endemic levels to provide wildlife habitat and stand diversity

Therefore, a Purpose of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to  Restore focal wildlife species6 habitat and reduce risk of habitat loss to uncharacteristic wildfire

6 The focal wildlife species were selected because they are either federally listed or identified as a Region 6 focal species (based on Gaines et al. in prep) and they are closely associated with forested habitats and whose populations are influenced by changes to forest structure. Focal species used to evaluate wildlife habitats in the Glass Angel project area are the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) . I-15 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Within the Glass Angel project areas, there is a Need to  promote conditions in which tree stand vulnerability to high intensity wildfire would be within the normal range of variability (normal departure from the natural fire regime)  develop structure and pattern to allow natural processes (fire, insects, and disease) to function within an envelope of conditions defined by the intersection of the normal (historic) range of variability and the future range of variability associated with a warming climate  provide opportunity for wildland fire use within and adjacent to the planning area, as current fire policy allows, by restoring pattern, structure, and composition appropriate to the fire regime

Therefore, a Purpose of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to  Allow natural processes to function that will provide resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change

Within the Glass Angel project areas, there is a Need to  prevent and detect invasive plant species  implement early treatment, and restore habitats affected by invasive plant species  manage existing invasive plant populations and prevent further encroachment into presently un-infested areas  encourage desirable understory species composition, consisting of an understory, shrub, forb, and grass component appropriate to the forest type

Therefore, a Purpose of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to  Reduce the potential for introduction and spread, and reduce established populations of invasive species

I-16 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Within the Glass Angel project areas, there is a Need to  improve the low-water crossing at the intersection of Nile Creek and Forest Road 1605 to allow the crossing of heavy equipment (logging equipment) in order to implement restoration treatments within this project area  improve the low-water crossing at the intersection of Nile Creek and Forest Road 1605 to minimizing sediment production and turbidity  maintain, improve, or reconstruct roads that are necessary for public recreation and management of the National Forest to minimize adverse affects to the ecosystem  close, decommission, and/or relocate specific system and non-system roads and trails that are redundant, are causing resource damage, or are excess to the needs of management of the National Forest System 1500134 1605225 1605228 1605244 1605245 1605271 1500135 1500137 1500139 1502119 1502605 1503656 1503665 1506184 1506646 1605270

Therefore, a Purpose of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to  Provide a transportation system for public access for recreation opportunities, that is adequate for managing the National Forest, and minimizes adverse resource impacts

Within the Glass Angel project areas, there is a Need to  decrease or reverse adverse effects of human use caused by OHV Trail 697 within the montane meadow located in Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Section 13 and Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Section 18  prevent disruption of and restore water tables in the montane meadow located in Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Section 13 and Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Section 18

Therefore, a Purpose of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to  Protect, enhance, and rehabilitate the montane meadow located in Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Section 13 and Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Section 18

I-17 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

The Proposed Action7 The Naches Ranger District, in a scoping letter mailed to the interested agencies 10/11/2010 proposed management activities on 11,395 acres of National Forest System lands in the Glass Angel Project area. The proposed action for consideration under the Glass Angel Restoration Project as originally planned in the scoping letter included:

1. Timber Harvest a. Commercial Thinning Commercial harvest would occur on approximately 649 acres in dry and moist forest stands. Commercial harvest would remove some merchantable size material (greater than 7 inches in diameter).

This project proposes up to 277 acres of individual tree selection harvest in the dry forest type in the Glass portion of the project area. The retained stands would be comprised of larger diameter, healthy, fire tolerant, drought tolerant, and insect and disease resistant overstory trees (e.g., ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), where available. In those stands where large diameter trees have already been removed, selected mid-diameter size class trees will be retained with the intent of growing these trees into a late and old structure.

Three hundred seventy-two acres of the cool moist forest type will be designated for regeneration harvest. This treatment will consist mostly of removing dead trees and trees that are unlikely to grow large enough or live long enough to function as large, old trees. Old trees, and those with the best potential to grow into large, old trees will be retained.

Figure I.6. Representation of the current Figure I.7. Representation of the same stand condition; a typical stand in the cool, moist after treatment. A complex patch is portrayed forest type. on the right side of the figure.

Approximately 5 - 6½ million board feet of timber would be removed from the project areas as a result of the harvest treatments specified above. A combination of tractor and skyline logging systems would be used in the project area.

b. Non-commercial Thinning Approximately 402 acres of non-commercial (<7” diameter) trees in the cool moist forest type would be thinned.

7 Please note that this section describes the Proposed Action, which was preliminary in nature and intended to solicit comments through scoping. As described in Chapter II, a Refined Proposed Action was developed that more accurately That Refined Proposed Action is carried through to Chapter III which forms the basis of the Effects Analysis in Chapter III. I-18 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

2. Fuel Treatment a. Commercial harvest areas Activity created and naturally occurring fuels will be treated in the commercial thinning and regeneration harvest areas described above (approximately 649 acres) to reduce hazardous fuels accumulation and eliminate undesirable tree species. Treatment for activity created fuels could include transporting tree limbs and tops to landings, underburning, machine piling, chipping or grinding, and mastication.

b. Non-commercial thinning areas Activity created and naturally occurring fuels will be treated in the non-commercial thinning and regeneration harvest areas described above (approximately 402 acres). Fuels treatments could include underburning, hand piling, machine piling, chipping or grinding, and mastication.

c. Natural fuels treatment Prescribed burning may occur on approximately 7,406 acres that are not associated with harvest treatments. This includes 6,893 acres of natural fuels underburn in the Angel portion of the project area, and 513 acres in the Glass project area including the 402 acres of non-commercial thinning areas.

d. Biomass utilization Biomass will be made available as technology and markets allow as a utilization option rather than being disposed of through conventional means such as burning. Biomass may be transported off-site for energy production. The removal of biomass be at the purchaser’s discretion as dependant on market conditions, infrastructure availability, and transportation costs. Opportunities may be made available to research universities and industry representatives interested in developing technology for the conversion of biomass into biofuels and/or bioenergy.

3. Integrated Invasive Species Management Invasive species prevention and control may occur in areas where project implementation results in soil disturbance (e.g., skid trails, landings, etc.), along travel routes, and in other locations where established weed infestations provide a seed source that could potentially contribute to the further spread of invasive species in the project area. This proposal uses an integrated and adaptive approach. Management of invasive species would include using one or a combination of prevention and control techniques, listed below.

a. Invasive species prevention Invasive species prevention methods being considered under this proposal include seeding with desirable grasses and broadleaved forbs to provide competition against invasive species and provide a competitive advantage to desirable species on disturbed sites. Invasive species prevention also included implementation of applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Management and Prevention Strategy (2001).

b. Invasive species control Invasive species control methods would include treatment with one or a combination of 1) cultural [seeding] (1,150 acres), 2) mechanical [mowing, clipping] (100 acres), 3) manual [hand

I-19 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need pulling, grubbing with hand tools] (50 acres), and 4) chemical weed control techniques (50 acres). Chemical control would be implemented using only herbicides approved in the Regional Invasive Plant Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Application would be to individual plants using hand-held wands or by wicking [hand application with a protective glove]. Chemical control would be used as a complement to other control methods to increase the overall effectiveness of a treatment. Chemical treatments would be used only as a last resort after all other feasible methods have been considered.

4. Montane Meadow Restoration a. ORV Trail #697/#665 and Forest Road 1605 i. Obliterate, rehabilitate, and re-vegetate approximately 0.6 miles of system ORV Trail #697 to restore hydrologic function of montane meadow habitat (T16N,R13E,S24). ii. Construct approximately 1.3 miles of new system ORV Trail and a bridge crossing on a perennial stream (non-fish bearing) to relocate trail #697 around montane meadow habitat. iii. Obliterate, rehabilitate, and re-vegetate approximately 1.8 miles of non-system roads and trails to restore meadow habitat and reduce un-authorized travel routes (T16N,R13E,S23 and 24; T16N,R14E,S18). iv. Construct a bridge crossing at the trail #665 stream ford of Glass Creek to restore streambank stability and improve water quality (T16N,R13E,S24,SW¼). v. Relocate approximately 150 feet of OHV trail #697 from the floodplain on Nile Creek (T16N,R14E,S16,SW of SW) to restore riparian habitat.

5. Transportation System a. Construct a low-water crossing where Forest Road 1605 crosses Nile Creek. The original crossing was destroyed during a high-water event in 1996, and has been crossed since with an unimproved ford. This project proposes constructing a vented ford with two or three culvert pipes of 36” to 60” diameter, cut in half to give a natural substrate bottom to allow fish passage (see sketch, following). A beveled (30° to 45°) headwall would allow debris and water to flow over the crossing during periods of high water. Construction of additional drainage features would prevent Nile Creek from flowing down FR1605.

Figure I.8. Vented ford.

b. Close (reduce to Maintenance Level 1) up to 4.42 miles of Forest Service system road. Maintenance Level 1 is assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resource to

I-20 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

an acceptable level and perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur. Roads proposed for Maintenance Level 1 are:  1500134 (0.68 miles)  1605225 (0.93 miles)  1605228 (0.87 miles)  1605244 (0.41 miles)  1605245 (0.29 miles)  1605271 (1.24 miles) This does not include roads in the project area that are already Maintenance Level 1. Any of these currently closed roads would be reclosed after use for this project.

c. Decommission 5.22 miles of Forest Service system road. To decommission a road is to demolish, dismantle, remove, obliterate, and/or dispose a deteriorated or otherwise unneeded road or component of the road, including necessary cleanup work. This action eliminates the deferred maintenance needs of the road. Portions or components of a road may remain if they do not cause resource damage nor require maintenance. Roads proposed for Decommissioning are: 1500135 (1.2 miles) 1500137 (0.33 miles) 1500139 (0.62 miles) 1502119 (1.01 miles) 1503656 (0.29 miles) 1503665 (0.12 miles) 1506184 (1.02 miles) 1506646 (0.4 miles) 1605270 (0.23 miles)

6. Connected Actions The following actions are directly associated with the proposed actions mentioned above and are part of the Glass Angel project.

a. Approximately 3.0 miles of new temporary road will be constructed to facilitate timber harvest operations.

b. Approximately 2.8 miles of previously used temporary roads may be constructed to facilitate timber harvest operations.

i. Approximately 2 miles (part of the 2.8 miles identified in this section) of System Trail 697 would be closed during timber harvest operations and used as a temporary haul road. The trail would be rehabbed and returned to the trail system after harvest operations are completed.

c. Installation of erosion control structures, vegetation and grass seeding in areas vulnerable to erosion (e.g., firelines, skid roads, and landings). These areas may be fertilized as necessary to reestablish vegetation.

I-21 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

d. Planting of fire resilient, drought tolerant, and disease resistant tree species in regeneration harvest areas.

e. Combinations of ripping, sub-soiling, and/or scarifying of compacted soil on skid roads and landings in proposed timber harvest areas to reduce soil compaction and prepare seedbeds for vegetative planting.

f. Abatement of road dust using water.

g. Construction of hand fireline prior to underburning of either natural or activity created fuels.

h. Commercial and/or personal use firewood cutting may be allowed where compatible with other resource objectives and management direction.

i. Transporting biomass off-site for the production of biofuels and/or bioenergy.

The above describe the Proposed Action as it was presented in scoping. Alternatives will be discussed in Chapter II, and Chapter III will present the effects analysis for each alternative.

Decisions to be Made Based on this Analysis Based on the information contained in this environmental assessment, the Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, will make the following decisions:

 Whether or not to actively manage vegetation in the Glass Angel Project area toward a future condition that restores the pattern and structure inherent to the forest type, promotes low severity wildland fire in the dry forest type, and improves overall forest health and sustainability.

o If so, what type of treatments would be most successful? Are treatments such as commercial thinning (timber harvest), pre-commercial thinning and biomass removal, and prescribed fire the appropriate tools to move the vegetation toward a desired condition?

 If timber harvest is appropriate.

 Whether or not to implement integrated invasive plant species management strategies and if so, which ones?

 What design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring will best meet existing direction for protection and enhancement of resources such as late successional habitat, riparian habitat, visual quality, recreation use, and various resource needs, objectives, and desired future conditions within the project area?

 How will potential soil compaction issues be mitigated in context of the short time between entries?

 What, if any, roads or road segments will be closed and/or decommissioned?

I-22 Glass Angel Restoration Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

Scoping Summary and Public Involvement Distribution of the project initiation letter to the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members occurred on June 1, 2010. The IDT consisted of specialists in plant ecology, hydrology, soils, silviculture, fire and fuels planning, wildlife, fisheries, engineering and transportation systems, recreation, heritage resources and timber sale administration. Reviewing watershed analyses and existing condition statements submitted by the IDT members using the Decision Protocol Process, initiated the scoping process.

A government-to-government consultation letter was mailed to Harry Smiskin, Chairman, Yakama Nation on October 7, 2010. A mailing of approximately 280 scoping letters went out to the public on October 11, 2010 and an additional 110 letters were sent via email. The project was presented at the Trails and Wilderness Interest Group (TWIG) meeting on November 2, 2010 where an additional twenty-seven individuals were contacted and given the opportunity to comment.

Unresolved Conflicts Unresolved conflicts with the proposed action influence the development of alternatives or have a bearing on the decision to be made. Because design of the proposed vegetation management treatments met WFP and NWFP standards and guidelines, and Best Management Practices for LSR, MLSA, and Matrix land allocations, no unresolved conflicts were identified relating to vegetation treatments.

Public scoping identified a potential alternative relating to the proposed reroute of Trail 697 out of the meadow (see page II-30) to a new trail segment. Those who enjoy driving off-road vehicles on this trail expressed a desire to keep this experience (that of driving a trail that goes through a meadow) intact. In response to public comment, an adaptive management strategy was developed to could maintain some degree of this experience while fulfilling the purpose and need to protect, enhance, and rehabilitate montane meadows.

After considerable research relative to crossing FR1605/Nile Creek crossing with a vented ford, it was determined this action would require high structural strength to handle the heavy equipment used in timber harvest. This would be beyond what would be necessary for normal recreation and administrative traffic. Additionally, the cost of the vented ford would be expected to be three-to-four times that of a simple ford. Most importantly, effects to fisheries and riparian habitat would be within acceptable ranges with a simple, wet crossing as described in the Refined Proposed Action (see Chapter II). The action of building a vented ford was eliminated from further analysis (see Chapter II), and the original Proposed Action was refined to include a simple wet ford at the FR1605/Nile Creek crossing.

Because no unresolved conflicts relating to the proposed action were raised, a Refined Proposed Action was developed which kept all the components of the refined proposed action relating to vegetation (timber harvest, non-commercial, fuels, invasive plants), meadow, and road and trail actions, but with shorter reroute of Trail 697 (maintaining some meadow experience).

I-23 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

CHAPTER II

Alternatives Considered

Introduction This chapter is intended to describe the alternatives and how they were formulated. This chapter is the heart of the document and provides readers and the deciding official with an executive summary of the entire project, displaying the alternatives, mitigation, monitoring requirements and a comparison of effects of the alternatives. Alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study are also included.

Alternative Formulation Issues identified during scoping are used to generate alternatives. Because this project is being prepared under the most current Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act regulations, and there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, no alternatives to the proposed action are required for vegetation treatments [36 CFR Part 220, Section 220.7 (b) (2) (i)]. Under Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act regulations, evaluation of a no-action alternative may be considered through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action in an EA with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented [36 CFR Part 220, Section 220.7 (b) (2) (ii)]. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) considered all of the comments made during scoping (see scoping letters and potential unresolved conflict tracking chart in the project file), and where applicable adjusted the original proposed action to resolve those concerns. In some cases, this was addressed by adding project design criteria or mitigations to the project and in other cases the design of the project was modified. Instead of developing an independent No Action alternative, the vegetation, fuels and invasive species treatments sections in Chapter III incorporate a discussion of the expected effects to vegetation and fuels should current conditions continue, as well as, the resulting risks involved to give the reader and the deciding official enough information to understand the need for the project.

Chapter I described the Proposed Action, as it was presented in scoping (pages I-15 through I- 20). The Refined Proposed Action (RPA) presented in this chapter is a result of public scoping comments and specific site knowledge gained through thorough field reconnaissance by IDT specialists and refinements to EMDS inputs (see page I-2). As knowledge of the project area increased, specific proposed treatments, prescriptions, and locations could be detailed at a much more exacting scale than was possible in the initial Proposed Action. Unit boundaries were specifically identified and marked on the ground that were equal to or, in most cases smaller than, those in the Proposed Action. Unit layout incorporated mitigations for visual quality, and key habitat concerns related to the northern spotted owl and white headed woodpecker. The areas that were designated for harvest in the Proposed Action, but not in the Refined Proposed Action, were converted to treatment by prescribed underburn in most cases.

Further, the Refined Proposed Action seeks to integrate Adaptive Management Strategies as it can help management to adapt to uncertainty and changes in environmental conditions, economic markets, scientific and experiential knowledge, technologies, and social values (see page II-42). See pages I-2 and I-3 for a description of the process of project identification through the Proposed Action.

II-1 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.1. Determining the need for Refined Proposed Action(s) or Alternatives.

The Proposed Action

Field reconnaissance, EMDS refinements, public scoping, intra- and interagency scoping

Unresolved Conflicts?

No Yes

Alternative Development Refined Proposed Action (RPA)

No Action

Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study

FR1605/Nile Creek Crossing An alternative was developed for construction of a vented ford for the crossing of Nile Creek at the intersection of FR1605. The original crossing was destroyed during a high-water event in 1996, and has been crossed since with an unimproved ford. This alternative proposed constructing a vented ford with a natural substrate bottom to allow fish passage. A beveled (30° to 45°) headwall would allow debris and water to flow over the crossing during periods of high water. The ford would have been constructed with a removable center span (lid) to allow cleaning out accumulated debris. The point of crossing would have been widened 15 feet downstream. The road grade would have been lowered on the south side of the crossing. The cut bank on the south side of the ford has slumped in several spots filling the ditch line and delivering sediment to Nile creek at the ford. These slumps would have been removed and the ditch will be re-established. Several rolling dips would have been installed to direct runoff across the road into a settling ponds or vegetation filters before it reached the stream.

This alternative would require high structural strength to handle the heavy equipment used in timber harvest: up to eight-inch thick driving surfaces, and six-foot deep footings. This would be beyond what would be necessary for normal recreation and administrative traffic. Timber harvest would be expected to be completed in one-to-three years, with no re-entry occurring

II-2 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered for 25+ years, making a structure of this standard unnecessary for this time period. The effects to fisheries and riparian habitat would be within acceptable ranges with a simple, wet crossing as described in the Refined Proposed Action. The cost of the vented ford would be expected to be three-to-four times that of a simple ford.

Alternative Development A healthy functioning forest ecosystem is made up of many moving parts consisting of the interactions between vegetation, wildlife, aquatics, and natural disturbances such as fire. To attempt describing, evaluating, and quantifying all these interactions among individual species, forest communities and different disturbance regimes to direct landscape-level restoration plans is difficult and operationally beyond the scope of forest land managers. Alternatively a simpler method is to concentrate restoration plans around changing vegetation structure and composition – by doing so wildlife habitat, physical processes and spatial patterns of a forest ecosystem can all be addressed. To evaluate the landscape condition and inform the planning of forest ecosystem restoration the Ecosystem Management Decision Support framework (Reynolds, Rodriquez, & Bevens, 2003) (Reynolds & Hessburg, Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning, 2005) was employed (see Chapter I). The software was used in (1) evaluating how departed the landscape is from historic reference condition and (2) assess if activities were moving important landscape metrics towards the acceptable range of values as represented by historic conditions.

The EMDS results also allow for a prioritization of treatment areas that are motivated by stand- level conditions, because the model is directly informed by the departure of patch types from historic conditions. The departure from these reference conditions are measured by considering four different metrics which are defined in Table I.1. Three patch types were examined from both a silviculturist and wildlife biologist’s perspective to formulate treatments for the Glass Planning Area: Structure by Cover Type; Northern Spotted Owl Habitat; and Whiteheaded Woodpecker Habitat. Focusing on these patch types address the issues of maintaining insect and disease at endemic levels, maintaining large-diameter trees for structure, and maintaining habitat for these two indicator species and other associated wildlife.

Table II.1. Landscape Metrics used for Landscape Departure Analysis and their Definitions. Is the percentage the landscape composed of the corresponding patch type. This Percent Landscape (PL) metric allows a comparison of how patch composition has changed over time and is likely to change in the future. Is calculated from an adjacency matrix, which shows the frequency with which different pairs of patch types (including like adjacencies between the same patch Aggregation Index (AI) type) appear side-by-side on the map. This metric shows how similar patches relate to each other (i.e. proximity) in current landscapes, as compared with future and historical landscapes. How “clumped” are like patches to each other. Is a limited, but fundamental, aspect of landscape pattern that expresses the Patch Density (PD) number of patches on a per unit area basis that facilitates comparisons among landscapes of varying size. Quantifies the percentage of total landscape area represented by the largest patch. As such, it is a simple measure of dominance. This metric is important to Largest Patch Index (LPI) show how the amount of large patch area has changed over time and is likely to change in the future.

II-3 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Using the departure results of the four metrics for the three patch types, professional knowledge of the Glass Planning Area, and in consultation with the district fuels specialist, and pre-sale forester, the silviculturist and wildlife biologist devised theoretical prescriptions to change structure and cover type patches to meet landscape objectives (Table I.4, Figure 1). These prescriptions provided the basis for the Refined Proposed Action. In particular, because of their ease of understanding, the Percent Landscape and Largest Patch Index metrics were used as guidance for shaping and carving the landscape. These theoretical prescriptions were then modeled in GIS, and their effects on the three patch types were examined by reviewing their new departure results. As a consequence to theoretically changing Structure and Cover types for a number of patches in the Glass Planning Area, the changes to Structure by Cover by Potential Vegetation Group patches were also reviewed.

Table II.2. Theoretical Prescriptions for Primary Landscape Objective/Treatment Groups and their Rationale. Treatment Objective Group Rationale Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Percent Land of existing habitat is in the middle of the range for historic and future reference conditions (showing a little higher need for future expectations of warming trend). This suggests an opportunity to increase NRF (Nesting, Roosting, Foraging) habitat.8 Patch Density is within range, but at the high end for historic and outside the future range (high). This suggests a need to merge existing patches.1 Largest Patch Index is at the low range for historic and future reference conditions. This suggests a need to increase patch size.1 White Headed Woodpecker Habitat Percent Land of existing habitat is at the low end of the range for historic and future (showing a little higher need for the future expectation of climate change).1 Largest Patch Index is at the low end of the range for historic and future conditions. This suggests a need to increase patch size.1 Lodgepole pine Stem Exclusion Closed Departure analysis suggests that this structure and Canopy cover type does not presently exist in the sub- watershed. The range of Percent Land in the landscape under historic conditions is between 0 and 7%, and in the future it is estimated to be between 0 and 1.5%. In the area defined, there are enough structural and cover components that an opportunity exists to expand this structure and cover type in the sub-watershed. Corridor/Connectivity Habitat for Remain untreated, or treat to retain > 40% Canopy Various Species Closure to provide a dispersal corridor through Glass Landscape Treatment Area.1

8 Joan St. Hilaire, District Wildlife Biologist, personal communication.

II-4 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Treatment Objective Group Rationale Maintain Stands Within Landscape Though these stands were not identified to support Reference Conditions key indicator species such as the northern spotted owl and white headed woodpecker, elements of each stand’s structure, composition, and processes will be maintained and protected to support ecological processes throughout succession. Some of these elements include maintaining large/very large trees, snag/down wood recruitment, creating gaps and complex patches, reducing density of young/understory trees, and maintaining insect and disease to endemic levels.

Figure II.2. Defined Primary Landscape Objective/Treatment Prescriptions.

II-5 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Alternatives Considered In Detail

No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, no vegetation treatments (timber harvest, non- commercial thinning, fuels treatments, invasive plant treatments), road or trail closures, decommissioning, or relocations would take place. Roads and trail maintenance would occur as allowed by funding and the District maintenance schedule under separate NEPA authorities. System Trail 697 would remain unchanged. No bridge crossing of Glass Creek on Trail 665 would be constructed.

The Refined Proposed Action - Vegetation Treatments (Commercial Harvest, Pre- Commercial Thinning, Fuels Treatments, Integrated Invasive Species Management)

Commercial Timber Harvest Commercial harvest would occur on approximately 509 acres in dry and moist forest stands. Commercial harvest would remove merchantable size material (greater than 7 inches in diameter).

This project proposes 279 acres of individual tree selection harvest in the relatively dry forest type in the Glass portion of the project area. The post-treatment stands would be comprised of larger diameter, healthy, fire tolerant, drought tolerant, and insect and disease resistant overstory trees (e.g., ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), where available. In those stands where large diameter trees have already been removed, selected mid-diameter size class trees will be retained with the intent of growing these trees into a late and old structure.

Two hundred thirty-eight acres of the cool moist forest type will be designated for regeneration harvest. This treatment will focus on retaining old trees and those with the best potential to grow into large, old trees while removing dead trees and trees that are unlikely to grow large enough or live long enough to function as large, old trees. In many of the stands where treatment is proposed, past management has removed most of the old, large and very large trees. Many of the remaining trees have little or no potential for growth because of susceptibility to insects and diseases. Consequently, these stands are not currently functioning as old or late-successional forest and they are not capable of developing into it. The intent of regeneration harvest is to establish a new generation of long-lived, large trees to replace those removed by previous management. This new generation of trees will provide the foundation for a diversity of structure and composition needed in the cool, moist forest type to grow into late successional habitat.

Approximately 3 – 3½ million board feet of timber would be removed from the project areas as a result of the harvest treatments specified above. A combination of tractor and skyline logging systems would be used in the project area.

II-6 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Table II.3: Treatment methods. Unit Acres Harvest Logging Fuels Treatment10 # Prescription9 System 1 12 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 2 8 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 3 2 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 4 58 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 5 132 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 6 6 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 7 64 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 8 14 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 9 18 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 10 21 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 11 45 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 12 32 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 13 75 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 14 7 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 15 3 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 16 7 ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn 17 5 ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn

9 ITM = Individual Tree Marked 10 Under the Adaptive Management Strategy, the first option is for slash to be utilized. If market conditions do not allow for utilization, the slash may be burned, or piled and burned.

II-7 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.3. Structural Classes A forest’s current structure, composition, and pattern are influenced by many factors over its developmental history including competitive interactions between trees, disturbance, and microsite differences in resources (North, et al., 2004). Forest vegetation structure (commonly referred to in the Glass Angel EA as “structure” or “structural class”) is an ecologically significant attribute of vegetation considered to have three major components: (a) vertical structure; (b) horizontal structure; and (c) quantitative structure (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996). In this EA, the structures described by O’Hara et. al. (1996) and represented in Figure II.2 and II.3, are being used to describe current conditions and the desired future condition. Vertical structure will be described by the strata (e.g., understory, midstory, overstory, composition), while horizontal structure is being described by patch and gap size (pattern). Hessburg, et. al. provide a quantitative definition of the structure classes as the contribution to the canopy cover by several diameter classes (USDA Forest Service; Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1999). The quantitative definition of structure class can cover a very broad range of canopy cover for each diameter class. This can result in no apparent change in structural class from pre-management action, to immediately following management action, to 40+ years hence, as may be seen in the unit descriptions to follow.

II-8 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.4. Structural Classes – another representation

II-9 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

The following discussions will refer to “large” and “very large” trees. “Large” will be used to describe trees 20-25” dbh, while “very large” will refer to trees greater than 25” dbh. Stands are first stratified by the presence or absence of an old, large and very large tree foundation. This classification does not imply that “presence” means a full complement of such trees relative to their historical conditions. Stands within these strata were organized by their primary treatment objective (identified by landscape and stand evaluation using the Purpose and Need as a framework). Within each of these groups, stands were grouped by commercial or non- commercial treatment. The following describes general landscape objectives for specific ecosystem components (derived from the Purpose and Need (pages I-13 through I-15) for the preceding unit prescriptions. Unit specific objectives and prescribed treatments can be found in the Analysis File. Tables II.4 through II.11 and the associated Figures are a summary of objectives and prescriptions.

White Headed Woodpecker Habitat (Purpose and Need: Restore focal wildlife species habitat and reduce risk of habitat loss to uncharacteristic wildfire, page I-14)  Maintain or improve large and very large ponderosa pine with a total canopy cover <40% and understory canopy cover of <10%.  Maintain canopy gaps from 0.25 to 0.9 acres with as few as four large and/or very large trees per gap.  Maintain current of recruited ponderosa pine wildlife snags within or adjacent to gaps.

Large and Very Large and Old Trees (Purpose and Need: Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern), page I-14)  Protect and retain existing large and very large, and old trees. o Retain all old trees (Van Pelt score > 6 for ponderosa pine, > 7 for Douglas-fir and western larch. o Reduce ladder fuel around all old trees by removing all but 0 – 2 full crown, younger trees for 1 – 3 drip lines. o Retain only 0 – 2 younger trees for 1 – 3 drip lines around old ponderosa pine.  Retain trees >25” dbh.  Retain ponderosa pine, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, and dwarf mistletoe-free western larch as recruitment trees.  Retain 20 -25” dbh Douglas-fir except to meet white woodpecker, old ponderosa pine release, or Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe objectives.  Retain dwarf mistletoe-free Douglas-fir, which had >40% live crown ratio prior to western spruce budworm infection, as recruitment trees.

Snags and Down Wood (Purpose and Need: Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern), page I-14 and; Restore focal wildlife species habitat and reduce risk of habitat loss to uncharacteristic wildfire, page I-14 )  Retain wildlife snags with dead, broken, and/or forked tops, or obvious signs of wildlife use or Douglas-fir mistletoe brooms. o Buffer other old trees or dead topped trees >25” dbh that are a potential safety hazard. . Do not attempt to buffer snags that are within 1½ tree lengths of a road o Wildlife trees will be provided by complex patches, old trees, and retained Douglas- fir mistletoe clumps.

II-10 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

 Retain some dwarf mistletoe infected trees. o All old Douglas-fir. o All >25” dbh Douglas-fir. o Clumps of three or more 20 – 25” dbh Douglas-fir. o All old western larch. o All >20” dbh western larch. o Spike-topped 15 -20” dbh western larch with a high level of mistletoe infection.

Spatial Pattern (Purpose and Need: Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern), page I-14)  Provide gaps by removing grand fir, lodgepole pine, small diameter (<7” dbh) Douglas-fir, and drip line removal as described above in Large and Very Large and Old Trees. Large pine are distributed widely enough that they will end up next to or within gaps.  Provide clumps by retaining old trees along with younger, early seral overstory in groups of up to 200 ft2 of basal area.  Provide complex patches around mistletoe infected Douglas-fir, in wet area, or around high value snags (see discussion above) by retaining very large grand fir, western white pine, and/or Engelmann spruce.

Young and Understory Trees (Purpose and Need: Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern), page I-14)  Retain all ponderosa pine, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, and western larch not infected with mistletoe.  Retain dwarf mistletoe-free Douglas-fir, which had >40% live crown ratio prior to western spruce budworm infection, as recruitment trees.  Limit the influence of dwarf mistletoe. o Remove individual, and clumps of two, infected Douglas-fir 20 – 25” dbh and all <20” dbh. o Remove all infected western larch <20” dbh with a moderate to high level of infection.

Insects and Diseases (Purpose and Need: Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern), page I-14 and; Allow natural processes to function that will provide resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change, page I-15)  Retain complex patches with high levels of insect and disease host species and susceptibility.

Meadow restoration (Purpose and Need: Protect, enhance, and rehabilitate montane meadows, page I-16) Vegetation treatments here are intended to emulate mixed severity fire to meet the following specific objectives.  Protect old and large trees, notably western larch, around the meadow perimeter.  Protect whitebark pine trees.

II-11 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Actions to meet the Objectives  For the stand of large, old larch on the north side of meadow (stands 328 and 258), see the actions for Glass Unit 13.  For the meadow perimeter on the north and west edges and interior islands: Non- commercial and/or commercial mechanical work to prepare the area for burning, e.g. remove ladder and surface fuels around large, old larch. Adjacent to Unit 13, fall whips where logging slash is too light to carry fire.  In areas containing Alaska yellow cedar and seeps: Exclude mechanical work and take a passive approach to fire: Do not actively ignite prescribed fire, but do not discourage prescribed fire from other stands from burning through.  In the multi-story patch dominated by large spruce in the northern part of stand 86: Exclude fire if possible.  In the patch of large subalpine fire with considerable insect and decay evidence in the center part of stand 86: Actively ignite prescribed fire to create a canopy opening of 30-80% (20-70% crown closure).  In the patch of scattered large, old larch and some Douglas-fir over a younger cohort of mountain hemlock, larch, yellow cedar, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and a few whitebark pine in the northwest extension of stand 175: Use fire with discretion to reduce surface fuel and, as a collateral effect, create 10 to 40% canopy openings. Mechanically pretreat fuels around whitebark pine as needed by pulling slash from under the drip line of each tree to be retained.  For whitebark pine seedlings and saplings in stand 42: Thin heavily around whitebark pine saplings to create an extended period with limited crown competition.

Left blank for formatting

II-12 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.4. Glass Prescriptions. Old and Large Tree Foundation Present Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 3, 4, 5 Restore focal wildlife species Protect old, Ponderosa Pine cover type. Thin from below to remove most habitat and reduce the risk of large/very large trees, Stem Exclusion Open Canopy, Young younger grand fir and Douglas-fir, 71, 206 habitat loss to uncharacteristic especially ponderosa Forest Multi-Strata, or Old Forest especially those around old pines and wildfire pine. Single Strata those that aren’t growing well.

Restore core components of the Create and maintain a Large ponderosa pine, many of them Remove dwarf mistletoe infected ecosystem (structure, low density decayed or with dead tops dominate trees except for the old, very large, composition, and pattern) understory. a low density forest. Understory and a few clumps of large trees. density is low. Low levels of down Reduce the potential for logs/CWD. Use prescribed fire to reduce surface introduction and spread, and fuel and to kill firs too treat established populations of small/expensive to be killed by invasive species mechanical means.

White Headed Woodpecker habitat

See representations of current and expected conditions (Figures II.5, II.6, II.7, and II.8) on the following page.

II-13 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Figure II.5. FVS representation of the current condition of Figure II.6. FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 4: Unit 4: Young Forest Multi-Strata. Stem Exclusion Open Canopy.

Figure II.7. FVS representation of the current condition of Figure II.8. FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of Unit 5: Unit 5: Young Forest Multi-Strata. Stem Exclusion Open Canopy.

II-14 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Table II.5. Glass Prescriptions. Old and Large Tree Foundation Present Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 369, 450, 420, 475, Restore focal wildlife species Maintain old, All cover types. No treatment for stands with high 351, 442 habitat and reduce the risk of large/very large trees Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy, fuel loads. habitat loss to uncharacteristic and old/late seral Young Forest Multi-Strata, wildfire conditions. Understory Reinitiation In stands with lower fuel loads or more fire restistant structure, use Restore core components of the Large trees, mostly early seral, with prescribed fire to reduce surface fuel ecosystem (structure, an understory mostly composed of and create some canopy gaps. composition, and pattern) late seral trees. Snags and down wood are abundant. Canopy cover is Reduce the potential for variable but generally high. introduction and spread, and treat established populations of invasive species

Closed canopy corridor/connectivity habitat for various species and functions. Refer to Figures II.3 and II.4 for generic representations of Old Forest Multi-Strata (current condition) and Young Forest Multi-Strata (expected post treatment condition).

II-15 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.6. Glass Prescriptions. Old and Large Tree Foundation Present Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, Restore core components of the Protect old, large/very Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or On relatively dry sites, thin from 14, 15, 17 ecosystem (structure, large, usually early western larch cover types. below to remove most younger grand composition, and pattern) seral trees. fir and Douglas-fir, especially those 123, 239, 276 Stem Exclusion Open Canopy, Young around old pines and those that Restore focal wildlife species Restore departed Forest Multi-story aren’t growing well. In addition, on habitat and reduce the risk of stand level conditions more mesic sites, remove dead habitat loss to uncharacteristic for: spatial pattern; lodgepole pine and retain 20-30% of wildfire snags/CWD; and the stand area in complex patches. insect/disease. Allow natural processes to Remove dwarf mistletoe infected function that will provide trees except for the old and very resilience to uncharacteristic large, and a few clumps of large trees. wildfire and climate change Retain some infected larch but kill them in place to minimize infection of Reduce the potential for regeneration. introduction and spread, and treat established populations of Use prescribed fire to reduce surface invasive species fuels and to kill firs too small/expensive to be killed by Maintain stands within landscape mechanical means. reference conditions. See representations of current and expected conditions (Figures II.9, II.10, II.11. and II.12) on the following page.

II-16 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Figure II.9. FVS representation of the current condition of Figure II.10. FVS representation of the expected post-treatment Unit 8: Young Forest Multi-Strata. condition of Unit 8: Stem Exclusion Open Canopy.

Figure II.11. FVS representation of the current condition of Figure II.12. FVS representation of the expected post-treatment Unit 13: Young Forest Multi-Strata. condition of Unit 13: Stem Exclusion Open Canopy.

II-17 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.7. Glass Prescriptions. Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 5 Restore focal wildlife species Establish/protect This stand will not meet these Retain about 20% of the stand area in habitat and reduce the risk of young ponderosa conditions for several decades. complex patches. habitat loss to uncharacteristic pines. Maintain wildfire conditions for Ponderosa Pine cover type. Outside complex patches, remove development of white Open Stem Exclusion, Young Forest lodgepole pine, grand fir, and Restore core components of the headed woodpecker Multi-Strata, or Old Forest Single Douglas-fir that aren’t growing well. ecosystem (structure, habitat. Strata Retain enough trees to maintain composition, and pattern) snag/CWD functions. Large ponderosa pines, many of Reduce the potential for them decayed or with dead tops Remove dwarf mistletoe infected introduction and spread, and dominate a low density forest. trees except for the old and very treat established populations of Understory density is low. Low large, and a few clumps of large trees. invasive species levels of down logs/CWD. Retain some infected larch but kill them in place to minimize infection of White Headed Woodpecker regeneration. habitat Use prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels, to create a seedbed, and to kill firs too small/expensive to be killed by mechanical means.

Plant ponderosa pine. Refer to Figures II.3 and II.4 for generic representations of Young Forest Multi-Strata (current condition) and Stem Exclusion Open Canopy (expected post treatment condition).

II-18 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.8. Glass Prescriptions. Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 7 Restore focal wildlife species Establish/protect This stand will not meet these Retain about 20% of the stand area in habitat and reduce the risk of young Douglas-firs. conditions for several decades. complex patches. 118, 460, 480, 386 habitat loss to uncharacteristic Maintain conditions wildfire for development of Douglas-fir cover type. Outside complex patches, Kill or northern spotted owl. Understory Reinitiation, Young remove trees with little or no Restore core components of the habitat. Forest Multi-Strata, or Old Forest potential to get large or old. These ecosystem (structure, Multi-Strata are mostly lodgepole pine, grand fir, composition, and pattern and Douglas-fir that aren’t growing Overstory is composed of large/very well. Retain enough trees to maintain Reduce the potential for large trees, more than half are snag/CWD functions. introduction and spread, and Douglas-fir. The tree canopy is treat established populations of multi-layered with total canopy Remove dwarf mistletoe infected invasive species cover greater than 70%. Douglas-fir trees except for the old and very wildlife snags and large down logs large. Retain some infected larch but Northern Spotted Owl habitat are abundant. kill them in place to minimize infection of regeneration.

Use prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels, to create a seedbed, and to kill firs too small/expensive to be killed by mechanical means.

Plant Douglas-fir. See representations of current and expected conditions (Figures II.13 and II.14) on the following page.

II-19 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.13. FVS representation of the current condition of Unit Figure II.14. FVS representation of the expected post-treatment condition of 7: Young Forest Multi-Strata. Unit 7: Stem Exclusion Open Canopy.

II-20 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.9. Glass Prescriptions. Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 12, 16 Restore core components of the Protect old, large/very Lodgepole pine cover type. Remove, mostly late seral, trees ecosystem (structure, large, usually early Lodgepole pine is dominant with under 20 inches with little or no 88, 227 composition, and pattern) seral trees. Establish other species contributing less than potential to get large and old or lodgepole pine in units 20% each to stand density. provide wildlife habitat. Retain live Restore focal wildlife species 12 and 16. lodgepole. habitat and reduce the risk of Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy. habitat loss to uncharacteristic Restore departed Canopy cover of trees greater than Maintain structural complexity in wildfire stand level conditions five inches exceeds 70% with only a units 12, 16 and stand 227. Retain for: spatial pattern; few smaller ones present. enough trees to maintain snag/CWD Reduce the potential for snags/CWD; and functions. introduction and spread, and insect/disease. treat established populations of Retain dwarf mistletoe infected invasive species Douglas-fir greater than 20 inches. Retain some infected larch but kill Amalgamate as a large patch of them in place to minimize infection of lodgepole pine-Closed Stem regeneration. Exclusion Use prescribed fire to restore spatial pattern and to reduce the proportion of small fir and hemlock that are too expensive to remove by mechanical means. See representations of current and expected conditions (Figures II.15 and II.16) on the following page.

II-21 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.15. FVS representation of the current condition of Unit 12: Figure II.16. FVS representation of the expected post-treatment Young Forest Multi-Strata. condition of Unit 12: Stem Exclusion Open Canopy.

II-22 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.10. Glass Prescriptions Old and Large Tree Foundation Absent Commercial Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Desired Stand Condition Prescription Timber Sale Objective Unit(s) Primary Landscape Objective; Non-Commercial stand number 1, 2 Restore core components of the Release growing space Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or Unit 1: Remove all overstory trees ecosystem (structure, in unit 1 to young western larch cover types. under 20 inches with little or no 419, 220, 188, 68, composition, and pattern) western larch. potential to grow large or old. Kill in 229, 189, 225, 296 1 and 2 Stem Exclusion Open place dwarf mistletoe infected WL Restore focal wildlife species Establish young Canopy, others Stem Exclusion over 20. habitat and reduce the risk of Douglas-fir in unit 2. Closed Canopy, or Young Forest habitat loss to uncharacteristic Multi-story Unit 2: Kill or remove trees with little wildfire Protect the few or no potential to get large or old. existing old, large/very These are mostly lodgepole pine, Allow natural processes to large, usually early grand fir, and Douglas-fir that aren’t function that will provide seral, trees. growing well. Retain enough trees to resilience to uncharacteristic maintain snag/CWD functions as wildfire and climate change Maintain stand level clumps. conditions for: Reduce the potential for snags/CWD and In other stands, maintain structure introduction and spread, and ensure insects/disease stage at a lower density and change treat established populations of do not compromise cover type to meet landscape invasive species growth of young trees. objective.

Maintain stands within landscape Use prescribed fire to restore spatial reference conditions. pattern, reduce fuels, and to kill firs too small/expensive to be killed by mechanical means.

II-23 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered Table II.11. Angel Prescriptions for Prescribed Fire. Old and Large Tree Foundation Present or Absent Purpose and Need; Primary Stand Objective Desired Landscape Condition Prescription

Primary Landscape Objective;

Restore core components of the Continue the encouragement/propagation Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or Apply prescribed fire to approximately ecosystem (structure, composition, of a desirable composition of fire resilient western larch cover types. 60% of the project area with the and pattern) species within the dry forest type objective of blackening 60-80% of the ponderosa pine Stands that have been acres treated Restore focal wildlife species Douglas-fir commercially harvested within the habitat and reduce the risk of western larch last ten years (Rattle, Buzzer, Disrupt continuity between ground habitat loss to uncharacteristic Venom, or Fang Timber Sales): fuels and live crowns by utilizing fire to wildfire Promote conditions in which tree stand Stem Exclusion Open Canopy, thin seedling and sapling size trees and vulnerability to wildfire would be within Understory Re-initiation. raising the height to live crown Allow natural processes to function the normal range of variability (normal (pruning) of live mid- and overstory that will provide resilience to departure from the natural fire regime). Stands that have not been trees uncharacteristic wildfire and climate commercially harvested within the change Maintain stand level conditions for: last ten years: Stem Exclusion Kill or remove trees with little or no snags/CWD and ensure insects/disease do Closed Canopy, Old Forest Single potential to get large or old. These are Reduce the potential for not compromise growth of young trees. Story. mostly grand fir and Douglas-fir that introduction and spread, and treat aren’t growing well. Retain enough established populations of invasive Protect nesting/roosting/foraging habitat Stands with more than endemic trees to maintain snag/CWD functions species for the northern spotted owl. levels of insects or diseases: Stand as clumps. Initiation or Stem Exclusion Open Develop structure and pattern to Protect heritage resources identified by Canopy. Use prescribed fire to restore spatial allow natural processes (fire, insects, District/Forest Archeologist. pattern, reduce fuels, and to kill firs too and disease) to function within an small/expensive to be killed by envelope of conditions defined by the mechanical means. intersection of the normal (historic) range of variability and the future range of variability associated with a warming climate Refer to Figures II.3 and II.4 for generic representations of Understory Re-initiation and Stem Exclusion Open Canopy (current condition of those stands harvested within the last ten years), Young Forest Multistory and Old Forest Multistory (current condition of those stands not harvested within the last ten years). See the Desired Landscape Condition column, above, and refer tables II.3 and II.4 for generic representations.

II-24 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.17. Refined Proposed Action – vegetation management (vicinity)

II-25 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.18. Refined Proposed Action – vegetation management: Glass project area

II-26 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.19. Refined Proposed Action – vegetation management: Angel project area

II-27 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Non-commercial (small diameter) Thinning Approximately 274 acres of non-commercial (<7” diameter) trees in the cool moist forest type would be thinned. Seventy-two (72) acres of non-commercial thinning would take place in the warm dry forest type. Young managed stands exhibit very different structure than the old forest structures they replaced, with higher tree densities and lower variation in tree size and canopy height. In addition, current young forests may be more densely stocked than the young stands that developed into old forest structures. These observations have led to the suggestion that thinning, by fostering development of old forest stand structure, may accelerate development of ecological communities more similar to those found in late successional forests.

Fuels Treatments 7. Commercial harvest areas Activity created and naturally occurring fuels will be treated in the commercial thinning and regeneration harvest areas described above (approximately 509 acres) to reduce hazardous fuels accumulation and eliminate undesirable tree species. Treatment for activity created fuels could include transporting tree limbs and tops to landings, underburning, chipping or grinding, and/or mastication.

8. Non-commercial thinning areas Up to 346 acres of non-commercial thinning slash would be treated independent of commercial harvest areas or those being treated by prescribed fire alone. A combination of commercial harvest created slash and non-commercial thinning slash will be implemented on approximately 509 acres. This 509 acres of fuels treatment is not an additional area to be treated, but is displayed to indicate areas of higher ground fuel loading. Fuels treatments could include underburning, hand piling, chipping or grinding, and/or mastication.

9. Natural fuels treatment Prescribed burning will occur on a maximum of 7,544 acres that are not associated with harvest treatments or non-commercial thinning. This includes 6,893 acres of natural fuels underburn in the Angel portion of the project area, and 651 acres in the Glass project area.

10. Biomass utilization Biomass will be made available as technology and markets allow as a utilization option rather than being disposed of through conventional means such as burning. Opportunities may be made available to research universities and industry representatives interested in developing technology for the conversion of biomass into biofuels and/or bioenergy.

Table II.12. Fuels Treatments Fuels treatment of commercial harvest generated slash 509 acres Fuels treatment of non-commercial thinning slash 346 acres Prescribed fire only in the Glass project area 651 acres All prescribed fire in the Glass project area11 1,506 acres Prescribed fire only in the Angel project area 6,893 acres Total acres of prescribed fire12 8,399 acres

11 509 acres of commercial harvest slash, plus 346 acres of non-commercial thinning slash, plus 651 acres of prescribed fire only 12 1,506 acres in the Glass project area, plus 6,893 acres in the Angel project area II-28 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Invasive Species Management The proposed action for invasive plant management within the Glass Angel project area emphasizes prevention, early detection, early treatment, restoration of affected habitat, monitoring and long-term site management. This alternative proposes to implement a fully integrated invasive plant control management strategy on up to 1,150 acres (approx. 10% of the Glass Angel project area) to manage existing invasive plant populations and to prevent further encroachment into presently un-infested areas as a result of implementation of the proposed action. This strategy would provide a treatment scenario that utilizes one or a combination of the following methods: 1) preventing spread or introduction (equipment cleaning), 2) manual control (pulling, digging, grubbing or hoeing by hand or with hand-tools), 3) mechanical control (mowing, clipping), 4) cultural control (planting and/or seeding of desirable vegetation, mulching) and 5) chemical control.

Chemical control would include the application of the herbicides picloram (Tordon™) and/or the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo™) to individual plants, or groups of plants, using hand- held nozzles attached to backpack sprayers or to tanks mounted on trucks. Adjuvants (e.g. surfactants) such as Agridex™ and dyes would be mixed into the tank containing the herbicide to increase absorption of the herbicide by the plant and as a temporary indicator of the presence of herbicide in a given area. In riparian zones or within 100 feet of standing or running water, only the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo™) would be utilized. Application of glyphosate in riparian zones would be by wicking or wiping individual plants, or backpack spraying individuals using hand-held nozzles. Only wicking and wiping would be implemented within 50 feet of a stream-course (as measured from the edge of the stream bank). Within the adjacent 50 to 100 foot buffer, wicking, wiping, and backpack spraying would be implemented.

This proposed weed management strategy is a multi-phase approach providing for repeated treatment over time using a combination of the above methods. Proposed invasive species management is expected to occur annually over the life of this decision. Prevention is the preferred method for managing invasive plant populations, in particularly, with respect to sites not presently occupied by invasive species. Prevention practices would include coordinating and scheduling of road maintenance activities, inspecting gravel prior to use and pretreatment where weeds are found, aggressive re-vegetation and restoration of newly disturbed soil by rapid seeding and planting of desirable vegetation, educating the public in prevention awareness, working with user-groups to identify and report invasive plants promptly, and recognizing and proactively inspecting susceptible habitats within the project area. Prevention would also include inspection, removal and disposal of weed seed and plant parts by workers and forest-users.

In areas currently occupied by invasive species, manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments would also be implemented. On these sites, herbicides would be an important early practice implemented to gain initial control of invasive plant populations. Herbicide treatment would be immediately followed with seeding of desirable vegetation. As prevention and initial control treatments are implemented and populations decline, herbicide treatment will ultimately be replaced with the manual, mechanical and cultural methods identified previously.

Specific treatment locations within the Glass Angel project area may include: road and trail corridors, landings, dispersed camping and parking areas, gravel pits, and other isolated patches of weed occurrence. Maps of inventoried dispersed camping areas, parking areas, and gravel pits are contained in the Glass Angel project EA analysis file. Treatment of invasive species

II-29 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered within plant communities which occur away from roadways and trails would be by spot treatment of individual plants, or groups of plants, using hand-held nozzles attached to backpack sprayers. Treatment along open roads would be within the shoulder easement and would include approximately 8 ft of treatment area on each side of the roadway; measured from the edge of the traveled area of the road. The treatment area on maintenance level 1 roads would include 12 ft of roadbed, as well as, 6 ft on each side of the roadway (24 ft total).

The highest priority for treatment would include eradication of new species, eradication of new infestations, and areas where high traffic overlap with sources of infestation such as proposed activity areas, dispersed campsites, parking areas, road corridors, and gravel pits. Infestations within key deer and elk habitat and infestations adjacent to State and private ownerships are also identified as high priority for treatment. Control and containment (when control is not feasible) of existing large infestations of these species in other locations are considered the next priority for treatment.

Specific Standards (USDA Forest Service, 2005), Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, 2002), and Design Criteria that would be implemented as part of this proposed action are listed in Appendix C.

Connected Actions Directly Associated with Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatment, and Invasive Species Management Activities

a. Approximately 3.24 miles of new temporary road will be constructed to facilitate timber harvest operations.

b. Approximately 1.94 miles of previously used temporary roads may be constructed to facilitate timber harvest operations.

i. Approximately 1.36 miles (part of the 1.94 miles identified in this section) of System Trail 697 would be closed during timber harvest operations and used as a haul road. The trail would be cleared of harvest created obstacles and returned to the trail system after harvest operations are completed.

c. Thinning, incidental to (caused by) prescribed fire. Prescribed fire will likely result in passive-to-active torching of small, medium, and large diameter trees. As size class increases, the proportion of trees in that size class that will torch will decrease.

d. Installation of erosion control structures, vegetation and grass seeding in areas vulnerable to erosion (e.g., firelines, skid roads, and landings). These areas may be fertilized as necessary to reestablish vegetation.

e. Planting of fire resilient, drought tolerant, and disease resistant tree species in regeneration harvest areas.

f. Sub-soiling of compacted soil on skid roads and landings in proposed timber harvest areas to reduce soil compaction and prepare seedbeds for vegetative planting.

II-30 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

g. Abatement of road dust using water. When drafting from fish bearing streams, the instantaneous drafting rate will not exceed 10 percent of the current stream flow. Water for dust abatement will be drafted from the following sources:

i. FR1605227 stream crossing (non fish bearing) 5 miles upstream of occupied MCR steelhead and bull trout habitat ii. FR1605 stream crossing of Nile Creek (fish bearing), 5 miles upstream of occupied MCR steelhead and bull trout habitat iii. Off channel pond (non fish-bearing) off of the 1603 road iv. FR1611 stream crossing of Nile Creek, fish bearing, MCR steelhead spawning habitat, bull trout foraging habitat v. FR1601 stream crossing of Nile Creek, fish bearing, MCR steelhead spawning habitat, bull trout foraging habitat

h. Construction of hand fireline prior to underburning of either natural or activity created fuels.

i. Commercial and/or personal use firewood cutting may be allowed where compatible with other resource objectives and management direction.

j. Transporting biomass off-site for the production of biofuels and/or bioenergy.

Travel and Access Management The interdisciplinary team analyzed the road system to identify roads that are redundant to another road, causing unacceptable resource impacts, or are located in otherwise undesirable locations. After analyzing effects to aquatic resources, wildlife, and human use (including those roads required by law or agreement, need for fire prevention and suppression, and forest management needs), a recommendation was made by the IDT. Possible recommendations include one of four categories:  No Action; maintain at current Maintenance Level. This could include roads that are currently closed (Maintenance Level 1)  Change Maintenance Level. The road(s) indicated are being physically maintained at a level other than that indicated by the internal (to the Forest Service) tracking database. This would allow a decision that would permit the database to reflect the actual maintenance being performed.  Decommission. Closure with a berm, recontouring slopes and/or planting of native vegetation to return the roadbed to a more natural appearance and removing these as a part of the road system.  Reduce to or maintain at Maintenance Level 1/Storage. The road is redundant to the current system, but the IDT judged that the road may be used within the next 10-25 years for a silvicultural entry. Decommissioning the road, and then rebuilding would cause more resource damage than maintaining it at the current Maintenance Level. Roads identified for Storage meet the definition of Maintenance Level 1, but could have culverts removed. These recommended road management activities would not be part of the timber sale and would not utilized timber sale generated funds for their closure. Closures would take place as funding becomes available.

II-31 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

FR1605 Crossing The Refined Proposed Action would construct a simple ford at the FR1605 crossing. A simple ford would not call for an in-stream structure as is the case with a vented ford. The ford would be hardened using 1 foot by 6 foot by 6 inches thick cement planks placed side by side creating a twelve foot running surface. The planks would extend approximately 15-30 feet out of the water on each side of the ford. The wetted area of the ford would be a natural rock bottom. See the example in Figure II.18. The running surface will be hardened to reduce sediment generation. The road grade will be lowered on the south side of the crossing. The cut bank on the south side of the ford has slumped in several spots filling the ditch line and delivering sediment to Nile creek at the ford. These slumps will be removed and the ditch will be reestablished. Several rolling dips will be installed to direct runoff across the road into a settling ponds or vegetation filters before it reaches the stream. The point of crossing will be widened 15 feet downstream.

Figure II.20. Representation of a simple ford.

Road Closures The closure (reduce to Maintenance Level 1) of up to 4.42 miles of Forest Service system road would be accomplished under this alternative. Maintenance Level 1 is assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resource to an acceptable level and perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur. Roads proposed for Maintenance Level 1 are: 1500134 (0.68 miles) 1605225 (0.93 miles) 1605228 (0.87 miles) 1605244 (0.41 miles) 1605245 (0.29 miles) 1605271 (1.24 miles) This does not include roads in the project area that would be used by the project and are currently Maintenance Level 1. These roads would be returned to Maintenance Level 1 (closed) after project completion.

II-32 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Road Decommissioning This alternative also proposes the decommissioning of 4.71 miles of Forest Service system road. Actions that decommission a road include reestablishing natural drainage patterns and stream channels, out-sloping the road surface, scattering debris on the roadbed, ripping the soil and planting vegetation on the road bed, blocking the entrance to a road, and posting closure signs. This action eliminates the deferred maintenance needs of the road. Portions or components of a road may remain if they do not cause resource damage nor require maintenance. Roads proposed for Decommissioning within the Glass Angel project area are: 1500135 (1.1 miles) 1500137 (0.33 miles) 1500139 (0.62 miles) 1502119 (0.6 miles) 1502605 (0.1 miles) 1503656 (0.29 miles) 1503665 (0.12 miles) 1506184 (1.02 miles) 1506646 (0.3 miles) 1605270 (0.23 miles)

II-33 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.21: Proposed Action – proposed road closures and decommissioning; proposed FR1605 ford improvement (vicinity)

II-34 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.22: Proposed road closures and decommissioning; proposed FR1605 ford improvement; Glass project area.

II-35 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.23: Proposed road closures and decommissioning; Angel project area.

II-36 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Trail 697 Reroute This alternative would reroute the east-to-west portion of the Trail 697 that crosses through the meadow. Refer to Figures II.25 and II.26. The reroute would move the trail to the north, inside of the tree line. The existing east-to-west section of trail would be decommissioned by decompacting the trail surface, adding drainage features, and seeding the trail. The trail reroute would link to the north-to-south portion of Trail 697. The rerouted trail would be constructed to an average width of 7 feet; the trail would be located to avoid cutting 10” DBH or bigger trees. The existing trail would be reconstructed to improve drainage. Approximately 100 cubic yards of material will be imported by dump truck to fill ruts in the trail. Rolling humps will be constructed in the trail to direct water off to the side of the trail to prevent water from running directly down the trail. Grass grid block(s) would be laid in the trail 10 feet wide by 300 feet long to harden the surface and to prevent erosion.

A bridge crossing on Trail 665 would be constructed to replace the existing stream ford, to restore streambank stability and improve water quality.

Adaptive Management This Adaptive Management approach to the Trail 697 reroute would construct approximately 1.6 miles of new system ORV trail and a bridge crossing on a perennial stream around the montane meadow(s) depicted in Figures II.25 and II.26. Approximately 0.75 miles of Trail 697 would be obliterated, rehabilitated, and revegetated to restore hydrologic function to the montane meadow(s). Reconstruction would take place after timber harvest and fuels treatment to minimize the need to clear the trail reroute of standing trees or coarse woody debris. This action would also relocated approximately 150 feet of Trail 697 from the floodplain on Nile Creek to restore riparian habitat. The relocated trail would be an average of seven feet in width. See the Adaptive Management section (page II.46), for the monitoring criteria that would trigger the Adaptive Management response.

Left blank for formatting

II-37 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.24. Meadow/Trail 697 location (vicinity) within the Glass project area. Red lines show the approximate west and east edges of the meadow in relation to the lower, project area map.

II-38 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.25. Trail 697 Reroute: Refined Proposed Action and Adaptive Management Response

II-39 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Monitoring Monitoring is designed to determine if the resource objectives of the Glass Angel Restoration Project are met. The results will be used to verify implementation and effectiveness of selected mitigation and protection measures in a timely manner. A longer term resource recovery trend will also be established with the use of these monitoring results.

If preliminary data from any monitoring indicates that laws, regulations, or stated objectives are not being met, the activity will immediately be modified to remedy or ameliorate the problem. Implementation monitoring is specifically designed to provide this feedback during ongoing operations. Monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures may also be timely enough for the introduction of modifications that improve the outcome. Monitoring also drives adaptive management (see following section).

II-40 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Table II.13. Monitoring Items Monitoring Item Monitoring Objective Metric Frequency/ Completed by Duration Diversity and number of snags Determine if prescribed fire Number of snags create 2-5 years after prescribed fire Wildlife created with underburning results in a net loss or net (ave./acre) as a direct result gain on the average number of prescribed burning of snags/acre, and species being recruited

Design Criteria Effectiveness- Implementation of mitigation Wildlife/Ecology PETS, MIS, &NWFP species as described (page II-19).

Creation of white headed Determine if treatment was Presence by detection counts Immediately post-treatment Wildlife woodpecker habitat effective at creating white and 2-5 years post-treatment headed woodpecker habitat in Angel underburn and Glass units 4 & 5

Invasive plant species control Effectiveness of treatment Specialist occular estimate of Until undesirable species are Ecology/Botany/ and prevention percent target species reduced and/or desirable Range Mgt. reduction vegetation is reestablished

Grass, forbs, and shrub Validate that treatment is Degree of departure 2-5 years post Ecology/ composition and structure having desired/predicted implementation effect Silviculture/ Range Mgt.

Forest structure, pattern, and Monitor marking for Degree of departure During layout/marking Silviculture/ function consistency with the proposed action Timber Mgt./Fuel Planning

Natural regeneration Ensure that adequate natural Stems/acre Five years or less after harvest Silviculture & Reforestation regeneration is being established

II-41 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Monitoring Item Monitoring Objective Metric Frequency/ Completed by Duration Heritage property protection Effectiveness of mitigations to Degree of protection vs. During project Heritage Resources ensure protection of heritage damage implementation properties

Maintenance of opportunities Determine if any, or to what Degree of loss of opportunity During project Heritage Resources for traditional tribal practices degree, traditional tribal as determined by direct implementation practices are affected communication by tribal members

Fuels treatment Effectiveness of fuel reduction Tons/acre, Within 2 years of treatment Fuel planning treatments and fire hazard reduction fire intensity

3 Human health as affected by Monitor effects to human PM2.5 µ/m , visibility During prescribed fire Fuel planning air quality health, minimization of air activities quality degradation

Dispersed Recreation – Public Assess effects of Number of sites impacted Post implementation Recreation/Soils Use, availability & impacts prescriptions, operations, and treatments on the recreation experiences of forest users

Road management actions Ensure that road closure and Road use, closure compliance Up to 5 years post treatment Engineering obliteration methods were effective

Post project fisheries habitat Validate effectiveness of Area weighted average Post treatment, for 5 years Hydrology/ quality (sediment) design criteria percent of fines (< 1.0 mm) in Nile Creek spawning habitat Fisheries

Water Quality monitoring Ensure that mitigation criteria Yes/no as described During implementation Hydrology/ (herbicide treatment areas) were implemented as described Fisheries

II-42 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Monitoring Item Monitoring Objective Metric Frequency/ Completed by Duration Water Quality monitoring Ensure that design criteria NTU’s (instream turbidity) During implementation Hydrology/ (1506-184 culvert removals were implemented as Fisheries during road described decommissioning)

BMP Implementation for Ensure that mitigation criteria Yes/no as described During implementation Hydrology/Soils/ hydrology and watershed were implemented as Fisheries resources described

Post project stream Validate effectiveness of Temperature change Post implementation Hydrology/ temperatures (Water mitigations Fisheries Monitoring Plan)

Soil compaction Validate effectiveness of Compaction Immediately post treatment Soils mitigations

Trail 697 reroute User adherence to reroute Continued use of existing, or Immediately post treatment Hydrology/Fisheries creation of new user-built and beyond trails in the meadow

FR1605/Nile Creek crossing Project design effectiveness Instream During and after construction Fisheries turbidity/sedimentation

II-43 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Adaptive Management This alternative includes an Adaptive Management Strategy for vegetation management. Adaptive Management is a rigorous approach for learning and through deliberately designing and applying management actions as experiments with monitoring and adjustments as described below. Adaptive Management may be essential for achieving sustainable forestry, as it can help management to adapt to uncertainty and changes in environmental conditions, economic markets, scientific and experiential knowledge, technologies, and social values (Marmorek, Robinson, Murray, & Greig, 2006).

This project has been developed with restoration-based objectives. The possibility, as of the time this document was being developed, exists that prescribed burning may not be implementable due to changes in the smoke approval process and additional restrictions being imposed on silvicultural burning within Yakima County. The adaptive approach to this situation would be to; implement the project as described and as current regulations allow, allowing the full spectrum of restoration treatments; implement mechanical treatments only, in which restoration objectives would not be met and in fact may worsen conditions with respect to fire spread and intensity, or; do not implement the project at this time and until the issue of prescribed fire has been resolved.

Figure II.26. Adaptive Management; forest restoration

Adaptive Method: Implement Monitoring mechanical Selected Method: Element: Forest Criteria: Ability to treatments only Implement as Restoration implement described prescribed fire Adaptive Method: Do not implement project at this time

Slash created by timber harvest, timber stand improvement, and/or mechanical fuel treatments may be sold and removed for energy production. However, technology and market uncertainties may make biomass removal unfeasible or unprofitable to a potential buyer. Yet the ecological purpose and need for the project remains unchanged. Rather than the project depending entirely on the removal of biomass by a commercial operator, the Revised Proposed Action includes an Adaptive Management strategy which will allow prescribed burning, firewood removal (personal or commercial), natural decay (no treatment), or a combination of all (Figure II.21). The adaptive management approach to fuels disposal does not negate the need to apply fire as a process on the landscape.

II-44 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Figure II.27. Adaptive Management; fuels reduction alternatives

Adaptive Method: Dispose of fuels (including biomass) Selectied Method: through most Sell biomass efficient method: (including underburn, pile and firewood) as a Element: burn, mastication. commercial Monitoring Criteria: Biomass Prescribed product. Dispose Biomass Availability vs. underburning is still of fuels not sold. marketability slash disposal implemented as a Implement process. prescribed fire as an ecosystem Adaptive Method: process. No biomass removal. No fuels disposal.

An additional adaptive management element would be for the sale of commercial timber from the Glass Angel project area (Figure II.22). If the commercial sale fails for economic reasons, the decision maker has the latitude to substitute any or all of the timber sale units with a fuels treatment, such as prescribed underburning, if that option were to be available (see page II-43 and Figure II.27).

Figure II.28. Adaptive Management; commercial harvest alternatives

Option: No Treatment

Selected Monitoring Criteria: Element: Method: Option: Commercial Commercial market Harvest Harvest all units conditions Prescribed Burn as planned

Option: Pile and burn

Public response to the Proposed Action of rerouting OHV Trail 697 has been heavily in favor of maintaining the experience of being able to drive through the meadows intersected by trails. To maintain this experience favored by the OHV user group, as well as partially mitigating concerns related to compaction, hydrologic flow, and noxious weed spread already occurring, the east- west section of Trail 697 (parallel to the slope) will be rerouted as described in Alternative 3, Travel and Access Management, Trail 697 Reroute (page II-29). At a point perpendicular to the existing trail, the reroute will turn north-south to intersect the existing trail, bisecting the meadow. The bypassed east-west portion will be obliterated. The effectiveness of this reroute will be monitored over the next five years for hydrologic response within the meadow (is II-45 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered hydrologic function improved), noxious weed populations (has the presence of noxious weeds changed), and user compliance (establishment of unauthorized tracks; unexpected resource damage). If resource effects are determined to be unchanged or increasing, a full reroute of Trail 697 may be implemented which fully bypasses the meadow. The full reroute would locate the trail as described in Alternative 2, Travel and Access Management, Trail 697 Reroute (page II- 29).

Figure II.29. Adaptive Management; OHV Trail 697 reroute

Adaptive Monitoring Criteria: Response: Element: Selected 1. Hydrologic response No further action OHV Trail 697 Method: 2. Noxious weed Reroute Partial Reroute establishment Adaptive 3. Trail user compliance Response: Full Reroute

Comparison of Alternatives

This section compares the ability of the proposed management actions to meet the Purpose and Need of this project. Under Forest Service NEPA regulations, no alternatives other than the proposed action are required if there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, as is the case with the vegetation management aspects of this project. Table II.25 compares the current condition and projected future condition (with no management action) to the Refined Proposed Action. For those Proposed Actions with developed alternatives (Travel and Access Management, Forest Road 1605 Crossing; and Travel and Access Management, Trail 697 Reroute), the alternatives have been compared to each other and to the current and projected future conditions.

II-46 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Table II.14: Comparison of Alternatives. Purpose13 No Action Refined Proposed Action

Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, Decreasing variability of structures in the dry forest type. Management actions are designed to re-establish composition, and pattern) Patches are increasing in size, while gaps are decreasing. composition, structure, and pattern that will allow for the reintroduction of processes that promote forest health. Low probability/potential for stands in the cool, moist Composition, structure, and pattern that is appropriate for forest to develop late-successional characteristics due to a given plant community would allow disturbance agents past management practices. to function at historic and future ranges of variability to continue the cyclic pattern that promotes overall forest health. Restore focal wildlife species habitat and reduce the risk In the dry forest type, white headed woodpecker habitat is The Refined Proposed Action will re-establish an old of habitat loss to uncharacteristic wildfire degraded due to loss of relatively open structure. Denser, forest single strata structural class to the dry forest shade tolerant cohorts are replacing open ponderosa pine vegetation group, providing source habitat for white- dominated stands. The potential for uncharacteristic headed woodpeckers. wildfire is increasing as canopy layers and cover increase. Active management of dry forest stands will reduce the risk of habitat loss to fire, diseases, and insects, and increase the resilience and sustainability of spotted owl In the cool, moist forest type, there is low or no potential habitat. for stands within the Glass portion of the project area to grow into a late-successional condition in support of Management actions are designed to begin the process of northern spotted owl. Risk of loss to wildfire is high. developing spotted owl suitable habitat in cool, moist forest by retaining/protecting biological legacies such as large trees and snags, down logs and diseased trees. Leaving these components will set the stage for recruiting suitable long term spotted owl habitat. Development of habitat will occur adjacent to existing high-quality spotted owl habitat and historic spotted owl nest site. Allow natural processes to function that will provide Ground and surface fire in the dry, and cool, moist forest Management actions will promote conditions in which tree resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change types will spread at a slower rate tree canopies continue to stand vulnerability to high intensity wildfire would be close, reducing sunlight, reducing grass and brush growth, within the normal range of variability (normal departure and reducing ground level winds. from the natural fire regime). Potential for fast-moving crown fire continues to increase Structure and pattern will allow natural processes (fire, as the canopy continues to close and ladder fuels increase. insects, and disease) to function within an envelope of Conditions would continue on this trend until the conditions defined by the intersection of the normal stand/fuelbed is re-initiated by wildfire or management (historic) range of variability and the future range of

13 See Purpose and Need, pages I-13 through I-15.

II-47 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Purpose13 No Action Refined Proposed Action

action. variability associated with a warming climate. Reduce the potential for introduction and spread, and treat No potential for introduction of invasive species on Eighty-six percent of the project area is treated established populations of Invasive species disturbed ground from management actions as a result of mechanically or by prescribed fire, creating ground this project. However, selecting no management action disturbance that would allow potential seedbeds that may would not provide Opportunities to control existing be receptive to invasive plant species colonization and invasive species infestations. spread. An action decision related to invasive species management (implementation of prevention, mitigation, and control) would result in a greatly reduced potential for adverse affects associated with implementation of the vegetation treatment (e.g., logging and prescribed fire) as well as existing infestations of invasive species.

II-48 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Purpose13 No Action Refined Proposed Action

Provide a transportation system for public access for The unimproved ford on FR1605 would remain Improvements to the approach slopes and widening of the recreation opportunities, is adequate for managing the unchanged. turn radius would allow logging trucks to use the ford, National Forest, and minimizes adverse resource impacts allowing commercial harvest as a restoration tool.

Improvement of the FR1605 ford would allow commercial Commercial harvest treatments would not be implemented harvest to be applied as a restoration tool. due to inability of logging trucks to negotiate current unimproved ford.

Lower levels of turbidity, sedimentation, and chronic risk of fish injury or mortality than the No Action alternative. The current unimproved ford has a higher rate of in-stream sediment delivery per vehicle crossing than would an Lower cost (approximately $49,000) and a simpler design improved ford of any type. than a vented ford.

During the timber sale portion of the project, road maintenance would occur during the life of the sale at likely a more frequent interval, as is specified by contract Road maintenance costs would be largely unchanged from requirements. Recommendations by the IDT to close current levels and/or would respond in kind to budget and/or obliterate specified road or road segments would fluctuations. improve resource conditions, but not result in road maintenance costs.

System road densities would be reduced, as funding allows, with IDT recommendations to close or obliterate specified roads. Fish passage to 1.0 mile of habitat in Three Creeks Creek restored. Sedimentation risk from culvert failures eliminated at three stream crossing removal sites, two on fish bearing streams.

II-49 Glass Angel Restoration Project Alternatives Considered

Purpose13 No Action Refined Proposed Action

Provide a transportation system for public access for Unchanged human use on Trail 697. The opportunity to Relocation through construction of 0.2 miles of new trail recreation opportunities, is adequate for managing the pioneer new, unauthorized trails still exists. Obliteration within low erosion hazard soils. Obliteration of 0.2 mile National Forest, and minimizes adverse resource impacts of unauthorized trails is considered maintenance of the of system trail closes and restores 0.2 mile of system trail existing system and does not require a NEPA analysis or in montane meadow within severe erosion hazard soils. Protect, enhance, and rehabilitate the montane meadow Line Officer decision. Restores hydrologic function to approximately 4.8 acres of located in Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Section 13 38 acre montane meadow. System trail in proximity to and Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Section 18 existing unauthorized trail (to be closed) within montane meadow remain. Construction cost estimated at $27,400. Relocate approximately 150 feet of OHV trail 697 to rehabilitate riparian area near confluence of Nile and Glass Creeks.

Protect, enhance, and rehabilitate the montane meadow Dense vegetation structure upslope of meadows is Meadows may have a threshold of tolerance to change and Township 16 North, Range 13 East, Section 13 and interrupting hydrologic flow and water storage capacity in become unstable once the threshold is exceeded. Township 16 North, Range 14 East, Section 18 meadows. Management actions are designed to restore vegetation to its historic and future range of variability that will provide Authorized (System) roads/trails are interrupting stability to montane meadows. hydrologic flow in meadows through channeling and/or pooling Minimizing roads and trails in montane meadows will reduce surface water velocity within these meadows, reducing erosion.

II-50 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER III

Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

This chapter identifies the probable consequences of implementing the Refined Proposed Action and alternatives to the resources affected. It forms the scientific and analytic basis for the possibility of implementation of the Refined Proposed Action and alternatives. We describe the environmental consequences of implementing the Refined Proposed Action and alternatives. Focus is on describing a resources relation to the Purpose and Need of this project (see Chapter I), the general and specific interactions of management actions to resources and processes, and how the proposed action will affect that resource.

The discussion of Environmental Effects in Chapter 3 later in this document has considered the Proposed Action and other action alternatives within the context of present and reasonably foreseeable actions that may occur in the project and surrounding area. The effects of past activities are represented in the baseline for each issue area consistent with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality’s Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis (June 24, 2005), which is hereby incorporated by reference. This guidance states that “Generally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions”. Table III.1 below displays present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the Swauk Allotment Management Plan analysis area that may have overlapping effects with this grazing proposal.

Table III.1. Past and foreseeable activities in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds. NEPA Document, Treatments14 or Acres Date Project Name, or Activities Activity Pinus/Swamp Devil Pinus II Timber Sale 913 1998 Swamp Devil Timber Sale 836 1997 Pinus Underburn 1,589 2001

Sunip Sunip Timber Sale 54 2000

Nile West Nile Timber Sale 732 1998 Nile Timber Sale 1,453 1998 Upper West Nile Underburn 1,353 2001 Lower West Nile Underburn 1,196 2002 Nile Underburn 3,353 2004 Nile RMEF Underburn 933 2000

Rattle Rattle Timber Sale 1,344 2003 Buzzer Timber Sale 956 2004 Fang Timber Sale 1,117 2005 Venom Timber Sale 1,857 2008 Devils Table Underburn 1,824 2005

14 Including corresponding slash disposal treatments of either underburn or grapple pile and burn, unless otherwise noted III - 1 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences NEPA Document, Treatments14 or Acres Date Project Name, or Activities Activity Angel Lake Underburn 725 2007

Canteen Canteen Timber Sale 1,654 2007 Flask Timber Sale 1,922 2008 Jigger Timber Sale 397 2008

Dry Orr Landscape multiple restoration ~70,000 acres under 2011-201516,17 Analysis15 treatments analysis

Naches Sheep Livestock grazing 58,030 ongoing Allottment

Road Maintenance Grading of road surface, road Selected roads ongoing and culvert repair within the watersheds, as budget allows

Noxious Weed see page II-29 and II-30 for Entire watershed(s) ongoing Management listing and explanations of treatments

Recreation18 Forest recreation activities Entire watershed(s) ongoing

VEGETATION AND FUELS

In addition to the discussion provided previously in Chapter I, Project Area Description and Purpose and Need, the following information further details the affected environment and current fuel conditions in the Glass Angel project area. The analysis area considered is the Glass Angel project area. Reference is also made to the larger area that supports fuels associated with mesic and dry forest vegetation on the Naches Ranger District.

Affected Environment See Chapter I for discussion on the vegetation and fuels affected environment as it pertains to the Glass Angel project area. The following information describes in more detail the information presented in Chapter I.

The distribution of plant associations as characterized by Lillybridge et al. (Lillybridge, Kovalchik, Williams, & Smith, 1995) and successional stages in the project area are presented in Tables III.2 and III.3.

15 The ability and method of fuel treatments within this area are, as of this writing, unresolved (see page III-25) 16 Projected 17 Glass Angel being the first projects from the Dry Orr Landscape Analysis 18 See Table III.37 (pages III.116 and III.117) for a listing of recreation activities identified in the project area III - 2 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.2: Series/Type within the Glass Angel project area. Series/Type Acres (% of the Angel project Acres (% of the Glass project area) area) Angel Project Area Glass Project Area Pacific silver fir - 613 (14%) Abies amabilis Grand fir 5,381 (78%) 1,547 (34%) Abies grandis Subalpine fir 28 (<1%) 521 (12%) Abies lasiocarpa Douglas-fir 392 (6%) - Pseudotsuga menziessi Mountain hemlock 0.1 (<1%) 667 (15%) Tsuga mertensiana Western hemlock - 593 (3%) Tsuga heterophylla Grassland 45 (<1%) - Meadow 102 (1%) 25 (<1%) Parkland - 176 (4%) Riparian 78 (1%) - Rock 857 (12%) 351 (8%) Shrubland 4 (<1%) 9 (<1%) Water 5 (<1%) -

Table III.3: Successional Stages within the Glass Angel project area. Successional Stage Acres (% of forested acres) Acres (% of forested acres) Angel Project Area Glass Project Area Early 315 (6%) 437 (11%)

Mid 5,412 (93%) 1,625 (41%)

Late 75 (1%) 1,879 (48%)

Successional class distribution in the Angel project area is represented primarily by large blocks of mid- successional forest. Much of the forested acres in the project area are in the middle or small size class, with little in the large size class currently present on the landscape. Consequently, the historic patchiness and variation in age and successional class is no longer evident on the landscape.

Crown closure is a measure of the percent of the stand area that is covered by tree canopies. Sixty- seven percent of the forested acres in the project area have a canopy closure of over 40%. Table III.4 displays current crown closure within the project area.

III - 3 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.4: Crown Closure within the Glass Angel project area. Crown Acres (% of project area) Acres (% of project area) Closure Angel Project Area Glass Project Area 0 13 (<1%) 26 (1%)

1-10% 1,224 (18%) 471 (10%)

11-39% 542 (8%) 727 (16%)

40-69% 3,733 (54%) 559 (12%)

70%+ 1,380 (20%) 2,718 (60%)

Forest stands within the project area are mostly within cool mesic shrub herb Plant Association Groups (Lillybridge, Kovalchik, Williams, & Smith, 1995) of the grand fir and mountain hemlock series. Approximately 66 and 34 percent are within the Grand Fir Series and Mountain Hemlock Series, respectively. Approximately 30 percent of the area in Mountain Hemlock Series occurs as cold and either, mesic or moist/dry shrub herb plant association groups. The Mountain Hemlock Series and the Subalpine Fir Series broadly overlap so that distinguishing between the two can be difficult.

Two fire regimes describe the Glass Angel project area. The dry forest type, which is a dry pine and mixed conifer forest, depicts a low-severity fire regime. These forests were typically shaped by what is sometimes referred to as a “stand-maintenance” fire regime of low-intensity, frequent fires that generally burned grasses, brush, small trees, and fallen needles and branches but had little effect on older trees with thick insulating bark (Brown, Agee, & Franklin, 2004) such as ponderosa pine, Douglas- fir, and western larch. This forest type occurs in the northern ⅔ (lower elevations) of the Angel project area, and eastern ¼ and south facing slopes of the Glass project area.

The upper elevations of the Angel project area and the remainder of the Glass project area are within a mixed-severity fire regime. This has also been referred to as the cool, moist forest within this document. Cooler, moister conditions allow less drought- and fire-tolerant species such as grand fir, Douglas-fir, western larch, and ponderosa pine to grow more densely in these areas. In some areas these sites support ponderosa pine-dominated stands that appear similar to the drier forests at lower elevations, although their fire histories may be more complex and variable over long time periods (Shinneman & Baker, 1997), (Brown, Kaufmann, & Shepperd, 1999), (Veblen, Kitzberger, & Donnegan, 2000). Fire-return intervals include areas burned from low to high severity. Fires of differing severity occur in close proximity, creating a complex mosaic of forest structures in patches of varying size (Taylor & Skinner, 1998).

Cursory fire scar and age-class observations suggest a historically mixed severity fire regime similar to that described for Grand Fir Series by Agee (1993). Broadly, fire severity and variability increased along a gradient from 3400 feet on south aspects in the east part of the project area to 5500 feet on east/north aspects in the west part of the area. At finer scales, variation associated with topography was considerable. On southerly aspects below 4500 feet, two and occasionally three fire scars were recorded on some ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir stumps. The most reliable evidence of both fire occurrence and mixed severity was found in stands dominated by ponderosa pine stands on south aspects and on east facing mixed conifer stands that include mountain hemlock, grand fir, and lodgepole pine. In the ponderosa pine dominated south aspect stand, three fire scars were reliably dated on four trees and indicated a mean fire free interval of about 65 years. In mixed conifer stand, scars occurring in about 1790 and 1860 were apparent on a 520 year old larch stump and matched scar dates in ponderosa pine stand. Systematic age class data were collected in two stands. In stand 386, no clear age class was apparent and the results were ambiguous. However, patch and species composition observations, along with these age data, suggest that mixed severity fire dominated, most recently III - 4 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences about 1860. In stand 150, an unambiguously even-aged stand of western larch and lodgepole pine was established after a high severity fire about 110 years ago. This is now the largest patch within the area. Key features of the project area’s forests are:

 The density of old, large/very large early seral trees, at the stand and project area scale, is dramatically less than the historic condition and represents a departure from the reference condition for them.  Stand and project area species composition and structure has contributed to dramatic, ongoing effects from insects and diseases and, considering their scale, duration, and intensity, may represent a departure from reference conditions.

Past management within the Glass project area (circa 1990 and earlier) include patch clear cutting and selective logging of large diameter overstory trees which has removed most of the old, large and very large trees in much of the proposed treatment area. This has caused a departed condition leaving a disease-prone understory of shade tolerant, late successional trees that would be highly susceptible to stand replacement fire, even under average summer conditions. Many of the remaining trees have little or no potential for growth because of susceptibility to insects and diseases, so are proposed for regeneration harvest. Only through the combination of regeneration harvest with prescribed fire, or stand re-initiation through a wildland fire, will these areas begin to be restored, and be converted from a management created high-severity fire regime to the natural mixed-severity fire regime.

Logging has occurred on about 70 percent of the project area, mostly between 1960 and 1990 and mostly in stands where old, large/very large trees were relatively abundant. Large and old trees are scarce in most non-logged areas. Evidence that logging slash was machine piled and burned is common. Prior logging has included individual tree selection (about 57 percent of the logged area) and clear cutting (about 33 percent). Many large and very large larch snags were removed as firewood from both logged and non-logged stands on flat ground. The highest residual density of these trees is on drier sites such as stand 406 (15 per acre). The cumulative effect at the scale of the project area and its component stands is that old, large/very large trees occur at much lower levels than historically. The density of large/very large ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and larch in 3 previously non-logged stands ranged from 15-35 per acre. In Unit 328, a mesic larch stand that has been logged, about 17 old, large/very large were retained per acre. Prior to logging, their density was considerably higher. Because their density and distribution is so variable, the confidence levels associated with these estimates of large/very large trees is very low.

Logging has simplified within stand spatial variation as a function of silvicultural method. Horizontal structure has been eliminated in most regenerated stands where regeneration is uniformly dense. In some stands where individual tree selection removed groups of large/very large trees, fine scale horizontal and vertical variation has increased, the latter by virtue of gap regeneration. In all logged areas, vertical structure has been eliminated or considerably reduced.

There are four general conditions of young forest in the project area: regenerated (clear cut) stands, previous individual tree selection on relatively dry sites, previous individual tree selection on mesic sites, and non-logged stands. Sapling density in regenerated stands density exceeds 1,500 stems per acre and the early seral trees, planted at about 300 per acre, are being overwhelmed by true fir and lodgepole pine natural regeneration. Because the effects of insects and diseases are limited and crown recession is not yet apparent, tree growth is rapid in most of these stands. Where individual tree selection occurred on relatively dry forest, ponderosa pine is a minor component of the younger (about 100-150 year old) cohort which is dominated by Douglas-fir and grand fir. Considering the observed fire return interval and that most of these trees established before logging, this might not be a substantial III - 5 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences departure from typical successional processes. If this younger cohort was established as a result of grazing and its cessation, it may be atypical. Where individual tree selection occurred in mesic stands, the remaining, young trees appear to have established after fire and prior to grazing. These stands are more diverse than the relatively dry stands and include (generally in order of decreasing dominance) true fir, lodgepole pine, western larch and Douglas-fir, western white pine and Engelmann spruce and mountain hemlock, whitebark pine and yellow cedar at higher elevations. This younger cohort has developed at very high density and most of the codominant trees have shallow crowns and are not growing well. The ability of these trees to grow old and large is further compromised by insects and diseases. In non-logged stands, the condition of the younger, understory trees is similar to those where individual tree selection has occurred. Typically, they have few old, large/very large trees reflecting the severity of the most recent fire.

Of primary importance for the Glass project area is, where the younger cohort of firs occur at high density, most co-dominant trees have very shallow crowns and they have outcompeted and killed their contemporary pines and are a competitive threat to the remaining old, large/very large ponderosa pines. Where the younger cohort is less dense, co-dominants are growing well and will respond to increased growing space.

Insects and Diseases Three of the four most influential insects and diseases in the project area were present in historical forests, often with severe effects: mountain pine beetle, western spruce budworm, and dwarf mistletoes (Hessburg, Mitchell, & Filip, 1994). Annosus root disease, the fourth, was present but relatively uncommon prior to logging which, by creating infection surfaces on cut stumps, has caused the infection to spread and intensify. Depending on scale, all these agents have beneficial ecological effects to wildlife, forest structural and species diversity, and ecological processes. Within the project area, the effect of spruce budworm and mountain pine beetle is to release growing space to understory herbs and shrubs and non-host conifers such as larch and western white pine. In the east end of the project area, an overstory of mistletoe infected larch will infect smaller ones, thus limiting their ability to take advantage of this space. Between budworm outbreaks, a dense, multistory canopy of Douglas-fir and, especially grand fir will limit the establishment and growth of early seral confers that are more likely to grow old and large. The accumulation of fallen, beetle killed lodgepole pines provides coarse wood functions such as habitat and soil building important to these plant association groups. On the other hand, depending on timing, it could increase the next fire’s severity. At larger scales, these disturbances limited fire, insect, and disease contagion by simplifying stand structure and killing host species: diverse age classes of lodgepole pine limited mountain pine beetles; single story stands of host trees or multi-story stands of non-hosts limited spruce budworm and dwarf mistletoes.

Because the interval between natural disturbances in the mesic forest is far greater than it is in the dry forest, an argument could be made that these insect and disease processes and the forest structure and composition that support them are within reference conditions for these tree series and fire regimes of this project area. However, landscape evaluation and stand-level observations suggest that previous management practices have increased disturbance contagion and reduced the number of trees capable of surviving disturbance to provide the foundation of a new forest.

In all but the previously clear cut stands, the following insect and disease effects are dramatic because species composition and structure are ideal for them: dwarf mistletoe in Douglas-fir and larch, western spruce budworm in true fir and Douglas-fir, mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pines and some ponderosa pines, annosus root disease and fir engraver in grand fir. An introduced insect, balsam wooly adelgid, is causing serious defoliation of subalpine fire. Perhaps as much as 80% of the lodgepole pine have been killed by mountain pine beetle and virtually all of the grand firs are infected by annosus root disease. The effects of western spruce budworm and larch dwarf mistletoe are less pronounced at III - 6 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences higher elevations in the west end of the Glass project area. Throughout the area, western white pine is least affected by insects and diseases. Although white pine blister rust has killed trees in the area, many are somewhat resistant to the disease and will likely live long and thrive. Both Engelmann spruce and mountain hemlock often appear insect and disease free but many of them have internal decay caused by wounding during logging by individual tree selection. The combined effect of insects, disease, and stand density has been to dramatically limit the potential of most younger cohort trees to become old and large.

Wildfire During typical summer conditions, fires would be expected to move rapidly up slope to a ridgetop and downwind. Once at the ridgetop, fire spread will depend largely on wind speed and direction. With little or no wind, fires would most likely smolder or creep downhill with low flame lengths, and isolated passive torching in fuel concentrations resulting in short range spotting. Fires would continue to move downhill until encountering a change in aspect where they could make uphill runs or a change in fuels that would stop fire growth. With moderate or higher wind, a fire could move rapidly along the ridges and downslope. Torching trees would give long range spotting down slope and into draws, which would make aggressive uphill runs back into the main body of the fire as well as moving with the wind.

Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought to have increased in recent decades. Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in western United States wildfire has focused on the effects of 19th and 20th century land-use history. The average fire season (the time between the reported first wildfire discovery date and the last wildfire control date) increased by 78 days (64%) comparing 1970 to 1986 with 1987 to 2003. The average time between discovery and control for a wildfire increased from 7.5 days from 1970 to 1986 to 37.1 days from 1987 to 2003. Land-use history and climate are often offered as competing explanations, but they may be complementary in some ways. In some forest types, past land uses have probably increased the sensitivity of current forest wildfire regimes to climatic variability through effects on the quantity, arrangement, and continuity of fuels. Hence, an increased incidence of large, high-severity fires may be due to a combination of extreme droughts and overabundant fuels in some forests (Westerling, Hidalgo, Cayan, & Swetnam, 2006). It is likely that the increase in the time required for fire suppression will follow the trend described above.

Ability of Prescriptions to Meet Landscape Objectives The following discussion of the landscape evaluation process, and the ability for the prescriptions to meet the purpose and need, refer to the Glass project area only. The reader is reminded that prescriptions for the Angel project area were not developed using the EMDS evaluation. Refer to pages I-2 and I-3.

During the landscape evaluation process, a total of 36 Structure by Cover patch types or classes were identified in the Nile sub-watershed, of which the Glass project area is a part. The code key for these structure and cover patch types are found in Appendix D, and the results of the departure analysis, including maps, before and after theoretical prescriptions were modeled are found in Appendices E and F. When compared to historic reference conditions, the results of the departure analysis after the theoretical prescriptions were modeled suggested that 78 to 92% of the Structure by Cover Patch Types were maintained within historic reference conditions or moved closer to within historic reference conditions for the four metrics (Table III.5). Conversely, from 8 to 17% of patch types with class metrics outside of range were not improved. In fact, their metrics were pushed further outside of range. In addition, in each of the Patch Density and Aggregation Index metrics, only one (2.7%) patch type’s calculated metric was moved outside of range. One patch type with an Aggregation Index metric calculation originally outside of range was moved back to within range.

III - 7 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences When compared to future reference conditions, which are forecasted to be warmer and drier, 78 to 83% of the patch types remained within range or were moved closer to within range (Table III.6). From eight to 25% of the patch types when compared to future reference conditions were not improved, and in fact were pushed further out of range. Although one patch type had its Aggregation Index improved and moved inside range, one was moved out of range. Also, another patch had its Patch Density calculation moved outside of range.

Table III.5. Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type Classes were improved, not improved, moved in or out of, or maintained within median 80th percentile range under historic reference conditions. 19 Percent Largest Patch Aggregation Land Patch Density Index Index Maintained Within Range 24 25 10 21 Improved, but Still Outside of Range 9 5 21 7 Not improved, Still Outside of Range 3 6 4 6 Moved into Range 0 0 0 1 Moved Out of Range 0 0 1 1 Total 36 36 36 36

Table III.6. Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type Classes were improved, not improved, moved in or out of, or maintained within median 80th percentile range under future reference conditions. Percent Largest Patch Aggregation Land Patch Density Index Index Maintained Within Range 16 16 7 20 Improved, but Still Outside of Range 14 11 25 10 Not improved, Still Outside of Range 6 9 3 6 Moved into Range 0 0 0 0 Moved Out of Range 0 0 1 0 Total 36 36 36 36

A total of 60 Structure by Cover by Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) patch types were identified, with their departure analysis results, including maps, found in Appendices G and H. When compared to historic reference conditions, the results of the departure analysis after the theoretical prescriptions were modeled suggested that 70 to 85% of the Structure by Cover by PVG Patch Types were maintained within historic reference conditions or moved closer to within historic reference conditions for the four metrics (Table III.7). On the other hand from 10 to 27% of patch types that were already outside of range prior to the modeled theoretical prescriptions were pushed further outside of range. One patch type originally with a Calculated Percent Land metric within range of historic reference conditions was moved outside. In addition, three patch types with calculated Patch Density class metrics within range were moved outside of range. Interestingly one patch type with an Aggregation Index calculation and another with a Percent Land calculation originally outside of range were moved back to within range.

19 Definitions for class metrics can be found on page II-3. III - 8 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences When compared to future reference conditions, 77 to 88% of the patch types remained within range or moved closer to within range (Table III.8). Between 10 and 22% of patch types which were outside of range were pushed further out of range. In addition, one patch’s calculated Patch Density that was originally in range was moved outside of range.

Table III.7. Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type to Potential Vegetation Group Type Classes were improved, not improved, moved in or out of, or maintained within median 80th percentile range under historic reference conditions. Percent Largest Patch Aggregation Land Patch Density Index Index Maintained Within Range 27 28 10 22 Improved, but Still Outside of Range 19 17 41 20 Not improved, Still Outside of Range 10 14 6 16 Neither Improved or Worsened 2 1 0 1 Moved into Range 1 0 0 1 Moved Out of Range 1 0 3 0 Total 60 60 60 60

Table III.8. Matrix showing how many Structure to Cover Type to Potential Vegetation Group Type Classes were improved, not improved, moved in or out of, or maintained within median 80th percentile range under future reference conditions. Percent Largest Patch Aggregation Land Patch Density Index Index Maintained Within Range 25 24 14 22 Improved, but Still Outside of Range 23 22 39 24 Not improved, Still Outside of Range 9 12 6 13 Neither Improved or Worsened 3 2 0 0 Moved into Range 0 0 0 0 Moved Out of Range 0 0 1 1 Total 60 60 60 60

To summarize, no appreciable changes were made to the four metrics with the exception of Aggregation Index for Whiteheaded Woodpecker habitat. When evaluated for historic reference conditions, the departure analysis suggested that the area of nonsuitable Whiteheaded Woodpecker habitat is not as aggregated after the theoretical prescriptions were modeled. However, the change in the calculated Aggregation Index is so low (.08%) that the likelihood of its impact on this species’ habitat is minimal to none.

This document will periodically refer to “stands”20 by number. Refer to Figure III.1 for locations of stands, by number, within the Glass project area.

20 A timber stand is a group of trees of similar characteristics (age, species, product class, location, etc.) III - 9 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Figure III.1.. Stand numbers within the Glass progect area

III - 10 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences – Vegetation Effect of the Proposed Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Forest Overstory Vegetation Direct and Indirect Effects This discussion will refer to the following treatment groups:

 Old and large tree foundation present, which will emphasize; o ability to maintain or improve white headed woodpecker habitat o ability to maintain corridor connectivity o promoting stand conditions that will favor retaining or growing an old and large tree foundation  Old and large tree foundation absent, which will emphasize o ability to maintain or develop white headed woodpecker habitat o ability to protect and develop northern spotted owl habitat o promoting stands or patches of lodgepole pine-stem exclusion closed canopy o maintaining and promoting stand conditions that provide a diversity of structures and habitats

Trees that are beginning to develop the structural characteristics associated with old trees and the ecological function they provide are defined by the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy (FRS) (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010) as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir/larch with VanPelt (2008) scores of 6 and 7, respectively. Reference conditions for the density of large/very large trees are from the FRS.

Table III.9. Reference conditions for large/very large trees (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010). Structure Class Warm/dry Plant Association Groups Mesic Plant Association Groups Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum trees/acre over 20” trees/acre over 20” trees/acre over 20” trees/acre over 20” in dbh in dbh in dbh in dbh Stand Initiation 0 16 0 16 Stem exclusion open canopy and 17 34 17 66 closed canopy Understory reinitiation, Young 11 25 11 25 forest multi-story Minimum trees/acre over 25” dbh Old Forest multistory and single 18 story

Refer to Chapter II for background to the following discussion. Because there are virtually no trees over 20 inches diameter in the Lodgepole Pine Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy and the Stand Conditions Treatment groups, they are excluded from this discussion.

A primary stand level objective for these treatments is the maintenance and protection of old, large, and very large trees. Old ponderosa pine is particularly sensitive to understory competition (Dolph, Mori, & Oliver, 1995) (Riegel & Miller, 1992). A direct effect of removing all but 0-2 younger trees within about III - 11 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences 30 feet of their crowns would increase their resistance to environmental stress and bark beetle attack. This kind of understory thinning would occur in the White headed Woodpecker and Stand Conditions Treatment groups where ponderosa pine is a component of the old and large tree foundation. Prescribed fire is the only feasible way to confer this beneficial effect to old ponderosa pines where understory trees are abundant but mechanical treatment is not feasible: all of the Angel portion and parts of stands 206 and 229 (see Figure III.1), and units 2 and 7 (See Figure II.18) of the Glass portion. In order to mitigate fire hazard to them, ladder and crown fuels around old, large, and very large trees would be reduced in all treatment groups except the Corridor/Connectivity one and parts of the nonburned 40 percent of the Angel portion. Stands in the Corridor/Connectivity group retain enough large trees and structural complexity to provide, however imperfectly, a function that is absent elsewhere in the project area and simplifying them mechanically would not occur. Although the within- stand fire risk will remain the same, it will be mitigated by reducing fire hazard within the surrounding stands.

No very large trees or ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir/larch with a VanPelt rating of 6 or 7, respectively, would be designated for removal in any of the harvest units. Many of the larch, including those over 150 years old, have been at high density and with mistletoe infection most of their lives and do not have the structural characteristics for a VanPelt rating of 7. Consequently, some will be cut in the east end of the project area (particularly from units 5, 7, 11). Some old or very large trees may be cut in order to meet worker safety requirements. To mitigate this effect, wildlife snags (see Appendix B, Glossary) greater than 25 inch dbh would be buffered, as necessary, with a no-cut zone around them to assure their retention. The temporary road would be located to minimize the loss of old trees. However, maintaining grade and access for skyline systems would require that some be removed. The number is not quantified but is expected to be less than 12 trees. Cursory stand exams indicated a uniquely high density of large/very large trees in two non-logged, proposed units 14 (27 per acre) and 15 (30 per acre with a sampling error of 100%). To determine the effect to old (and large/very large) trees, these units were revisited and profiles of the most likely skyline corridors were run. The conclusion was that none of these trees would be cut because most of them are located along the bottom of the units and the exams overestimated their density. In spite of these judgments and careful design, the loss of few old, large and very large trees during skyline logging would be expected. Some loss of old trees will occur with prescribed fire in both the Angel and Glass portions of the project area. Old Douglas-fir with basal scars and decay, and grand fir would be more likely killed by prescribed fire than would ponderosa pine, larch, or sound Douglas-fir. Retaining and protecting these latter three is a primary objective of the project.

In the commercial units, up to one or two large trees per acre, almost exclusively grand fir and weak Douglas-fir, would be removed in order to meet specific objectives: habitat requirements for white headed woodpecker (units 3, 4, and 5); reduced competition to old ponderosa pines; or to limit the dwarf mistletoe infection of Douglas-fir regeneration.

The effect to large/very large trees from proposed tree marking prescriptions in some representative units is shown in Figures III.2 – III.5 and Table III.10. The reduction in density for Unit 5 is overestimated because stand exam diameter class limits are different from the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), which includes trees between 19 and 20 inches in the 21-inch diameter class. In reality, the largest cruise trees in this unit were 18-19 inch grand fir and it is likely that fewer than five would be removed from the entire unit.

III - 12 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Figure III.2. Diameter distribution of retained and Figure III.3. Diameter distribution of retained removed trees for Unit 5 Stand 107. and removed trees for Unit 5 Stand 488.

Figure III.4. Diameter distribution of retained Figure III.5. Diameter distribution of retained and and removed trees for Units 7 Stand 386. removed trees for Unit 13 Stand 328.

III - 13 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.10. The density of large and very large trees following mechanical treatment for some representative units. Unit Existing After logging After 20 years 4 16 (13-19) 15 (12-18) 19 (16-22) 5 ( stand 107) 12 (10-14) 11 (9-13) 13(10-16) 5 (stand 488) 26 (21-31) 18 (14-22) 19 (15-23) 7 9 (8-10) 9 (8-10) 11 (10-12) 13 27 (22-32) 27 (22-32) 30 (24-36)

Although the effects to old, large and very large trees from prescribed fire can be influenced by burning techniques, they can be only roughly predicted21. In general, they will be lower in timber sale units because fuel loads will be lower following harvest. In particular, they will be lower in units that are dominated by fire resistant ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and larch—most of the units where an old and large tree foundation is present and most of the previously logged stands within the Angel portion Mortality will be higher within the more mesic stands where an old and large tree foundation is absent because there will be more surface and ladder fuels after logging and because large, fire sensitive western white pine and Engelmann spruce are more common. The risk to these fire sensitive trees, would be limited somewhat by including them in complex patches where less logging slash is expected. This effect would also apply to the non-logged stands within the Angel portion.

Left blank for formatting

21 Fire behavior modeling is typically accurate to a factor of two. E.g., a modeled flame length of four feet represents an average, and the actual flame lengths can range from two to eight feet. III - 14 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.11. Subjective predictions of the effect of prescribed fire in the Corridor/Connectivity and Stand Condition and Northern spotted owl Treatment Groups. Refer to page III-9 for stand locations. Stand Predicted Effect Corridor/Connectivity Treatment Group Stands 442 Minimal fire spread on this north aspect, short- needled conifer site is expected. Some canopy gaps are likely from flanking spread and spotting in fuel accumulations. Stands 351 and 475 (west of 1605 road) These non-logged stands retain old, large trees and their surface fuels are short-needle conifer litter with moderate down and dead fuels. Spread will be mostly by creeping. Some gaps will be created in concentrations of down fuel and full- crowned regeneration. There is an about 3 acre concentration of heavy fuels in the extreme west of stand 475 that will burn with high severity. Stand Conditions – Old and Large Tree Foundation Present Stand 123 Surface fuels in this relatively open stand are shrubs; crown foliage has been reduced by spruce budworm. Fire spread will be patchy and mortality will occur in groups. Stand 239 In this south aspect, pine dominated, previously logged stand, some large Douglas-firs will probably be killed in order to reduce competition around old ponderosa pines. Northern Spotted Owl Treatment Group Stands 460 and 480 Budworms have reduced ladder fuels in these short needle conifer stands. High fire severity is likely in the widespread concentrations of down/dead lodgepole. Stand 386 (west part) Surface fuel is dense short needle litter with scattered concentrations of down wood. Little spread or effect is expected from low intensity surface fire. There are scattered down wood concentrations, many snags, and considerable canopy moss. Torching and gap creation would occur as a function of burning conditions.

To meet objectives for regeneration and coarse wood processes, some dwarf mistletoe infected large and very large western larch are being retained in most of the commercial units of the Glass project area. If retained, these trees would infect larch saplings, effectively limiting their ability to grow large and old. To prevent this, infected overstory larch, including large ones, need to be killed in place before the regeneration is 5 feet tall (either mechanically or with prescribed fire).

Stand-level Spatial Pattern Three features of within-stand spatial variation are described by the FRS (2010) and addressed in these treatments: clumps, canopy gaps, and complex patches.

III - 15 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Options for creating clumps in the timber sale units are constrained by simplification of old-tree clumps during previous logging and by insect, disease, and density effects among younger trees. The proposed treatments would maintain existing clumps of old and very large trees by not removing any of them. This effect would be greatest where logging has not occurred, units 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17, and in unit 4 where previous logging was limited. Clumping of old trees would not be likely where the old and large tree foundation is absent. Younger, smaller trees to be retained would be selected for their capability to become old and large. Insects, diseases, and crown-recession associated with high density have reduced the pool of such trees. Where they exist as clumps, they would be retained. In order to meet wildlife habitat and coarse wood objectives, clumps of infested, infected, or non-vigorous trees would occasionally be retained, e.g. clumps of grand fir to augment wildlife snags, clumps of dwarf mistletoe infected Douglas-fir or larch. In non-commercial treatment groups and the Angel area, clumping would be created indirectly by the variability of fire effects. It would be created by variable density mechanical thinning in non-commercial stands of the Glass area.

For the mixed severity areas, canopy gaps are not necessarily devoid of trees. In particular, for mesic units, trees will be retained in many of them in order to maintain the complex coarse wood and recruitment/mortality processs of these mixed severity fire regimes. Because these treatments would focus on removing trees with no potential to grow large, such as true firs, dwarf mistletoe infected trees, and dead lodgepole pine, options for creating canopy gaps abound. The number and size of created gaps is not quantified. However, estimated (FVS) post-treatment canopy cover for some representative units is shown in Table III.12.

Table III.12. Estimates of pre and post-treatment canopy cover in some representative units. Unit Current Canopy Cover, % Canopy Cover after Treatment, % 4 56 32 5 (stand 107) 51 22 5 (stand 488) 93 23 7 68 32 13 71 33

Because there are few 10-20 inch diameter trees capable of growing large, canopy openings will be most extensive in units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17. In an area that is representative of these conditions, (the north perimeter of unit 5) individual overstory trees were tallied on a three acre plot: they average 15 per acre, only 7 of which did not show signs of dwarf mistletoe infection. Dripline thinning around old, large ponderosa pines will create some canopy gaps in many of the units where an old and large tree foundation is present. Prescribed fire in the Angel area and the Glass Corridor/Connectivity treatment group will create canopy gaps in proportion to prescribed fire intensity—refer to the effects to old, large, and very large trees.

Complex patches are different from clumps (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010). The latter are simply groups of trees with no structural requirement other than relatively close proximity. Complex patches are groups of trees with more structural and species complexity such as snags, down logs, high canopy cover, mistletoe brooms, and a diverse shrub/herb understory. Two general approaches to complex patches would be followed in timber sale units.

An opportunistic approach would be followed in the relatively dry units, where ponderosa pine dominates and historical fires appear to have been lower severity. The number of patches or their proportion of the area would not be prescribed, rather, marking crew judgment would be used to retain them based on site specific conditions such as: in unit 4 around the very large grand fir in the bottom and around the very large Douglas-fir snag near the top; the class 4 stream and seep in unit 10; around III - 16 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences old and/or very large, or groups of large Douglas-fir that are infected with dwarf mistletoe. The effect would be to emulate the finer scale, microsite pattern of low severity fires.

In several of the more mesic units (5, 7, 12, and 13), where ponderosa pine is usually absent and mixed severity fire dominated, a minimum proportion of the area to retain in complex patches would be prescribed. Considering that mixed severity fires are defined as those that kill between 20 and 70% of the stand (Agee, 1993), 30 percent is the baseline area to retain in complex patches. The prescribed area would be less where the entire unit is not being treated (e.g. unit 7) or where they might interfere with other objectives (e.g. west part of unit 5 where ponderosa pine regeneration is desired). Retaining a larger area as complex patches would be expected to provide the ecological function, particularly for coarse wood (when combined with elevated tree retention in the unit matrix) typical of mixed severity fire regimes. In addition to the site specific conditions described for the drier units, they would be located around features such as groups mistletoe infected larch (where they have been removed from the stand matrix to reduce infection risk to the understory) and western white pine or Englemann spruce that would otherwise be susceptible to prescribed fire damage because of logging slash. Since many of these patches are being retained for their coarse wood function, it is desirable that many of those located around diseased trees, would be killed by prescribed fire. Complex patches would be retained in the other mesic units, e.g around the moist draw/seep in unit 6 but because they are small reltative to the untreated stand area, a minimum proportion would not be prescribed. The effect would be to maintain the stand level complexity, habitat, and ecological processes thought to be associated with mixed severity fire regimes.

In the Angel portion, complex patches will be most common in the not recently logged, young multistory stands where fire is likely to burn with variable severity.

Complex patches would not be considered in the non-commercial, mechanical treatments. For these areas, the objective would be to give early seral trees a competitive advantage over shade tolerant trees. Because some shade tolerant trees would survive treatment and many would establish after these treatments, complexity would develop over the next several decades.

Where an old and large tree foundation is absent, the effect of the mechanical thinning and prescribed fire would be to create a seedbed and canopy openings favorable for shade intolerant species that are fire, insect, and disease resistant. In units 5(west part), 7, and 2 the objective would be to establish a new generation (and releasing existing ones from overstory competition) of insect and disease (and fire) resistant trees by removing true fir, many Douglas-fir, and many mistletoe infected larch. In unit 5, larch regeneration over 10 feet tall or with obvious mistletoe infection within 50 feet of an infected overstory tree designated for removal would be cut prior to logging. The effect would be more young larch capable of growing old and large. The effect of treatments in the non-commercial stands would be to confer a competitive advantage to existing ponderosa pine, western larch, white pine, and Douglas-fir by killing true fir, creating canopy gaps, and reducing tree density in general.

Retaining complex patches and scattered clumps of host trees in the mesic harvest units is expected to maintain the ecological function typical of mixed severity fire regimes. Dwarf mistletoe infected western larch are being retained at relatively high levels as a seed source for natural regeneration, because they provide important habitat for cavity nesters, and because they will provide replacements for snags that are cut for safety reasons. In order for these approaches to meet functional objectives without compromising objectives for early seral species two things would occur. Prescribed fire would be used to kill most of the retained true fir. After larch regeneration is established and before it is over 5 feet tall, dwarf mistletoe infected overstory larch would be killed in place.

III - 17 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences In the Angel portion of the project area, because mechanical treatment is too expensive, prescribed fire would be used to simplify stand structure and reduce host species consequently restoring insects and diseases to reference conditions.

The logging component of the proposed action would exacerbate disease in two circumstances. Wounding of mountain hemlock and Engelmann spruce during logging often introduces stem decay. This may be favorable to wildlife when the trees are larger. On the other hand, it can limit their longevity and future growth. In most of the mesic units these species already have stem decay from earlier logging. Complex patches in unlogged areas (such as those in unit 7 and north of unit 17) will limit further damage and infection. In parts of stand 123 that haven’t been logged (the northeast and east parts have been affected by logging and woodcutting, respectively.) annosus root disease is probably not present. It would probably be introduced by road construction and logging in units 10, 11, 14, and 15 where treatments would protect old and large ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir.

The proposed action would have limited or no effect on some current insect and disease conditions. In the Corridor/Connectivity Treatment Group, the effect to insects and diseases would be proportional to fire effects. Mountain pine beetles have already killed about 80 percent of the lodgepole pines and most of the remaining ones will die in any event. However, young lodgepole pines that establish after these treatments would be resistant to bark beetles for several decades. White pine blister rust, an introduced disease, has killed many white pines in the area but many remain that have some level of resistance. The commercial part of the proposed action would not affect the disease’s effects. However, when thinning the non-commercial units, the lower branches of white pine saplings could be pruned thus reducing the likelihood of blister rust infection. Annosus root disease would not be eliminated from a large enough area for a long enough time to restore its previously limited affect to grand fir. Many mountain hemlocks and Englemann spruce have stem decay from earlier logging damage.

Effects to Young and Smaller Trees Most of the stands, including several, which retain an old and large tree foundation, do not meet the large/very large tree density suggested by the FRS (2010), Table III.10. An objective of the proposed action would be to recruit more of them.

Where individual tree selection has occurred, logging and the effects of insects, diseases, and high density have considerably reduced the pool of trees capable of growing large and old. In all of the harvest units, the trees most likely to grow large and old would be retained: ponderosa pines, western white pine, and western larch and Douglas-fir with full crowns with no dwarf mistletoe. These trees are often scarce. Engelmann spruce and mountain hemlock with good crowns would also be retained, often as part of a complex patch in order to limit logging damage. Because they are unlikely to grow old and large/very large, the following trees would be removed: grand fir, subalpine fir, dead lodgepole pine. Tree growth modeling (FVS) suggests the effect of this cutting would be to increase the density of large/very large early seral trees by a couple of trees per acre after 20 years, Table III.9. Some (1-3 per acre) live lodgepole pines would be retained to provide a seed source for hardy regeneration on these cool, short growing season sites.

Natural regeneration would be expected in all commercially treated units. However, in those units where an old and large tree foundation is present, the primary objective would be to retain and protect those trees. An indirect effect of these treatments would be an extended period of stand initiation with establishment of natural regeneration dominated by early seral species. In units 1, 2, 5 (west portion), and 7, the primary objective is to establish/release a new age class. In unit 1 the effect would be to release existing large regeneration from overstory competition. In unit 2, the effect would be a prolonged period of stand initiation because advance regeneration is absent and reforestation would be III - 18 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences by natural means. In units 5 and 7, tree planting would occur in order to meet specific wildlife habitat objectives, white headed woodpecker and spotted owl, respectively. Although tree planting would be at low density, the effect would be an establishment period of about 5-10 years. In both cases the desired habitat conditions would not develop for at least 100 years. The west part of unit 5, where the desired cover type is ponderosa pine, is dominated by fir. Logging and prescribed fire are expected to create conditions favorable to the early growth of planted pines. However, depending on the future establishment of other species and perhaps climate change, these favorable conditions may not be sustained. If they become dominant, these planted ponderosa pines would be capable of growing large and old on this site that is severely infested by root disease and dwarf mistletoe.

Mixed severity fires spared many early seral trees and created conditions favorable for their regeneration, killed most late seral trees, maintained coarse wood processes and spatial variation thus creating favorable conditions for the development of old and large trees. Logging alone would not be adequate to create these conditions and sustain the growth of early seral trees necessary to meet large/very large tree recruitment objectives. It would leave behind a dense, understory of sub- merchantable true fir in addition to the complex patches and clumps retained for their coarse wood function and the mistletoe infected overstory larch retained as a seed and future snag source. The effect would be spruce budworm defoliation and killing of regenerating Douglas-firs, dwarf mistletoe infection and severely reduced growth of regenerating Douglas-firs and larches, reduced growth and increased mortality of ponderosa pines, larch, and Douglas fir from competition, and continued high fire hazard. Prescribed fire and, in some cases non-commercial mechanical treatments, would be necessary to limit the effects of spruce budworm, dwarf mistletoe and competition, and to reduce stand level fire hazard. The effect of the complete vegetation treatment, relative to logging alone, is shown in Figures III.6 through III.9. In this mixed severity fire regime, the effects of failing to eliminate most of the true fir regeneration are apparent virtually everywhere individual tree selection occurred: competitive exclusion of early seral trees; beetle mortality to old ponderosa pines as an indirect effect of competitive stress from understory firs; spruce budworm caused defoliation of young Douglas-firs. The effect of retaining then killing dwarf mistletoe infected overstory larch trees in place would be to establish then limit the infection of regenerated larch and to maintain coarse wood processes. Stand 296 provides a stark example of the effects of failing to kill such a well distributed, mistletoe infected overstory. Because infected larch trees were retained at a relatively high and uniform density across the unit, virtually all of the abundant larch regeneration has the disease and is unlikely to grow large or very old.

Left blank for formatting

III - 19 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Figure III.6. Species and diameter distribution with Figure III.7. Species and diameter distribution logging only. with both logging and prescribed fire.

Figure III.8. Stand structure with logging only. Figure III.9. Structure of the same stand with both logging and prescribed fire.

In old clear cuts, insect and disease effects are virtually absent and the abundant early seral trees are growing quite rapidly. Removing nearly all shade tolerant trees and reducing average tree density to 50- 100, variably spaced trees per acre would ensure a few decades of continued high growth rates for these trees, minimal insect and disease effects, and a diverse herb/shrub understory. On a dry forest site, outside the project area, the modeled effect of a more aggressive thinning was a 30 percent increase in average diameter, relative to no thinning, after 30 years. Although prescribed fire alone would have less predictable effects, it has been used very successfully in young forests of the Entiat Ranger District for a fraction of the cost of mechanical treatment. The effect of leaving these stands unthinned would be reduced growth, structural stability, and future options (Oliver & Larson, 1990).

The effect to young/smaller trees within the Corridor/Connectivity Treatment Group and stands 460, 480, and the west part of stand 386 of the Northern Spotted Owl Treatment Group would be somewhat proportional to their fire effects (discussed elsewhere). However, because fire effects would mostly likely create small canopy gaps, new cohorts of early seral trees would be unlikely.

III - 20 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences In non-commercial areas where an old and large tree foundation is present, effects to young/small trees would depend on stand conditions and objectives. Effects to stand 123 would be the same as for the Corridor/Connectivity Treatment Group. In stand 239, where old and large ponderosa pines are present, most of the grand fir and many Douglas-fir would be killed. In stand 276, where a large overstory dominates dense larch regeneration, prescribed fire would be effective but expensive, the larch understory would probably be mechanically thinned to as low as 20 per acre because the overstory limits growing space.

Proposed Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments – Cumulative Effects For forest vegetation, the cumulative effects analysis area is the same as the project analysis area. Past actions have created a condition that affects the forest components and ecological processes evaluated above. Future management that would overlap with the complete proposed action to vegetation is wildfire exclusion. Because of the project area’s mixed severity fire regime, wildfire exclusion will not have a measurable effect on the ecological processes described above for several decades.

The cumulative effects of logging/piling/burning and woodcutting have had a similar effect on large/very large wildlife trees and logs. They are absent in all regenerated stands except stands 296 and 276 (those stands being proposed for shelterwood harvest). Dead large/very large snags occur at a density of 1-2 per acre in most other logged stands. However, with the exception of stands that were previously clearcut, some wildlife trees remain, mostly as live trees with physical damage or mistletoe infection. Considering tree vigor, and levels of insect and disease infections, it is doubtful that the existing, younger trees will replace these trees. However, the incidence of root disease among large grand fir is replenishing the supply of down logs in many stands where individual tree selection has occurred.

Effect of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest and Fuels Treatments on Forest Understory Vegetation

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action includes mechanical removal of forested overstory vegetation and/or burning of the residual vegetation and associated understory vegetation. The direct effects of removing the overstory canopy are 1) a reduction in shade and a corresponding increase in the intensity of direct sunlight reaching the forest understory and 2) a reduction in the number of vegetation layers and consequently, plant community structure (as described in Chapter I). It has been well documented that thinning and/or removal of the overstory tree component of forest ecosystems results in the stimulation of the associated understory component (Clary & Ffolliott, 1966), (Carleton & Maycock, 1981), (Host, 1988), (Lieffers & Stadt, 1994), (Agee, 1994), (Riegel, Miller, & Krueger, 1995), (Griffith Jr., 1996), (Ricard & Messier, 1996), (Naumburg & DeWald, 1999). In general, the productivity of the understory vegetation is inversely related to tree density and directly proportional to the amount of solar radiation that reaches the understory vegetation. Studies also emphasize the importance of plant community structure characteristics such as tree size and spacing in understory productivity (Camp, 1999), (Naumburg & DeWald, 1999), (McConnell & Smith, 1970). Research indicates that increased forest understory and non-forest productivity is positively correlated with larger trees and wider spacing. The indirect effect of increased plant productivity would be an increase in forage and browse that is available for grazing by ungulates and permitted livestock.

The effect of canopy removal on understory species composition is somewhat dependent on disturbance history and pretreatment composition (Shiflet, 1994), (National Resource Council, 1994), (Agee, 1994), (Camp, 1999), (Naumburg & DeWald, 1999). In general however, plant community diversity is inversely related to overstory density as referenced in Zamora (1982). McConnell and Smith (1970) observed that shrubs, forbs and grasses were more diverse, more dominant and more productive III - 21 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences under open canopies. Productivity of shrubs such as buckbrush, rose and serviceberry increased with thinning treatments. Forbs and grasses, including balsamroot, lupine, pinegrass, wheatgrass, and elk sedge also increased with declining canopy cover.

The use of mechanical methods for the removal of the overstory vegetation may also result in direct physical effects to the existing vegetation. Short-term adverse effects such as crushing and tearing may occur to the residual vegetation from physical contact of the vegetation with harvest equipment and workers accessing treatment areas. These impacts are considered short-term because many of the associated understory species possess adaptive strategies that allow them to quickly re-sprout following disturbance or removal of the vegetation present at any point in time (Rowe, 1981).

Indirect effects associated with a reduction in canopy cover of the forested overstory include potential changes in associated moisture and temperature regimes. An increase in solar radiation would likely result in increasing temperature and decreasing humidity in microsites throughout the treated area (Hungerford, Microenvironmental reponses to harvesting and residue managment, 1979). Vegetation that is particularly vulnerable to these changes may be adversely affected.

Specific to the Glass-Angel project area, the effects of prescribed burning on forest understory and intermingled shrub and grassland communities would also vary based on pre-treatment species composition and the adaptive strategies of individual species (Crane, Habeck, & Fischer, 1983), (Agee, 1994). Typically, understory species associated with dry forest plant communities are either tolerant of or enhanced by low and moderate intensity fire (Agee, 1993). Barrett and Arno (Barrett & Arno, 1999) observed increases in species such as Oregon grape, Scouler’s willow, pinegrass, elk sedge and Ross’ sedge following thinning and burning in dry forest vegetation types. Both rose and snowberry retained their pre-treatment abundance, while species such as bitterbrush and kinniknick showed a slight overall decline in post-treatment abundance. Understory response in the mesic vegetation type would be similar, in that, increased productivity is expected with a reduction in canopy cover. Re-establishment of shrubs would occur primarily by sprouting of underground rhizomes or root crowns (Crane, Habeck, & Fischer, 1983), (Arno, 1999) or from germination of heat stimulated seed stored in the soil (Keeley, 1987), (Gratkowski, 1962). Owens (Owns, 1982) indicates that the degree of shrub regeneration would be directly associated with the amount of overstory mortality resulting from the fire. Forbs and grasses would also reestablish from seed stored in the soil or from wind-dispersed seed present on the site (Agee, 1994). Studies indicate that grasses would be the dominant associate under the most open canopies with forbs more efficient (and hence, more dominate) under decreasing light conditions.

The intensity and timing of the burn treatment can substantially affect post treatment response of individual species. For example, bitterbrush can be eliminated by high intensity fire during late summer and fall and burning during the fall may substantially increase buckbrush (Brown & DeByle, 1989), (Blaisdell, 1950), (Bradley, Noste, & Fischer, 1992). Burning also affects nutrient cycles by consuming downed fuel and depositing nutrients onto the soil surface making them more available for plant growth. Intense fires can reduce or eliminate organic matter in the soil. Because organic matter is a property of soil structure that plays a role in soil moisture holding capacity, intense fires have the potential to alter hydrologic regimes and plant communities associated with them. However, based on this proposal, it is anticipated that prescribed burning would function to enhance the understory vegetation relative to plant vigor, productivity, and diversity. Refer also to the discussion on Fuels Important Interactions discussed later in this chapter.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area with respect to vegetation is the Glass Angel project area with consideration given to the larger Tieton and Upper Tieton watersheds. This analysis area was selected because vegetation management is planned and implemented at the project level, however; it is well documented that III - 22 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences ecosystem processes necessary for properly functioning ecosystems are known to occur at scales larger than the project or stand level and therefore must be considered. The effects of the proposed actions consider the next seven to 15 years for the reason that understory vegetation response is expected to peak over that time period if additional treatment are not applied

Overall, this proposal implements the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010). Cumulatively, this project, in combination with other on-going and forseeable future projects (Pinus, Swamp Devil, Nile, Sunip, Canteen, and Rattle) will result in an improvement in forest vegetation structure, composition, pattern, and function.in the dry forest landscape for approximately the next seven to 15 years; and aid in moving the cool moist forest more quickly toward a late successional condition.

Refer also to Cumulative Effects in Fuels.

Effect of the Proposed Invasive Species Treatments on Vegetation Refer to Invasive Species Environmental Consequences – Effect of Invasive Species Treatments on Native Plant Communities and Other Non-Target Vegetation.

Effect of the Connected Actions Directly Associated with the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatments and Invasive Species Management Activities on Forest Understory Vegetation

Direct and Indirect Effects Construction of new and previously utilized temporary roads would result in a short-term impact to understory vegetation through crushing and or removal of existing vegetation. However, over the longer-term, proposed revegetation of these areas would result in minimizing or eliminating the short- term impacts and would not result in a measurable increase in fragmentation of forest and non-forest pattern.

Similarly, construction of hand fireline in natural or activity created fuels would result in a short-term impact to understory vegetation through crushing and or removal of existing vegetation; but over the longer-term would not result in a measurable increase in fragmentation of forest and non-forest pattern due to implementation of the proposed revegetation strategy.

Installation of erosion control structures along firelines, skid roads, temporary roads, and on landings would result in a positive effect with respect to the likelihood that the proposed revegetation strategy would be successful. As well, planting of vegetation in association with installation of these structures in regeneration harvest areas, and along temporary roads would further result in a positive effect relative to the success of the proposed revegetation strategy. Provided successful revegatation of these areas no measurable increase is expected to result in fragmentation of forest and non-forest pattern.

Sub-soiling of compacted soil on skid roads and landings in proposed harvest areas would only further contribute to successful revegetation of these areas through reduction of compaction and preparation of the soil for vegetative planting.

Abatement of road dust using water would not result in a measurable effect on the vegetation resource

Making biomass available on landings for transport of material off-site will have no effect on the vegetation resource beyond what has already been described as part of the initial vegetation and fuel treaments.

III - 23 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Cummulative Effects The above described associated connected actions in combination with other on-going and foreseeable actions would result in a minute, if even measurable, positive effect on understory vegetation. The limited impact resulting from these actions is primarily related to the scale at which the actions occur and the limited area actually affected by the action.

Effect of the Proposed Travel and Access Management Actions on Vegetation

Direct and Indirect Effects The closing (reduce to ML1) and decommissioning of roads will limit options for management of the forest understory within the project area. Where future mechanical treatments may be necessary to continue to restore composition and function, options may be limited or economically infeasible in the future. Currently unvegetated areas (e.g., open roads) would slowly become revegetated through initial seeding and passive restoration. However, at the scale of the Revised Proposed Action, approximately 9 miles of road closure decommissioning (~4 mi in the Glass portion and ~5 mi. in the Angel portion) would likely not result in measurable reduction in fragmentation of forest and non-forest pattern in these areas.

The construction of a simple ford or low-water crossing where Forest Road 1605 crosses Nile Creek would have immeasurable effects on vegetation as the proposed activity would occur in and immediately adjacent to the existing crossing physically disturbing little to no vegetation additional vegetation.

Rerouting the east-to-west portion of Trail 697 away from the meadow would result in non effect on understory vegetation, but would result in a direct positive effect on the meadow with respect to soil and vegetation, and ultimately in combination with invasive species treatment, species composition. If implemented, the Adaptive Management proposal would construct approximately 1.6 miles of additional, new trail around the meadow; as compared to rerouting 0.75 miles of trail a short distance to the north; and would therefore result in additional physical disturbance to the soil and vegetation resource. However given the scale of the proposal these actions would likely not result in a measurable change in vegetative structure or pattern.

As well, relocation of Trail 697 from the floodplain in Nile Creek and construction of a bridge on Trail 665 to replace the existing stream ford would not have a measurable effect on vegetation due to the scale of the action and the current condition at the site-specific location of the action.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for road closures and decommissioning, as it applies to vegetation, will be at the landscape scale, in and adjacent to the project area. For the effects described below, the period of consideration is from the time the action is implemented and would continue indefinitely.

The travel and access management actions proposed here, in combination with, present and foreseeable future actions, e.g., forest restoration and travel and access management, would result in a limited positive impact on vegetation by reducing small scale, scattered vegetation and soil disturbance created by roads and trails and allowing for revegetation of these areas.

III - 24 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Effect of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatments and Travel and Access Management Actions on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Other Rare and Uncommon Plant Species All required surveys for proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, and other rare and uncommon plant species were completed consistent with current laws, regulations, and policy (Engle J. a., 2004), (Wheeler, Botanical Survey Field Notes and File for the Dry-Orr Landscape Analysis Area. Okanogan Wenatchee NF., Naches Ranger District, 2010). Currently accepted species lists and required survey protocols were utilized (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2001), (USDA Forest Service, 2003), (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2001), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1998), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1998a), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1998b), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1997), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1997a), (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994). A detailed botanical report (specialist report) is located in the Glass Angel analysis file. The analysis area is the Dry-Orr Landscape Analysis area.

Field reconnaissance confirmed that the project area contained a variety of habitats suitable for target plant species (i.e., Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant list (USDA Forest Service, 2004) and species listed in the 2001 Survey and Manage ROD). Plant communities and habitats of particular interest included: open and closed coniferous forest and other wooded areas; open grassy hillslopes; rocky ridges; talus slopes, crevices and shaded cliffs; meadows; and riparian areas including seeps, small lakes, and vernal springs and bogs. Plant species requiring pre-disturbance surveys and with suitable habitat present in the Dry-Orr landscape area are displayed in the specialists report located in the analysis file.

Survey efforts documented the occurrence of Cypripedium montanum, Gyromintra infula, Pseudorhizina californica, and Gyromitra melaleucoides within the larger Dry-Orr Landscape Analysis area. However, none of these occurrences were located within the smaller Glass Angel Restoration Project area. Therefore, no, direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are anticipated to proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, or other rare and uncommon plant species as a result of the implementation of the proposed Glass Angel project.

Environmental Consequences - Fuels

Effect of the No Action Alternative on Fuels

As of this writing, the use of prescribed fire is not an option on the Naches Ranger District. In a letter from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (July 26, 2010), who regulates silvicultural burning for natural resource agencies, five criteria, additional to the eight required by the Washington Clean Air Act Smoke Management Plan, are being imposed on burning on the Naches Ranger District due to the proximity to the City of Yakima. Yakima is considered a high-risk community to be designated as a

PM2.5 non-attainment area. Review of the five additional criteria by local experts looking at historic weather data, and by a Research Meteorologist indicates that the criteria cannot be met, removing prescribed fire as a tool for accomplishing restoration objectives.

Recent studies have shown that both human- and lightning-caused fires will increase if climates modeled with current general circulation models are reflective of future climates (Podur & Wotton, 2010), and there is no reason to expect that the Glass Angel project area would be an exception to this. Research has shown that the severity of fire weather is expected to increase and fire seasons are expected to lengthen over the 21st century (Podur & Wotton, 2010). Such increases in fire weather severity are tied to increases in temperature and changing patterns of rainfall. Projected changes in III - 25 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences climate lead to an overall increase in the receptivity of fuels to both ignition and fire spread. Current research suggests that climate change will lead to bigger and more intense wildfires. Using a model of large fire growth and suppression and projected weather from a general circulation model, more than a doubling of area burned by 2040 and an eightfold increase in area burned by the end of the 21st Century are forecasted. These increases are due to a threshold effect, in which a larger number of fires that are too intense to control overwhelm the fire management system and cause major increases in area burned (Podur & Wotton, 2010). If no action were taken in the Glass Angel project area, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire occurring would increase over time. Incorporated and surrounding focal wildlife species habitat (northern spotted owl in the mesic forest and white headed woodpecker in the dry forest) would be at a risk of loss from wildfire, with that risk increasing over time as fuels accumulate. The natural decay rate would reduce fuels at a much slower rate than they would accumulate through ordinary pruning and mortality. Wildfire would reduce fuels as well as return fire as an ecological process within the project area, but would fail to meet Purposes and Needs of: restoring key components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern) (page I-14); restore focal wildlife species habitat and reduce the risk of loss to uncharacteristic wildfire (page I-15), and; allow natural processes to function that will provide resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change (page I-15).

Effect of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest and Fuels Treatments on Fuels

Direct and Indirect Effects In general, fuel treatments in this project are designed to alter fuel conditions so that wildfire is less difficult to control, disruptive, and destructive. Given the right conditions, wildlands will inevitably burn. It is a misconception to think that treating fuels can ‘‘fire-proof’’ important areas. Fuel treatments in the Glass Angel project are intended to be used to reduce fire severity and intensity instead of fire occurrence. Treating fuels to facilitate suppression is an example in circular logic. If fuel treatment makes suppression more successful in general, then less area will be burned in the short run and more acreage will tend to burn under extreme conditions, when suppression is ineffective. The inevitable result is that more area is burned in fewer, more unmanageable events with greater consequences. In addition, fire suppression leads to continued fuel accumulation and, in turn, more difficult conditions for suppression. This phenomenon has been described as ‘‘the wildland fire paradox’’ (Brown & Arno, 1991). Rather than creating conditions where fire is easier to suppress, fuel treatments should strive to create conditions where fire can occur without the need for suppression (Reinhardt, Keane, Calkin, & Cohen, 2008).

Fire behavior is a function of fuels, weather, and topography, the “fire behavior triangle”. All three legs of the triangle have substantial effects on fire behavior but the fuels leg is directly related to forest structure and is the only factor that can be controlled by management action. Forest structure can be interpreted as three-dimensional patches of fuel, with differing amounts, size classes, arrangements, and flammability. Forest structure affects fire behavior, and fire behavior in turn affects forest structure (Agee, 1996). The proposed silvicultural activities in the Glass Angel project directly seek to reduce detrimental fire effects on the landscape by reducing surface fuels, increasing the height to the live crown, decreasing crown density, and keeping large and very large trees of resistant species. These objectives are linked to the Purpose and Need for management action, specifically:

 Restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern)  Restore focal wildlife species habitat and reduce the risk of habitat loss to uncharacteristic wildfire  Allow natural processes to function that will provide resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change  Protect, enhance, and rehabilitate montane meadows III - 26 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The ecosystems ability to tolerate fire within historic and future ranges of variability as a natural process depends on the degree to which these objectives and the Purpose and Need have been met. Treating surface fuels, reducing ladder fuels, and opening overstory forest canopies generally produce fire-safe forest conditions (Brown, Agee, & Franklin, 2004).

Table III.13. Principles of fire resistance for dry forests. Adapted from (Agee, 2002) and (Hessburg & Agee, 2003). Principle Effect Advantage Concerns Reduce surface fuels Reduces potential flame Fire suppression Surface disturbance length easier; less torching less with fire than other techniques

Increase height to live Requires longer flame Less torching Opens understory; crown length to begin torching may allow surface wind to increase

Decrease crown density Makes tree-to-tree Reduces crown fire Surface wind may crown fire less probable potential increase and surface fuels may be drier

Keep big trees of Less mortality for same Generally restores Less economical; may resistant species fire intensity historic structure keep trees at risk of insect attack

The mixed-severity fire regime is less clearly a candidate for thinning and/or fire restoration. Characteristically, a mixed-severity fire regime will have a number of individual fires that burn at mixed severities. It may also have some stand-replacement fires and some nonlethal fires. Individual mixed- severity fires typically leave a patchy, erratic pattern of mortality on the landscape, which fosters development of highly diverse communities (Arno, Parsons, & Keane, 2000). Changes following decades of fire exclusion will mean that reintroduction of prescribed fire without thinning would be problematic (Agee & Huff, 1986). Past management practices may have led to development of old-growth stands with “unnatural” multiple canopy layers or accumulations of snags and logs, but these areas may provide key habitat that compensates for the loss and degradation of these habitat elements elsewhere (USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2000), (Wisdom, Holthausen, Wales, Hargis, Saab, & Lee, 2000). The design of the Glass Angel Restoration Project is to secure such habitats from wildfire by treating adjacent areas. Strategic location of fuel treatments may slow the spread of fire across the landscape (Agee J. , 1999), (Finney, 2001), (Finney, Sapsis, & Bahro, 2002).

Table III.14 describes the relative ability of the proposed silvicultural treatments to meet the Purpose and Need within the mixed-severity fire regime (cool, moist forest type).

III - 27 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.14. Relative ability of proposed vegetation treatments in the mixed-severity fire regime to meet the Purpose and Need of forest restoration. Principle Full Precommercial Natural Fuels Mechanical Silvicultural Thin and Fuels Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment (underburn) Only (no prescribed fire) Reduce surface good good best loss (increases fuels surface fuels) Increase height to good moderate poor to good22 poor to live crown moderate

Decrease crown best poor moderate moderate to density (over and midstory good (short- crown) term) Keep big trees of good best good good resistant species

If the full range of proposed restoration treatments were applied to the Glass Angel project area, Fire for Multiple Resource Benefits (full, minimal, or no suppression) could be practiced. The number of ignitions would likely increase as described in the No Action Alternative, but fire intensity would remain within the natural range of variability, allowing an ignition to contribute to a self-sustaining landscape, and not add to overwhelming the fire management system.

A fire may move through a forest as a surface fire, an independent crown fire, or some combination thereof (Van Wagner, 1977). Intense surface fire may transition into a crown fire through a process called torching, which is a function of the height to live crown and foliar moisture content. Above threshold conditions of fireline intensity defined by these variables, the fire will move into the canopy. Independent crown fire spread is a function of fire rate of spread and the foliar density of the canopy (Scott & Reinhardt, 2001), (Hummel & Agee, 2003). Effective strategies for reducing crown fire occurrence and severity include reducing surface fuels (Biswell, 1960), (Pollet & Omi, 2002), increasing canopy base height (Agee & Skinner, 2005), and reducing canopy bulk density (Agee, 1996).

The direct effects of removing tree canopy would be a reduction in shade and a corresponding increase in the intensity of direct sunlight reaching the forest understory, leading to an earlier curing of live vegetation, and an increase in fuel temperature. An increase in fire intensity and rate of spread would be expected; warmer temperatures allow fuels to ignite and burn faster, adding to the rate at which a wildfire spreads. Surface winds would increase from the reduced canopy. Winds supply the fire with additional oxygen, further drying potential fuel and pushing a fire across the land at a faster rate. As ground fuel loading increases a fire will burn more intensely, causing it to spread faster.

In the Glass project area, timber harvest is being proposed as a method to begin the restoration of composition, structure, and pattern on the landscape. Timber harvest is an effective means of removing excess stems from the over- and mid-stories, and is used to reduce aerial fuel continuity and subsequent fire behavior (crown fire) for protection of focal wildlife species. There is an inherent increase in down

22 This will be variable, based on the burn prescription. Lower flame lengths will result in a lower height to live crown. III - 28 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences woody fuels from logging slash after harvest, which then potentially serves to create intense, fast spreading wildfires. Fuel depth and loading play a substantial role in fire intensity and rate of spread. Following timber harvest and prior to fuel treatment, fuel loadings in the Glass project area would be expected to be changed from the current Fuel Models, best described as TL5, TU1, and TU5 (see Table III.15) to a post-harvest fuel model being best represented by Fuel Models SB1 and SB2. Prescribed burning would be expected to reduce fine fuel loadings by 80-100% (with corresponding reductions in other size classes) and result in post-treatment Fuel Models of TL1 and TL3. Refer to Table III.14 for rate of spread and flame lengths specific to each Fuel Model.

Table III.15. Rate of Spread and Flame Length by Fuel Models (Scott & Burgan, 2005) common to the Glass Angel project area (Behave 5.0.1)23. Fuel Model Rate of Spread Flame Length and description (maximum) ft./hour ft. TL1 - Timber Litter 92 0.8 low load compact conifer litter TL3 - Timber Litter 178 1.4 moderate load conifer litter TL5 – Timber Litter 462 2.8 high load conifer litter TU1 – Timber Understory 601 3.5 low load, dry climate timber-grass-shrub TU5 – Timber Understory 1,327 11.5 very high load, dry climate timber-shrub SB1 – Slash-Blowdown 647 4.1 low load activity fuel SB2 – Slash-Blowdown 1,570 8.1 moderate load activity fuel

The critical surface fire intensity needed to initiate crown fire behavior can be calculated for a range of crown base heights and foliar moisture contents, and represents the minimum level of fireline intensity necessary to initiate crown fire (Table III.16, below). In order to avoid crown fire initiation, fireline intensity must be kept below the critical level. This can be accomplished by managing surface fuels such that fireline intensity is kept well below the critical level, or by raising crown base heights such that the critical fireline intensity is difficult to reach (Agee, et al., 2000). A comparison of Tables III.15 and III.16 show that Fuel Model SB1 would have flame lengths that could result in crown fire where height to live crown is less than 12 meters, and Fuel Model SB2 could result in a crown fire in all circumstances. It would be assumed that stands would still be susceptible to individual tree and group (active) torching.

23 Based on typical mid-summer conditions: mid-day temperature range of 70°-89° F, relative humidity of 15% - 19% resulting in a fine fuel moisture of 3%; live herbaceous and live woody fuels are cured; an upslope midflame windspeed of 5 mph; average slope steepness of 30% III - 29 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Foliar moisture Height of crown base (m) Table III.16. Flame lengths associated content (%) with critical levels of fireline intensity 2 6 12 20 that are associated with initiating 70 1.1 2.3 3.7 5.3 crown fire, using Byram’s (Byram, 1959) equation. For example, at 70% foliar 80 1.2 2.5 4.0 5.7 moisture content and a crown base height of 2 meters, a flame length of 1.1 90 1.3 2.7 4.3 6.1 feet may initiate a crown fire. 100 1.3 2.8 4.6 6.5 The First Order Fire Effects Model 120 1.5 3.2 5.1 7.3 (FOFEM) indicates only a 6% probability of mortality (as a result of crown scorch or cambium kill) for ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch greater than 21”dbh, with a four foot flame length. In the case of ponderosa pine the probability for mortality climbs to 50% as flame length approaches eight feet, while Douglas-fir and western larch remain at 6-8%. Fire behavior modeling (Table III.14) indicates that sustained flame lengths of 4-8 feet are predicted in post-treatment slash during mid-summer conditions with a 5 mph upslope wind, and that flame lengths of 3-12 feet are likely in the surrounding unharvested areas.

Prescriptions for the Glass Angel Restoration Project isolate and retain Douglas-fir and western larch dwarf mistletoe infected trees, especially as it occurs in large and very large trees and is providing important habitat needs for wildlife. Mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir are especially flammable due to the dead material that accumulates within, the abundance of fine branches, and the relatively high concentrations of resins. Flames can easily reach the lower broomed branches of dwarf mistletoe- infected fir which burst into flames igniting the remainder of the crown. Stands that have not been treated are at risk of conflagration. Individual crown ignition may quickly develop into a total stand fire if conditions allow. Other components, such as large ponderosa pine and western larch would likely be killed when the fire crowns throughout the stand (USDA Forest Service, 1997).

Table III.17, following page, displays expected mortality of five major tree species within the Glass Angel project area. Flame lengths were analyzed up to eight feet, as Behave indicated that flame lengths would not exceed this mark as a ground fire in all fuel types. The results of the FOFEM predictions indicate that a prescribed fire with flame lengths of <6 feet would meet resource objectives for retaining post-treatment stand structure.

Left blank for formatting

III - 30 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.17. FOFEM24 indicated probability of mortality (from crown scorch or cambium kill) by diameter and flame length. Flame Length (ft.) Species/Diameter (dbh) 2 4 6 8 Ponderosa pine 7” 71% 99% 99% 99% 12” 21% 91% 98% 98% 16” 11% 25% 88% 96% 21” 6% 6% 11% 58% 25” 4% 4% 4% 18%

Douglas-fir 7” 57% 99% 99% 99% 12” 20% 87% 98% 98% 16” 11% 11% 75% 96% 21” 6% 6% 6% 8% 25” 4% 4% 4% 4%

Western larch 7” 57% 99% 99% 99% 12” 20% 87% 98% 98% 16” 11% 11% 58% 96% 21” 6% 6% 6% 6% 25” 4% 4% 4% 4%

Grand fir 7” 80% 100% 100% 100% 12” 34% 95% 99% 99% 16” 21% 41% 94% 98% 21” 12% 12% 20% 74% 25” 9% 9% 9% 30%

Lodgepole pine 7” 63% 99% 99% 99% 12” 24% 67% 98% 99%

16” 20% 20% 60% 97%

21” 15% 15% 40% 84%

25” 12% 12% 14% 64%

24 First Order Fire Effects Model

III - 31 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Adaptive Management Strategy The inability to use prescribed fire to treat fuels following timber harvest would result in the in the Fuel Models remaining at SB1 or SB2 (refer to Table III.15) until removed mechanically, by wildfire, or by decomposition. Treatments without prescribed fire do not effectively reduce fire behavior under extreme conditions. The only known substitute for natural fires and their infinite number of effects on ecosystems is prescribed fire (Kauffman, 2004). The manipulation of forest overstory via selective tree removal can be an important initial step in the restoration of forest stands affected by decades of fire exclusion and land use. However, it is not a panacea. Fuels begin to re-accumulate the day after the treatments end. Without proper follow-up, the treatments will lose their effectiveness in a relatively short period. Forest restoration can be achieved only when the dominant distrurbance processes (wildland fires) are allowed to occur or are mimicked via prescribed fire (Kauffman, 2004).

Proposed Invasive Species Treatments – Direct and Indirect Effects The spotty and isolated nature of Invasive Plant Management will have little to no effect on fuel loading and fire behavior. Up to 10% of the project area is proposed for treatment, mostly along areas of high human use. In reference to the five strategies proposed (Chapter II), prevention would not introduce any new fuel into the project area. Manual control would remove fuel from the project area through bagging and removal after treatment. Mechanical control would shred material to a composition that would be naturally compacted to the ground, would quickly decompose, and would not be a contributor to fire spread or intensity. Cultural control would add fuel to the project area, but only in the sense that ambient levels of native species would be established sooner to out-compete the invasive species. Only chemical control has the potential to leave cured fuel on site after treatment. However, individual and/or groups of plants treated by spraying or wicking would be incidental to the project area and would add no more to fire behavior than would be by normal seasonal curing of any individual or patch of shrubs or forbs.

Proposed Access and Travel Management; Forest Road 1605 Crossing, Road Closures and Obliterations, and Trail 697 Reroute; All Alternatives – Direct and Indirect Effects Fire equipment (crew carriers, fire engines) are able to traverse the FR1605 crossing with current unimproved ford. Improving the ford will have no measurable effect on the response time of ground crews to wildland fire, nor affect their ability to perform prescribed fire or other management activities.

Anecdotal arguments can be made, and Naches Ranger District data can support that roads; a) contribute to the number of human caused fire ignitions by making more area available to human use, thus being a negative influence for the project area; b) make effective existing, or easily established, control lines to aid in fire suppression efforts, and c) provide access for ground-based suppression resources. Both point’s b and c may benefit suppression efforts and reduce firefighting costs. A lack of ignitions along the roads proposed for closure or decommissioning within the Glass Angel project area gives no statistical evidence to support or refute either of these suppositions. As the roads proposed for closure or decommissioning total less than six miles separated into fourteen different roads or segments of road, this action will have little effect on fire ignition or spread. Reduced road densities would benefit fire as an ecological process after silvicultural and fuels treatments by allowing fires to burn through the project area along the paths dictated by stand composition and structure. The function of fire as a process would not be interrupted by unnatural breaks in stand pattern (e.g., roads).

Neither of the proposed alternatives to reroute Trail 697 nor the No Action alternative will have an effect, direct, indirect, or cumulative, on fire suppression or fuel treatment activities.

None of the Access and Travel Management actions (neither any of the action alternatives, nor the No Action Alternative) will affect the ability of aerial resources to respond to wildfire. III - 32 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The Refined Proposed Action – Cumulative Effects For the Cumulative Effects discussion of fuels and fire, the analysis area will be the project area boundary, the northeast portion of the Naches Mainstem watershed, and the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Large fires that may last weeks or even months at a time will be influenced by weather (particularly wind), and terrain. Mid-summer rates of spread can result in wildfires exceeding tens of thousands of acres or more. Location of the project areas, their aspects, and prevailing winds suggest a most likely direction of spread to be south and east (upslope) in the Angel project area. In the Glass project area, EMDS fire flow modeling (path of least resistance) suggest a largely north/south spread from topography and fuels, while prevailing winds would add a east to southeast component to fire spread. In the case of a large wildfire, some, and possible extensive, fire spread contrary to the prevailing slope and winds is certain.

The Proposed Action would have a beneficial cumulative effect on fuels reduction, minimizing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, and providing protection for focal wildlife species habitat. The short-term effect would be the reduction and rearrangement of fuels. Similar activities have taken place over the past 10 years, and are currently in progress or are planned to take place in the next several years. Future actions, together with past and present actions in the analysis area would continue to move vegetation types and age class diversity within the analysis area toward the Forests’ Plan, Watershed Analysis, and landscape evaluation’s desired condition.

As discussed in the Direct and Indirect Effects, fuels rebound after treatment, eventually negating treatment effects (Rhodes & Baker, 2008). Fuel treatments, including prescribed fire as an initial- and as a maintenance-treatment to increase ecosystem resilience, need to be applied to create landscapes in which ﬁre can occur without devastating consequences. Once these conditions have been achieved, wildﬁre need not be as vigorously suppressed and can itself play a role in maintaining these landscapes.

Potential effects of climate change must be considered as a component of cumulative impacts. Changes in climate cause changes in vegetation, water availability, water demand, and frequencies and modes of environmental disturbance. Until these changes are better understood, it will be difficult to reliably predict the environmental outcomes of particular land-use activities (USDA Forest Service, 2010). Wildland fire and related natural disturbances continue to grow as a major global threat to property, lives, and ecosystems. There is growing scientific evidence that climate change is in part responsible for catastrophic fire events that are increasingly common (USDA Forest Service, 2010). There is growing awareness of the deleterious effects of such uncontrolled fires on biodiversity, human health, and the economy. However, there remains a serious lack of knowledge about fire’s fundamental role in Earth system processes, as well as an insufficient appreciation of fire’s interaction with anthropogenic global environmental change. Progress in understanding fire on Earth has been hampered by cultural aversions to accepting fire as a fundamental global feature (Bowman, et al., 2009).

As discussed in the Direct and Indirect Effects section, the spotty and isolated nature of Invasive Plant Management will have little to no effect on fuel loading and fire behavior cumulatively and over time. Individual and/or groups of plants treated by spraying or wicking would not accumulate in the project area beyond the immediate growing season and would not contribute to the fuel load or cause an appreciable increase in fire behavior. Patches or individual plants would be crushed by winter snow, dispersed by the wind, and/or decomposed over time adding no more to the fuel loading than is inherent within the system, and would be expected of self-pruning of tree branches or mortality among native grasses or shrubs, as examples.

Cumulative impacts of the proposed road closures and decommissioning would be neutral as related to future fuels treatments and future fire suppression. Adequate roads and road templates remain in, and III - 33 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences near, the project area to supply mid-slope and ridge top access and control lines for future fuels projects or future fire suppression activities. Spatial locations of human-caused wildfires are concentrated in areas with high accessibility to humans: close to roads and near high road density areas. The removal of roads would decrease access, but it would also concentrate fire ignitions into a smaller, still easily accessible area.

AIR QUALITY

Environmental Consequences Air Quality

Affected Environment Fire is the single most important ecological disturbance process throughout the interior Pacific Northwest (Mutch, Arno, Brown, Carlson, & Peterson, 1993). Prescribed fire, often in combination with other management techniques, can be used to restore wildland forests to a more sustainable structure while simultaneously reducing the potential for catastrophic wildfires. Prescribed fire may also run contrary to current Federal and state environmental laws because any fire event has the potential to degrade ambient air quality, impair visibility, and expose the public to unhealthy pollutants (Ottmar, Schaaf, & Alvarado, 1996). There are complex tradeoffs between increased prescribed fire, inevitable wildfire, forest health, visibility impairment, and public exposure to smoke. The ecological and the societal impacts of fire management in the wildlands of modern America is acknowledged by most land management agencies, as well as by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Hardy, Hermann, & Mutch, 2001). The EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998) comments on the responsibilities of wildland owners/managers and State/tribal air quality managers to coordinate fie activities, minimize air pollutant emissions, manage smoke from prescribed fires, and establish emergency action programs to mitigate the unavoidable impacts on the public.

Stakeholders (representatives of agencies with an interest or investment in air quality, such as land management agencies and air quality regulatory agencies) hold diverse views on prescribed fire. There is general agreement that prescribed burning promotes forest health, and most agencies acknowledge the usefulness of prescribed burning as a tool for fuels management. But there is a distinct difference of opinion on “when, where, and how often” burns should be implemented. The message of “less smoke with prescribed fire now than with wildfire later” is embraced by prescribed fire proponents, but rejected as an ineffective message by those in the air quality realm. They say that the potential to avoid worse smoke tomorrow, next month, or next year falls on deaf ears in the face of the actual threat from smoke today (from a prescribed fire) (resource media, 2010). Among the key findings of stakeholder interviews are the following perceptions of prescribed fire:

 Long-time, rural residents have a better understanding of the usefulness of prescribed fire than do urban dwellers, newcomers, or second-homeowners  The threat of wildfire is too abstract for residents of populated areas, therefore the fuel reduction message does not resonate with them  There is a better understanding of the role of fire in general within the tribal community – which is very connected to the forest, both economically and culturally – than with other audiences  The ecological benefits of prescribed fire are not well understood by the general population  Few residents have (or want) a deeper understanding of prescribed fire benefits; their interest is in where and when – not why  There is a particularly wide gap in understanding the rationale for large, expansive burns; most people think that smaller burns are less intrusive and more appropriate

III - 34 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences  There is no awareness of prescribed fire issues beyond fuel reduction and forest health (benefits), and smoke impacts (drawback). Cost benefits, fear over loss of control, or other factors that might influence perception are not part of the ongoing discussion  Climate change is not a driving factor in public perception

The nearest downwind, permanent, air quality monitor to the Glass Angel project is a nephelometer located at the Naches Range Station. This instrument has been established for slightly over two years, as of this writing, so a reasonable baseline has not yet been determined, though general trends are becoming apparent. Results are compared to other local nephelometers located in Yakima, Ellensburg, Toppenish, and White Swan. All five of these instruments indicate similar trends (qualitative):

 The late-fall and winter months (November through February) have the worst air quality. This is very likely caused by weather patterns, terrain, and the use of wood for home heating.  Air quality in October could be characterized as moderate, in comparison to the rest of the year. It is surmised that air quality in the early part of the month is good, and then deteriorates as the fall temperature inversions set up and stagnate the lower air layer, and the use of wood for home heating increases.  July and August, for the past two years, have shown generally degraded air quality from wildfires occurring as far away as interior British Columbia, and comparable to the air quality experienced in October.  March, April, May, June, and September have generally good air quality.

A nephelometer has been located within the city of Yakima for several years. Based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local analysis, some Pacific Northwest counties, including Yakima County, appear to be a possibility for future nonattainment status because of expected future violations of a new, reduced National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 (Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency, 2005). PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters of less than 2.5 microns (µ).

During the spring of 2007 a monitor to track PM2.5 levels was placed in the Nile Valley, situated between the Glass and Angel project areas, during the prescribed fire season. During days of no burning, air quality remained within levels considered healthy for humans. During this same period, the Yakima nephelometer recorded levels considered typical for spring in the area. From this limited data, it could be inferred (though unsubstantiated by physical data) that air quality in and around the project area could normally be characterized as good, as would intuitively be thought. The topography allows for good transport of air through the analysis area. Large scale inversions and subsidences are common in the fall and can be associated with regional air quality degradation. Impacts to air quality are also associated with pollution flowing with weather patterns through Chinook Pass and Naches Pass from west-side sources.

Several sensitive airsheds exist near the Glass Angel analysis area. Population centers, summer home groups, roads and highways, and Class I wilderness areas are considered sensitive to smoke, dust, and other pollutants. Smoke and its associated pollutants would also affect recreation sites should fire occur nearby. Table III.18 displays the distance and direction of some notable sensitive airsheds within 50 air miles of the analysis area.

III - 35 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.18. Airsheds of concern and proximity to the Glass Angel analysis area Area of Concern Type of Airshed Direction from Distance from Analysis Area Analysis Area Goat Rocks Wilderness Class I Southwest 15 miles

Mt. Ranier National Park Class I West 16 miles

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Class I North 39 miles

Mt. Adams Wilderness Class I South 33 miles

Cliffdell Community Northeast 4 miles

State Route 410 Highway Northeast 4 miles

Nile Valley Populated area Northeast 4 miles

Naches/Gleed Town East 18 miles

Cowiche/Tieton Town Southeast 17 miles

Selah City East 29 miles Wenas Valley Populated area East 24 miles Yakima City Southeast 30 miles

Potential PM2.5 non- attainment area

Ellensburg City Northeast 29 miles

Effect of the No Action Alternative on Air Quality The amount of emissions produced by wildfire (or Table III.19. Emissions produced by a 1,000 prescribed fire) is highly variable. Factors influencing acre wildfire under “typical” conditions. emissions include size of a fire, fuel loading, fuel Pollutant Tons of moisture, fire duration, the amount of time spent in Emission flaming vs. smoldering combustion, all influence the Produced amount of emissions produced. This interacts especially with atmospheric stability, wind direction, PM 233 and the amount of energy produced by a fire in PM10 156 determining how much emission will reach any given receptor. Table III.19 represents the emissions PM2.5 148 produced by a 1,000 acre fire, burning in a fuel bed CO 1,402 typical to the Glass project area or the upper CO 26,681 elevations of the Angel project area, with typical mid- 2 summer weather conditions. This table is presented CH4 89 for comparison only, and is not intended to portray Non-methane hydrocarbons 70 the absolute conditions expected, nor the quantity of (NMHC) emissions that would be expected to reach any particular receptor. Fire size can range from a small spot, to a fire that exceeds the entire project area or even the entire watershed. The emissions presented are for a ground fire only. A fire that burns in the live crowns would substantially raise the numbers, but at the same time, the energy produced would

III - 36 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences loft the smoke plume substantially higher where upper winds would contribute to mixing and dispersal. A larger fire (one burning more acres) would produce a proportionately higher level of emissions. See also Table III.20; the emission of toxic chemicals found in wood smoke would also proportionally increase with fire size.

Effect of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest and Fuels Treatments on Air Quality

Proposed Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments - Direct and Indirect Effects A provision of the Clean Air Act with some applicability to wildland burning activities is the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions. The goal of PSD is to prevent areas that are currently cleaner than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from being polluted up to the ceiling established by NAAQS (Sandberg, Ottmar, & Peterson). Historically, EPA has regarded smoke from wildland fires as temporary and therefore not subject to issuance of a PSD permit; whether or not wildland fire smoke should be considered when calculating PSD increment consumption or PSD baseline was not defined. EPA reaffirmed that States could exclude prescribed fire emissions from increment analyses provided the exclusion does not result in permanent or long-term air quality deterioration. States are also expected to consider the extent to which a particular type of burning activity is truly temporary, as opposed to an activity that could be expected to occur in a particular area with some regularity over a long period. Oregon is the only State that has chosen to include prescribed fire emissions in PSD increment and baseline calculations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).

Human Health Fires, both wild and prescribed, can substantially contribute to ambient air pollution. Consequently, air quality concerns and regulations are major constraints to the implementation of prescribed fire strategies (Paoletti, et al., 2007).

The sentiment that woodsmoke, being natural and ancient substance, must be benign to humans is still sometimes heard. It is now well established, however, that woodburning stoves and fireplaces as well as wildland and agricultural fires emit subtantial quantities of known health-damaging pollutants, including carcinogenic and other toxic organic compounds such as polyaromatic compounds, benzene, and aldehydes; respirable particulate matter with diameters allowing it penetrate into the deep lung; carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOx), and free radicals among many other pollutants (Naeher Ph.D., et al., 2005 (rev)). A number of toxic or carcinogenic compounds are present in biomass smoke, as shown in Table III.20.

III - 37 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.20. Summary of the toxic chemical agents identified in woodsmoke (Naeher Ph.D., et al., 2005 (rev)). Chemical class Number of Mode of toxicity Representative compounds compounds Toxic gases 4+ Irritant, acute toxicity Carbon monoxide Ammonia Nitrogen dioxide Sulfur dioxide Volatile Organic Compounds 30+ Irritant, possible Methyl chloride carcinogenic Methylene chloride Saturated hydrocarbons 25+ Irritant, neurotoxicity Hexane Unsaturated hydrocarbons 40+ Irritant, carcinogenic, 1,3-butadiene mutagenic Acrolein Mono-aromatics 28+ Irritant, carcinogenic, Benzene mutagenic Styrene Polycyclic aromatic 20+ Carcinogenic, mutagenic, Benzo[163]pyrene, hydrocarbons (PAHs) Immunotoxic Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Organic alcohols and acids 25+ Irritant, acute toxicity, Methanol Teratogenic Acetic acid Aldehydes 20+ Irritant, carcinogenic, Formaldehyde mutagenic Acetaldehyde Phenols 33+ Irritant, carcinogenic, Catechol mutagenic, teratogenic Cresol (methyl-phenols) Quinones 3 Irritant, allergenic, Redox Hydroquinone active, causes oxidative Fluorenone stress and inflammation Anthraquinone response, possibly carcinogenic Free radicals Redox active, causes Semi-quinone type radicals oxidative stress and inflammation response, possibly carcinogenic Inorganic compounds 14+ Carcinogenic, acute Arsenic toxicity Lead Chromium

Fine particulate matter Inflammation, may be PM2.5 allergenic Chlorinated dioxins Irritant, may be carcinogenic or teratogenic Particulate acidity Irritant Sulfuric acid

The possible market and utilization of forest biomass as a commodity has the potential to remove large amounts of slash that would normally be burned. Removal of biomass results in the slash not being burned in the highly inefficient method of prescribed burning on the ground. Making the conservative assumption that technology and economics would make only those acres harvested under a commercial thin feasible for biomass utilization, Table III.21 presents the potential material available. Stokes (1992) reported a wide range of recovery percentages, with an average of about 60 percent potential recovery after conventional forest harvesting systems. With newer technology, it is estimated that the current potential for recovery is about 65 percent (Perlack, Wright, Turhollow, Graham, Stokes, & Erbach, 2005). If it were economically and ecologically feasible to yard small-diameter material, as would be produced in a precommercial thin, these figures could be higher.

III - 38 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.21. Biomass available and emissions potentially not released into the airshed because of biomass utilization. Acres Estimated Estimated potential Estimated potential Tons of tons of biomass tons of emissions not slash/acre available (65% released into the potential recovery)25 airshed26 Commercial harvest in the cool, moist Douglas-fir/grand fir 509 25 – 3627 8,271 – 11,911 14,504 – 16,986 type

Visibility Visibility conditions are affected by scattering and absorption of light by particles and gases. The fine particles most responsible for visibility impairment are sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, soot, and soil dust. Fine particles are more efficient per unit mass than coarse particles at scattering light. Light scattering efficiencies also go up as humidity rises, due to water adsorption on fine particles, which allows the particles to grow to sizes comparable to the wavelength of light. Naturally occurring visual range in the western states is between 190 to 270 kilometers (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Both prescribed burning and wildland fire, depending on the size of the fire, fuel moisture, weather conditions, and proximity of the viewer to the fire, can reduce visibility substantially.

The effects of prescribed burning activities on human health and visibility on the Glass Angel project could be minimized through regulation and avoidance. By implementing prescribed burns on days that take advantage of atmospheric instability, favorable wind directions, and when possible incoming precipitation and/or cold fronts, smoke can be directed away from areas of concern, diluted by mixing with clean air, and/or the amount of residual smoldering minimized. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources has governing authority to issue permits for outdoor burning by federal agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998) (see discussion in Silviculture and Fuels Treatments – Cumulative Effects). Proposed Commercial Harvest and Fuels Treatments – Cumulative Effects The analysis area for Air Quality will include the project area and the possible downwind receptors, including communities, other populated areas, non-attainment areas, public travelways, Class I Airsheds, and other nearby, smoke sensitive areas. Smoke from large prescribed burns or wildfires can have impacts tens, and even hundreds of miles downwind, depending on atmospheric stability, mixing winds, type and quantity of fuel being consumed, fuel moisture, phase of consumption (flaming or smoldering) that the majority of the fuel is consumed, and duration of the fire. In the case of large wildland fire, these impacts can last for weeks or even months. For purposes of this Cumulative Effects Analysis, the airshed roughly defined by Table III.18 will be considered.

When discussing air quality, consideration must be given to the impacts of prescribed burning across the eastern Cascades especially, as well as the entire state. Multiple ranger districts, agencies, and landowners may be attempting to take advantage of best conditions to meet their individual resource or economic need. All of these entities are in competition for a limited amount of smoke generated and put into the airshed and still stay within NAAQS. Other districts on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National

25 Slash only – saw timber and pulp wood not considered, and assuming that recoverable material (slash) would be piled at a landing. 26 Consume calculated forPM10, PM2.5, CO, CO2, CH4, and NMHC. 27 Estimated, based on photo series (Maxwell & Ward, Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues in the: Sierra Mixed Conifer Type, Sierra True Fir Type, 1979) III - 39 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Forest, the Yakama Nation, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and possibly the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service may all be attempting to conduct prescribed burns with smoke outputs similar to those described for Glass Angel in Table III.14. In addition, private agriculture land owners may at the same time be attempting to dispose of orchard or other commodity related biomass through prescribed burning. Federal and state agencies coordinate burning activities through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on a daily basis, or through an otherwise approved process. The DNR is responsible to ensure that NAAQS are not exceeded by monitoring conditions and approving prescribed burns on a daily basis. Individual prescribed fire burn bosses are also responsible to take action to ensure those burns that they are responsible for do not go beyond the daily approved consumption totals. Naches Ranger District prescribed fire operations would also comply with burn restrictions ordered by the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust is a type of nonpoint source air pollution - small airborne particles that do not originate from a specific point such as a smoke stack or gravel quarry. Fugitive dust originates in small quantities over large areas. Besides causing additional cleaning of homes and vehicles, fugitive dust can cause low visibility on unpaved roads. In severe cases, it can interfere with plant growth by clogging pores and reducing light interception. Dust particles are abrasive to mechanical equipment and damaging to electronic equipment such as computers. Although generally not toxic, fugitive dust can cause health problems, alone or in combination with other air pollutants. Infants, the elderly, and people with respiratory problems such as asthma or bronchitis are most likely to be affected.

When a vehicle travels an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road surface causes pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent air shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed.

Individual dust particles are measured in microns. Ten thousand microns equal one centimeter, or 0.3937 inch. EPA classifies particulate matter in two sizes. Particles smaller than 2.5 microns are referred to as PM2.5. Larger particles up to 10 microns in diameter are designated PM10. The PM10 classification includes most types of fugitive dust. The current EPA standard for PM10 is an annual average of no more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter. For comparison, an enclosed area 100 feet long by 100 feet wide and 20 feet tall would be allowed a total of 0.2832 gram, or 0.0091 ounce of suspended dust particles in the air to meet the annual average. Because PM2.5 and PM10 are so small, they can be inhaled deep into the lungs. In general, the finer the particle, the deeper the penetration, and the more entrapped it can become. Many health problems have been connected with long-term exposure to PM. Fine dust particles trapped in the lungs can aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, pneumonitis, wheezing, and coughing, and have also been connected to heart conditions such as cardiac artery disease, cardiac arrhythmias and heart attacks. Sensitive populations (including children, the elderly, those suffering from asthma or bronchitis, and people with heart or lung disease) are at higher risk of developing problems from airborne dust.

III - 40 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences The following equation is being used to estimate the quantity of size-specific particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle mile traveled (VMT):

E = k x 5.9 x (s/12) x (S/48) x (W/3)0.7 x (w/4)0.5 x ((365-p)/365) (lb/VMT) where E = emission factor assumptions for this equation, specific to Glass Angel, are denoted in italic k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless) see Table III.22 s = silt content of road surface material (%) 12% for FR1600 S = mean vehicle speed, mph 20 mph W = mean vehicle weight, ton 40 ton w = mean number of wheels 18 wheels p = number of days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation per year 70 days

The particle size multiplier in the equation, k, varies with aerodynamic particle size range as follows:

Table III.22. Aerodynamic particle size multiplier. Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier for Equation <30 µm <15 µm <10 µm <5 µm <2.5 µm 0.80 0.50 0.36 0.20 0.095

Table III.23. Emission factor (E, from the equation above) by particle size per mile of unpaved road traveled for one fully loaded logging truck. Figure III.10. Relative size of a PM10 particle. Particle size pounds/mile (ounces/mile) <30 µm 0.21 lbs (3.36 oz) <15 µm 0.13 lbs (2.08 oz) <10 µm 0.09 lbs (1.44 oz) <5 µm 0.05 lbs (0.80 oz) <2.5 µm 0.02 lbs (0.32 oz) Total Suspended 0.50 lbs Particulate per mile (8.00 oz)

The suspended particulates displayed above are not substantial at an airshed level. However, for those with homes immediately adjacent to a haul route, or those recreating along a haul route, the amount of dust produced by multiple trucks passing per day could range from nuisance, to unhealthy for those with underlying respiratory illness.

Control techniques for fugitive dust sources generally involve watering, chemical stabilization (not being proposed in this project), or traffic control regulations. Watering, the most common and, generally least expensive method, provides only temporary dust control, so would require more frequent application.

III - 41 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Proposed Invasive Species Treatments – Direct and Indirect Effects The effects of Invasive Species Treatments on air quality address the possibility of airborne mists or aerosols reaching a human receptor. The amount of herbicide applied and restrictions on wind speed during spray operations result in quantities of residual airborne chemical so minuscule so as to be insignificant to air quality. The possibility of airborne toxic chemicals reaching the individual(s) applying the product is addressed by the requirements of their herbicide application license, standards, label requirements, and best management practices.

Wicking does not cause herbicide to become airborne, so will not cause a degradation of air quality. The individual plants killed and cured will have negligible effect on loading, or to the amount of particulate produced in the event of a wildfire, or prescribed burn. The residence time of the chemicals proposed for invasive plant management is low (24 hours), making the likelihood of these chemicals being volatilized into the air by fire very low.

The other proposed invasive species treatment strategies (Chapter II) would have no direct or indirect effects on air quality.

Proposed Invasive Species Treatments – Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect analysis area with respect to invasive species treatment effects on air quality was determined to be the project area boundary. The invasive species treatment will have no cumulative effect on air quality.

Proposed Road Management – Direct and Indirect Effects Improved or degraded air quality as a result of the closure of roads proposed by this project is negligible. The relatively low reduction in mileage of roads proposed for closure is dispersed through the entire project area and would affect only passenger vehicles. The reduction in traffic would be inconsequential in either improving or degrading air quality at the project area or airshed levels. For these same reasons, leaving the roads open would not substantially degrade air quality. For example, using the calculation for emissions per vehicle mile traveled used in this section, a passenger vehicle traveling on a 7 forest road would produce 0.000007 ( /1,000,000) pounds (0.000112 ounces) of PM10 per vehicle mile 9 traveled, in comparison to 0.09 ( /100) pounds (1.44 ounces) for a loaded logging truck.

Proposed Road Management - Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect analysis area with respect to road closures and decommissioning effects on air quality will be the project area boundary and the watershed. The cumulative effects measured over this area may be affected over time as additional roads are built, closed, or decommissioned.

The effects viewed at a project area or watershed scale are minimal as applied to, for example, a single recreation-use vehicle (passenger car, pickup truck, motorcycle, etc.) driving on a road. Fugitive dust from recreation use would tend to be minimal and settle out or be dispersed quickly. The presence of dust created on forest roads may be most noticeable during high use periods, such as summer holiday weekends, or during vehicle oriented special use events.

III - 42 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences INVASIVE SPECIES

The Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990) established a Forest Standard and Guideline for noxious weeds to cooperate with the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board and other state, county and local agencies and organizations in the identification, location, prevention and spread of noxious weeds; and to contain, control or eradicate existing populations as budgets allow (WFP, page IV-89). Further, the 2005 Record of Decision for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program - Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants, amended the above Forest Plan to include new direction for the control or elimination of invasive plant species.

Affected Environment Note: The term invasive plant species and noxious weeds are used interchangeably throughout this document.

As previously stated under Purpose and Need for Action for Invasive Plant Management (Chapter I), invasive species are documented to occur within the Glass Angel analysis area. With regard to invasive plant management, the Glass Angel analysis area includes the project area and the road corridors accessing the project area. Several weed species have been observed during botanical inventories including: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Invasive species occur predominantly along the shoulders of roadways and on landing locations in previously harvested timber stands throughout the analysis area. Although, it is not uncommon to also observe these species in areas away from roads on open hillsides and in open timber stands within the analysis area. Approximately 98 percent of the Angel project area and 39 percent of the Glass project area contains potential vegetation groups that are considered moderately or highly susceptible to adverse impacts from these species (Quigley & Arbelbide, 1997). Refer to Vegetation and Fuels – Affected Environment. Table III.24 (page III-46) displays invasive species within the project area and their State designation.

Left blank for formatting

III - 43 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Figure III.11. Glass invasive species treatment areas

III - 44 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Figure III.12. Angel invasive species treatment areas

III - 45 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.24. State noxious weed occurrences within the Glass Angel project area. Species Designation Definitions Spotted knapweed BD Class A Noxious Weed: Those noxious weeds not Centaurea beibersteinii native to the State and are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the State and that pose a serious Diffuse knapweed B threat to the State. Centaurea diffusa Class B Noxious Weed: Those noxious weeds not native to the State that are of limited distribution or Canada thistle C are unrecorded in a region of the State and pose a Cirsium arvense; serious threat to that region. Class B-Designate Noxious Weed: Those Class B Bull thistle C noxious weeds whose populations in a region or Cirsium vulgare area are such that all seed production can be prevented within a calendar year (they are also Oxeye daisy BD “designated” for control). Leucanthemum vulgare Class C Noxious Weed: Any other noxious weeds. Dalmatian toadflax B Monitor List: A list of non-native plant species of concern, listed for several reasons: They are new Linaria dalmatica invaders to Washington and have the potential to St. Johns-wort C become problematic here; they have recently been Hypericum perforatum removed from the Weed List but we want to stay on the lookout to make sure the noxious weeds do not Common mullein Monitor make a return invasion; or they are non-native Verbascum thapsus species that have been here awhile and behaving fine but have suddenly started to spread or become Cheatgrass * problematic Bromus tectorum *has been observed as a dominant species on some sites at lower elevations.

Environmental Consequences – Invasive Species Effect of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatments, and Access and Travel Management Actions on Invasive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects Without management action, invasive species populations will continue to establish and spread at the present rate. Although no additional ground disturbance and subsequent seedbed creation would occur as a direct result of this alternative, unhealthy and at-risk communities would remain highly susceptible to invasive species encroachment into unoccupied areas and increases in the density of established weed populations are likely. Invasive species would continue to out-compete desirable native grass, forbs and other riparian/aquatic vegetation in degraded and presently weed occupied habitat. In areas currently competitive against invasive species establishment, this alternative would maintain existing plant communities that appear to be preventing weed encroachment. However, several of the plant communities supported in the project area have been identified as moderately to highly susceptible to invasion by noxious weed species (Quigley & Arbelbide, 1997). At this time, it is unclear as to whether these communities would remain competitive against noxious weed encroachment over the long-term without noxious weed control. Relative to noxious weeds, taking no action would be neutral with respect to the effect of the Glass Angel proposal on the LSR and MLSA. Although taking no action minimizes the potential for site disturbance, it does nothing to modify existing vegetative conditions such that over time the resulting plant community becomes more resistant to invasive species infestation.

III - 46 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Therefore, taking no management action would be the least effective in moving towards the desired future condition with respect to invasive species management.

The interaction between the proposed silvicultural and fuels treatments and invasive species is primarily related to the soil and associated vegetation disturbance resulting from vegetation removal, prescribed burning, and road management activities in areas with existing wide-spread weed infestation. The interaction of ground disturbing factors such as harvesting, thinning, biomass removal, burning and road construction/reopening and use; provides an opportunity for invasive species to establish and/or rapidly expand in the ecosystem (Vitousek P. , 1996). The condition of the site prior to the disturbance and the availability of propagative material on or near the impacted area are also factors that contribute to the potential for invasive species to become established (National Resource Council, 1994). Specific harvest methods and associated equipment further determine the potential for invasive species impacts. When comparing harvest systems, ground-based systems present a larger potential for creating ground disturbance than do skyline methods, as a greater proportion of the ground surface comes in contact with the equipment.

Depending on the specific weed species, the occurrence of undisturbed vegetation in an area may be sufficient to prevent weed invasion. However, many weed species produce large quantities of seed that are adapted to dispersal on people, on or in animals, by wind, in runoff, in gravel and fill, and on vehicles or other equipment (e.g., knapweeds). Subsequently, undisturbed sites have the potential to contain large amounts of weed seed in soil presently occupied by desirable vegetation. Ground and vegetation disturbance creates unoccupied seedbeds where these weed seeds can rapidly germinate and inhabit the site. Recently validated research indicates that many weeds, including Dalmatian toadflax and St. Johns'-wort, are capable of invading pristine communities (Sheley R. , 1994), (Stohlgren, 1999). Vegetation manipulation has the potential to further promote or enhance suitable habitat for invasive species. The vegetation and fuel treatments presented with this proposal modify vegetation, potentially altering moisture and temperature regimes (reduced moisture and increased temperatures), reducing tree crown canopy cover and shading, modifying nutrient cycling and the organic matter content of soils and altering hydrologic cycles.

Harvest and road construction/maintenance equipment have the potential to disperse invasive species by breaking up and redistributing roots and rhizomes that are then able to resume growth at a new location from perennial buds located on these underground parts. Roads and roadsides are particularly susceptible to invasive plant infestation for several reasons. Roads eliminate some of the physical and environmental barriers that prevent plants from becoming established by increasing light availability and opportunities for dispersal. Micro- environmental changes along roads can provide opportunities for invasions because many invasive plants favor and are more competitive in open disturbed habitats. Disturbance closely associated with roads and the establishment and spread of invasive species include vehicular traffic, maintenance activities, and road blading. These activities can increase invasive plant introductions because vehicles often carry and distribute seeds and propagating plant parts. It is well documented in the literature that motor vehicles and other mechanized means of transportation can act as effective vectors of invasive plant dispersal and establishment (Schmidt, 1989), (Hodkinson & Thompson, 1997).

Prescribed burning is an action that further affects invasive species. Fire commonly facilitates colonization by non-native and noxious vegetation (Hobbs & Huenneke, Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for conservation, 1992), (Vitousek, D'Antonio, Loope, & Westbrooks, 1996). Burning opens a site to occupation by weed establishment through modification of the developmental stage of the vegetation. Introducing fire into a plant community typically sets the community back to an earlier successional stage and creates unoccupied niches where weeds can easily establish (Harrod & Reichard, 2001). Burning eliminates what other vegetation exists on the site and removes competition with desirable vegetation giving the competitive advantage to the

III - 47 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences noxious weed species. Most weeds are well adapted to site conditions that exist following disturbances such as fire and ground disturbance (Hobbs & Huenneke, Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for conservation, 1992). (Sheley, Kedzi-Webb, & Mazwell, 1998) reports, that burning promotes the establishment of several species of knapweeds. Further, burning can affect the development of individual weed plants themselves. Often prescribed fire is not hot enough to eliminate viable seed or the roots of weed species (e.g., Dalmatian toadflax) and top removal generally stimulates vegetative shoot production ultimately resulting in an increase in future seed production (Sheley R. , 1994). In contrast, it has been reported that thistle species may experience reduced seed production following burning (Young, 1986). There is other evidence to suggest that prescribed burning and other forest restoration activities (thinning) can, in the longer term, help prevent the establishment of invasive species by increasing the diversity and productivity of the associated plant communities (Covington, et al., 1997), (Mac Arthur, 1970), (Crawley, 1986), (Case, 1990), (Law & Morton, 1996), (Tilman, 1997), (Levine & D'Antonio, 1999).

Increases in invasive species increases the potential for surface runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield (Carman & Brotherson, 1982), (Blackburn, Knight, & Schuster, 1982). Deep rooted grasses, forbs, and shrubs that provide soil protection and erosion control would be replaced by less effective shallow rooted noxious weeds. This would ultimately contribute adversely to cumulative watershed effects (Sheley R. , 1994). Noxious weeds can also alter the successional pathway of plant communities by deterring the growth of slower growing perennials and decrease the effectiveness of restoration efforts (Robocker, 1974).

The potential rate of spread is directly related to the amount of suitable habitat created (total acres treated and acres treated to below 40 percent tree crown canopy), the potential to move propagative material from infested to non-infested areas (acres tractor logged vs. acres skyline logged and the amount of road open to motorized travel), and the juxtaposition of existing noxious weed populations to activity areas. Proposals treating the greatest number of acres, provide the greatest potential for propagule movement, and implement the least effective control strategy pose the greatest risk of invasive species spread and establishment.

Table III.25. Indicators potentially contributing to invasive species spread. No Refined Unmitigated, the refined proposed Action Proposed action could result in the Action development of suitable invasive Acres of potential ground disturbance 0 8,399 species habitat. However, the 509 ch, 346 nch, 7,544 nf prevention standards and best Acres reduced below 40 percent canopy 0 3,772 management practice identified in cover (364 acres +5% of Rx burn acres) Chapter II would effectively minimize the likelihood that the Acres with ground-based harvest systems 0 371 Glass Angel project would result in the development of suitable Miles of road reduced 0 9 invasive species habitat and subsequent infestation. Standards #1-6 are designed to prevent invasive species establishment and spread by reducing the potential for weed dispersal and the introduction of new invasive species via equipment (e.g., carried in or out on the equipment or moved around by the equipment such as by road blading), plant materials (e.g., mulch, straw) and restoration supplies (e.g., rock, gravel). These standards further mitigate the potential for adverse impacts by providing for a revegetation strategy which would help reduce the need for repeated herbicide use or other treatment by re-establishing native vegetation on these sites.

Best Management Practices #1-11 and #15-16 would further reduce the risk that invasive species would become established and continue to spread by requiring additional prevention measures such as proper disposal of weed

III - 48 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences seed and plant parts on workers and their clothing, water drafting measures and monitoring. Best Management Practices #12-13 would complement the prevention measures by prioritizing treatments in high risk locations such as along roads, skid trails, and at landings. These measures further reduce the risk that invasive species will become established and be effectively dispersed from these locations.

Cumulative Effects With regard to cumulative effects related to invasive species, the analysis area includes the Glass Angel project area and the road corridors accessing the project area. This analysis area was selected because the effects of the proposal are most often realized in the immediate area of the activity where physical disturbance occurs and along the roads that access the activity area where an efficient dispersal mechanism is provided. Consideration was given to the period of time from implementation of the actions until a new disturbance occurs.

The proposed silvicultural and fuels treatments, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in Chapter I, such as ongoing recreation, forest restoration projects and grazing, would increase the potential for invasive plant species establishment and spread by increasing the amount of disturbance on the landscape and increasing the opportunities for dispersal. Refer to Chapter I for a thorough discussion of the effects of past and on-going actions as related to invasive species. The cumulative adverse contribution of this proposal with other actions would be mitigated through the implementation of a fully integrated invasive species control strategy with the Refined Proposed Action. Implementation of an integrated strategy utilizing the full range of methods and mitigations over time would ameliorate, to a large degree, the potential risk of weed spread associated with this project and therefore weed spread across the landscape.

Environmental Consequences – Invasive Species Effect of the Proposed Invasive Plant Treatments on Native Plant Communities and Other Non- Target Vegetation

Direct and Indirect Effects Ninety-nine (99%) percent of the Glass portion of the project area occurs within the Upper Nile LSR (~96%) or Haystack MLSA (~4%). Six (6%) percent of the Angel portion of the project area occurs within the Rattlesnake LSR (~4%) or Haystack MLSA (~96%). The discussion that follows relative to invasive species is intended to address the effects of non-native species on the LSR and MLSA consistent with the non-native species standard and guidelines (ROD C-19) and the noxious weed module as identified in the LSRA (Pages 92-93 and Page 56). This discussion is also intended to address native and non-target vegetation outside of the LSR and MLSA.

Interactions between the proposed invasive plant management action, invasive plants, and native plant communities (including TES and other rare and uncommon species) occur at several levels. First, invasive plant treatment may have adverse impacts on non-target plants and native plant communities; including, TES and other rare and uncommon species. Conversely, the lack of invasive plant management can result in equally adverse impacts to plants and native plant communities. Second, the proposed methods vary in their potential to prevent or reduce the spread of invasive plants. An integration of treatment methods is necessary to effectively control the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive plants (Sheley, Kedzi-Webb, & Mazwell, 1998), (Brown, Duncan, & Halstvedt, 2001). Thirdly, the susceptibility of plant communities to invasion is influenced by many factors, including disturbance levels, community structure (Orians, 1986), resource availability (Burke & Grime, 1996), (Elton, 2000), (Stohlgren, 1999), and the biological traits of the invader (Davis & Thompson, 2000).

III - 49 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The impacts of invasive species on native plants also occur at multiple scales, including individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems (Parker, Simberloff, Lonsdale, Goodell, Wonham, & others, 1999). Invasive plants can hinder germination, growth, and development of native plants. They can reduce the vigor of, and ultimately eliminate, individual native plants through competition. Over time, these factors can lead to a reduction in the biological diversity on a particular site. Invasive plants utilize moisture and nutrients on a given site and potentially limit the opportunities for native vegetation to establish and thrive on that site (Olson, 1999), (Bonnivier, 1999). Many invasive plants produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other competing native vegetation (Stevens, 1986). These factors lead to changes in plant community composition (Mack, Simberloff, Lonsdale, Evans, Clout, & others, 2000), (Randall, 1996), (Belcher & Wilson, 1989), (Rice, Lacey, Lacey, & Johnson, 1994), (Callihan, Wilson, McCaffrey, & Miller, 1994), (Tyser & Key, 1988). Changes in community composition can alter ecosystem processes, slow or alter succession, and interfere with the natural dynamics of a community (Hobbs & Mooney, 1993), (D'Antonio & Vitousek, 1992), (Tyser & Key, 1988), (Robocker, 1974). The alteration of community composition can also have a substantial effect on natural disturbance regimes, such as the frequency and intensity of fire (Mack & D'Antonio, 1998), (Bright, 1996). Invasive plants are considered a threat to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant communities because of their capacity to modify habitat conditions associated with the sustainability of these populations.

Without management action, invasive plants can compromise healthy native ecosystems. Once established, they can be self-perpetuating and over time, can spread from one location to another. The impact of invasive plants can be permanent when economic and environmental factors prevent restoration of an ecosystem (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). Invasive plants have substantial effects on ecosystems, and affect key physical and biological components and processes (Olson, 1999). Currently, known effects of invasive plants include effects on: soils, water quality, riparian ecosystems, aquatic species, native plants and plant communities, wildlife, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, recreational experience, economics, Tribes and treaty rights, and congressionally designated areas (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005).

All of the proposed treatments have the potential to adversely affect non-target plants and plant communities to varying degrees. Manual and mechanical methods have the potential to directly affect non-target vegetation through unintentional trampling or removal of plant parts or entire plants. Physical damage of vegetation can result in reduced plant vigor, reduced seed production, a reduction in canopy cover, and soil disturbance. Subsequent, indirect effects to non-target plants may include a reduction in plant productivity, a decrease in soil moisture, an increase in soil surface temperature, and adverse impacts to soil mychorrihzal fungi (Bautista, Mazzu, Robbins, Perez, & Spiegel, 2005). There is also a potential for cultural treatments (i.e., seeding, planting and mulching) to result in the introduction of aggressive non-native or invasive species onto a site that may, ultimately, out-compete existing desirable vegetation. All of these effects could function to move the plant community further away from the desired condition.

Effects within the Glass Angel analysis area, with respect to manual and mechanical treatments; would be relatively limited in extent, due to the method of application (i.e., pulling, digging, grubbing, hoeing, mowing, clipping; by hand or with hand-tools, weed-whacker, or mower) these methods would have a minimal impact on non-target plants and native plant communities. There is limited potential for non-target plants to be impacted, as implementation of these methods requires direct contact between properly trained crews and the target species. In the event non-target plants are affected, impacts would be short-term and confined to individual, isolated plants (i.e., small-scale). The potential for adverse impacts to TES and other rare and uncommon species from manual and mechanical treatment is also considered to be extremely low, as populations of these species would be avoided thru the use of site-specific project design buffers. Presently undocumented occurrences of these plants discovered during additional field reconnaissance or project implementation would

III - 50 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences be protected through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Chapter II under Botanical Resources. Newly discovered sites would be avoided or managed consistent with current applicable management recommendations.

The potential for cultural treatments (i.e., seeding, planting and mulching) to result in the introduction of aggressive non-native or invasive species onto a site that may, ultimately, out-compete existing desirable vegetation is unlikely. Required Standards #3 and 6 and Best Management Practices # 2-6 and 10 identified under this proposal dictate the use of certified weed-free native materials as the preferred choice for revegetation. Certified weed-free non-native, non-invasive plant species may be utilized under specific conditions; however, under this scenario, local guidelines and professional judgment, with respect to appropriate non-native species would be applied. Non-native, noninvasive plant species would be used; 1) as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the reestablishment of native plants, 2) if native plant materials are not available, and 3) in permanently altered plant communities (e.g., roadside corridors). Implementation of the standards and best management practices would diminish the potential for the unintended introduction of highly competitive, persistent, and invasive species. Further, cultural treatments such as seeding, planting, and mulching would result in a positive effect with respect to providing vegetative cover over bare soil and consequently reducing the opportunities for reinvasion.

Chemical treatments have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on non-target vegetation and are of the greatest public concern. Herbicides have the potential to change plant species composition and reduce the diversity of native communities. Certain herbicides (e.g., glyphosate™) could also affect plant pollinators. Reductions or shifts in pollinator species could also result in changes in plant species composition and diversity.

The proposed herbicide treatments could result in changes in species composition and plant diversity within treatment areas in the Glass Angel analysis area. Changes in species dominance due to application of herbicide on a site could result in changes in plant community composition and structure over time. Repeated treatments with a single herbicide would likely favor tolerant species, which in turn could shift the balance of pollinators necessary and available to a community. Population shifts through repeated use of a single herbicide may also reduce plant diversity (DiTomaso, 2001). Recent theoretical models predict that decreasing plant diversity leads to lower plant productivity. These models also suggest that diversity and composition are important determinants of ecosystem functioning (Naeem, Chapin III, Costanza, Ehrlich, Golley, & others, 1999). Herbicide application as described in this proposal is expected to result in a positive effect with respect to plant composition and diversity. Herbicide treatments are part of an initial prescription, however use of herbicides would be expected to decline over time with secondary treatment methods, such as; hand-pulling, digging, weed-whacking, mowing and seeding replacing herbicide application. Repeated treatments with a single herbicide over time are not expected to occur under this proposal.

Herbicide-specific effects of picloram include damage to plants by destroying tissue through uncontrolled cell division and abnormal growth. Picloram is highly soluble in water and resistant to biotic and abiotic degradation processes. There is a high potential for this herbicide to leach into ground water. Damage to non-target plants and plant communities can occur from drift and runoff. Because picloram is persistent in soil, it can be absorbed by non-target plant roots (Tu, Hurd, & Randall, 2001). Susceptible plant species could be adversely affected by the off-site transport of picloram. Species that are more tolerant would not likely be affected unless they are directly sprayed or subject to initial drift (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc, 2003).

Within the Glass Angel analysis area, the potential for herbicide treatment with picloram to alter plant species composition and reduce diversity in communities outside of proposed treatment areas is considered low. Design criteria, mitigation measures, and best management practices included in this proposal (Chapter II)

III - 51 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences implement practices and techniques which substantially reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts. Foremost, application of any herbicide would be performed or directly supervised by a licensed applicator and all applicable State and Federal laws would be strictly followed (Design Criteria #1). Implementation of this standard will ensure that herbicides are properly and safely applied. The identified potential effects to non- target vegetation associated with runoff and/or drift of herbicides would be minimized or eliminated due to implementation of Standards # 7, 10, and 11 and Design Criteria # 1, 2, and 3 which identify parameters that must be met when applying herbicides, including: suitable soil characteristics, proximity to surface water and water table depth, size of buffers, timing of application, and appropriate weather conditions. This standard ensures that herbicide use is implemented in a manner that considers local conditions to minimize adverse impacts to non-target species. Additionally, application rate, wind speed and direction, nozzle type and size, will further mitigate the potential for leaching, runoff, drift and unintended effects to non-target vegetation. Similar to mechanical and manual treatment methods, this method also requires direct contact between properly trained crews and the target species, reducing the potential for unintended treatment of non-target vegetation. Additionally, the application of herbicide using hand-held nozzles or by wicking and wiping individual plants further reduces the potential for the treatment of non-target vegetation.

Glyphosate is a nonselective systemic herbicide that can adversely affect all groups of non target plants to varying degrees. This herbicide kills plants by preventing them from synthesizing necessary amino acids. Reported effects have been most frequently from off-site drift. Glyphosate strongly attaches to soil particles, which prevents excessive leaching. Consequently, there is a low potential for this herbicide to leach into ground water (Tu, Hurd, & Randall, 2001), (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc, 2003 Glyphosate). Because glyphosate binds readily to soil, non-target plants do not readily absorb the chemical and are therefore, not impacted through root uptake.

Within treatment areas, changes in species composition and diversity are anticipated following herbicide treatment. The abundance of invasive species within the analysis area would be expected to decline while native and desirable species increase in abundance. The potential for herbicide to unpredictably alter species composition and reduce diversity would be minimized or eliminated by seeding and/or planting appropriate, desirable species following treatment (i.e., manual, mechanical, and herbicide) in areas where native vegetation cannot provide an adequate source for successful revegetation (Standards #5 and 6 and Best Management Practices #2-6). In this regard, a positive effect on species composition and an increase in plant diversity would be expected over time within treatment areas.

The adjuvacant Agridex is a non-ionic mixture containing phosphatidycholine and polyethoxylated compounds, respectively; which is added to the spray tank to improve herbicide application. Agridex achieves this by modifying the wetting and deposition characteristics of the spray solution resulting in a more even and uniform spray deposition. Application of these compounds at the rates identified by the manufacturer and on the respective herbicide label has not been found to have unintended adverse impacts on non-target vegetation or native plant communities (Product labels and MSDS).

Pollinators could be impacted, directly or indirectly, by any herbicide. Subsequently, this could cause indirect effects to native plant communities. Plants that are dependent on a particular insect for pollination may experience a decrease in reproductive capabilities if the pollinator is impacted by herbicides. There is limited information available on the effect of herbicides on native pollinators. Most information is relative to the non- native honeybee. It is known that pollinators can be directly affected by spray or indirectly affected when plants required as food are eliminated by herbicides. Typical recommended application rates for picloram and glyphosate are well below toxic doses identified and are not expected to result in toxic effects when directly sprayed on honeybees (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005).

III - 52 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

As discussed extensively in Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005), invasive plant treatments may result in risks to human health. The health and safety of forest workers may be at risk from exposure to herbicides, working on uneven/broken terrain, use of hand and power tools, inhalation of smoke, driving vehicles, exposure to fire, exposure to falling/rolling debris, and other accidents. The public may be exposed to herbicides through direct contact, drift, eating contaminated foods, or drinking contaminated water.

Appropriate training, together with monitoring and intervention to prevent unsafe practices would minimize risk of worker injury and illness associated with implementation of the Refined Proposed Action. Compliance with Occupational Safety Administration (OSHA) standards, along with agency, industry and manufacturers’ recommendations further reduces the potential exposure and risk of injury to workers. Members of the public are usually not at risk from manual and mechanical methods unless they are close to machinery that is producing flying debris during treatment.

As further disclosed in the Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005), workers and the public may both be exposed to herbicides. Herbicide applicators are most likely to be exposed to herbicides. In routine applications, workers may contact and internalize herbicides mainly through the skin, but also through the mouth, nose or lungs. Additionally, contact with herbicide formulations may cause irritation at the location of the exposure, especially the eyes and skin. The public could be exposed through the drift of herbicide spray through contact with sprayed vegetation, or by eating contaminated food items such as berries or edible mushrooms. The public may also be exposed by eating game or fish containing herbicide residues, or by drinking water that contains such residues

Under normal conditions, members of the general public should not be exposed to substantial levels of herbicides as a result of invasive species treatment in the Glass Angel project area. Members of the public would generally not be in areas infested with invasive plants during herbicide application because notification regarding herbicide treatment would be provided at trailheads, campgrounds, picnic areas, recreations sites, boat ramps, ski areas, work centers, etc. The intent of the notification would be to inform forest users prior to invasive plant treatment and subsequently reduce the potential for forest users to be present during herbicide application (Standard #12 and Design Criteria #5). Other techniques to minimize human exposure to herbicides, such as, selecting herbicides with low toxicity and low application rates (Standard #8), using application methods that minimize off-target movement and non-target exposures (Standard # 10 and 11); reducing contamination of potential drinking water by using streamside no-spray zones and hand wicking, providing personal protective equipment for applicators (Design Criteria #4), and accomplishing all treatments according to strict safety and health standards as required by the Environmental Protection Agency pesticide regulations and incorporated into herbicide label instructions would further reduce the potential for human health and safety effects (Design Criteria #1, 2 and 7).

As acknowledged in the FEIS (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005), the potential for incremental effects to workers from non-chemical treatment methods is high. People may be injured more than once given the hazardous outdoor working conditions and use of equipment. Some cumulative and non- reversible effects, such as hearing loss and repetitive stress injuries may occur. Compliance with Occupational Safety Administration (OSHA) standards and agency, industry and manufacturers’ recommendations reduces the potential exposure and risk of injury to workers. The potential for incremental impacts to the public is of no consequence because they would not be operating the machinery and are unlikely to be in close proximity when invasive plant treatments are being conducted.

III - 53 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The potential for health effects to workers and the public from repeated exposures to the herbicides applied to treat invasive plants in the Glass Angel project area is also of no consequence as the herbicides do not bioaccumulate in humans, are rapidly eliminated from the body and persist in the environment for a relatively short time (generally less than one year).

Integrated weed management will have the greatest potential to control invasive species in the shortest period, when compared to taking no management action. No measurable adverse impacts to non-target plants, native plant communities or human health and safety are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the proposed action because all required design criteria, standards and best management practices would be implemented concurrent with invasive species management, as described above. The proposed action provides an opportunity to manage for desirable, vigorous native vegetation, reduce the production of unwanted invasive species propagative material, and to inform the public regarding invasive species management. This alternative is intended and expected to restore native plant communities adversely impacted by invasive plants (native plant communities where they presently occur or have the potential to occur). As well, for the reasons described previously, the Refined Proposed Action would reduce the risk of spreading weeds within (and outside) of the LSR/MLSA and would be beneficial to the LSR/MLSA consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan standard for LSR/MLSA land allocations.

If no management action were taken, there would be no adverse impacts to non-target plants and native plant communities, including, TES and other rare and uncommon species, as a direct result of the proposed action. The management of invasive species would continue as it is currently. Prevention measures (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005) and Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, 2002) would continue to be implemented as opportunities allowed; typically through small-scale projects and limited public contact. Treatment would continue to be extremely limited in scale under the existing Forestwide Noxious Weed EA, and would not incorporate the full array of treatment methods necessary for effective invasive species management. Likely, treatments would consist of incidental hand pulling, clipping, or mowing of isolated individuals or infestations. Invasive plant populations would continue to establish and spread at the present estimated average rate of 10-12 percent (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005). Invasive plants would continue to out-compete the desirable native grass, forbs, and other riparian/aquatic vegetation in degraded and presently weed-infested communities. Unhealthy and at-risk communities would remain highly susceptible to encroachment into unoccupied areas by invasive species. Areas currently un- infested but rated as moderately or highly susceptible to invasion would likely be at greater risk over time, as the abundance of invasive plants increased in the adjacent infested areas. Furthermore, it should be assumed that on-going soil and vegetation disturbance would continue to create suitable invasive species habitat. Taking no management action would add cumulatively to the continued uncontrolled spread of invasive species. It is probable that these presently un-infested communities would not remain competitive against invasive species encroachment over the long-term.

Further, if management action were not taken, there would be no opportunity to contain or control invasive plant populations, or reduce the current rate of spread of these species within the project area. No action does not reduce the available propagative materials, does nothing to reduce vehicle weed dispersal along roadways and trails, and would not further educate the public about invasive species prevention. Further, no action may ultimately reduce the ability to contain or eradicate invasive plants in this area in the future. Precluding management action would ultimately result in an increase in the risk of spreading weeds within (and outside) of the LSR/MLSA.

III - 54 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects With regard to cumulative effects related to the treatment of invasive species, the analysis area includes the Mainstem Naches watershed. This analysis area was selected because the effects of invasive species treatment, primarily herbicide application, can be realized downstream and in other hydrologically sensitive areas. No adverse cumulative impacts to non-target plants or native plant communities are anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed invasive species treatments. There is no documentation indicating the use of herbicides within the analysis area in the recent past (i.e., approximately 20 years); and similarly, there are no known herbicide treatments being implemented now. The closest known herbicide treatment area is within the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) right-of-way/easement along State Route 410. The WDOT currently treats the road shoulder (approximately 8 ft either side of the highway) annually. It is also likely that there is some small-scale treatment of invasive species by the residents of homes located on private property along the State Route 410 corridor.

However, this action when combined with the past, present and foreseeable future actions described in Chapter I would result in a positive effect with respect to invasive species. As described in Chapter I, activities such as recreation and grazing continue to increase the potential for invasive species spread through ongoing physical disturbance of the vegetation and soil and the subsequent increase in the area at high risk for the establishment of new infestations. This action would incrementally, over time, reduce the potential for weed spread by managing for healthy vigorous plant communities and ultimately reducing the amount of unoccupied disturbed soil in the watershed vulnerable to the establishment and spread of invasive species.

Effect of the Proposed Access and Travel Management Actions on Invasive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects By limiting access, the refined proposed action will in result in slowing the rate of spread, by reducing the potential for dispersal along approximately 9.0 miles of road corridor and by minimizing new vegetation and soil disturbance associated with that road use.

Cumulative Effects The Refined Proposed Action in combination with present and foreseeable future travel management actions that also reduce the number of miles of roads and trails (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use, other access and travel management decisions associated with vegetation and fuel management projects identified in the previous chart) would incrementally contribute a positive effect with respect to invasive species. As the total number of miles in the planning area and in adjacent areas decline so does the opportunity for invasive species to be dispersed and become established along travel corridors and in other locations with close proximity to the road system.

WILDLIFE

Affected Environment The Glass Angel Restoration Project area (also referred to as the “project area”) provides habitat for wildlife, ranging from mesic meadow to talus, and from mesic forest to dry forest habitat. These varied habitats provide for a diverse array of wildlife species. The project area provides important habitat for several rare species including federally listed and several species included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal List (USFS 2008). Those species that spend time on land are analyzed here; those that spend most of their time in water are addressed in the Fisheries Resource section. The Forest has identified several animals as Management Indicator Species in WFP and the project area provides habitat for neotropical migratory birds of concern.

III - 55 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Collectively assessments of the species/habitats identified below are used to identify the scope of the proposed action and alternatives and ensure the viability of terrestrial wildlife species is maintained across the project area. Information used in this analysis includes site specific information collected during wildlife inventories of the project area, district-wide wildlife monitoring information, and GIS coverage’s and data sets related to wildlife habitat and site and landscape conditions. Analysis that is much more detailed can be found in the Wildlife Specialist Report / Biological Evaluation in the project file (St.Hilaire 2011).

THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE (TES) Species Species discussed here include federally listed species, or species currently listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, Federal candidate species, or species currently being considered for listing under ESA (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973 revised list April 15, 2008), and Sensitive species, or species listed on the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List (Sensitive). These species are collectively referred to as TES species throughout this analysis.

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES Several species listed as “threatened” and one listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973 revised list April 15, 2008), are found on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest system lands. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) maintains a list of “candidate” species. Candidate species are those taxa which the FWS has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposal to list, but issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006).

Table III.26 displays federally listed T&E and candidate species thought to occur presently or historically on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Each species status and known occurrence on the project area is also displayed. There is also designated critical habitat for two federally listed Threatened Species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (5)(A)) on the forest. Table III.26. Federally listed species known to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Species Scientific Name Status Habitat in the Presence in Project Area the Project Area Gray wolf Canis lupus Endangered Yes Yes Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes No Critical Habitat for the NA Designated No No Canada lynx Grizzly Bear Ursus horribilis Threatened No No Northern spotted owl Stix occidentalis caurina Threatened Yes Yes Northern spotted owl NA Designated Yes yes Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus Threatened No No marmoratus Mardon skipper Polites mardon Candidate No No North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Candidate Yes No

The project area does not occur within the documented range for the marbled murrelet and Mardon skipper; and is located outside of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The grizzly bear, marbled murrelet and Mardon skipper will not be discussed further.

III - 56 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Gray Wolf & North American Wolverine There are no designated recovery areas for gray wolves in the state of Washington, but there are recovery regulations requiring consideration of potential impacts to known denning habitat or rendezvous sites. While no official management guidance for gray wolves currently exists, key metrics used to assess the risk of effects generally considered during consultation include potential disturbance, effects to security habitat and effects to prey. These also will be used for this gray wolf analysis. Elk are common throughout the project area and are considered their main prey base. For detailed prey discussion refer to the Rocky Mountain Elk discussion under MIS section.

Risk Factors: Like wolves, wolverines are a wide-ranging carnivore, highly sensitive to disturbance cause by human use of roads and trails. Elk are the main source of ungulate carrion in the project area. Indentified risked factors for wolverine are the same as for the wolf; potential for disturbance, effects to security habitat and effects to prey apply. Project will also analyze potential for herbicide exposure.

Project Area Information No wolverine surveys have been conducted on the district. No wolverine sightings are documented within or near the project area. Project area does not occur in potential denning habitat. Since no den sites have been documented on the Naches Ranger District, potential for disturbance of known den sites will not be evaluated in this analysis.

Wolf surveys were conducted adjacent to the project area and not specifically for the project area. To date, no wolf dens or rendezvous sites have been located on the Naches Ranger District. There have been numerous unconfirmed reports of wolves within 5 miles of the project area and due to their wide-ranging behaviors, the project area is considered potential habitat.

Roads can influence the effectiveness of habitat for elk and security habitat for wolves (Thiel, 1985), (Mech, Fritts, Raddle, & Paul, 1988), (Mladenoff, Sickley, Haight, & Wydeven, 1995), (Gaines, Singleton, & Ross, 2003). Security habitat for wolves is defined as areas with open roads and motorized trail densities <1 mile/square mile of habitat. Open road densities were assessed in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Assessments. Approximately 46 percent of the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds have road and motorized trail densities <1 mile/square mile, which is providing security habitat for wolves (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1995). Using Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003) linear roads and trail analysis, this equates to a high level of human influence.

The Naches Mainstem Watershed Assessment determined current open road and OHV trail density in the Naches Mainstem Watershed to be 4.12 mi/mi² and the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Assessment determined current open road density in the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed to be 1.14 mi/mi² (value includes open nonsystem roads for both watersheds). Wolves potentially could use the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed, in particular the wilderness area. Probability of wolf use, including den and rendezvous sites, in the Naches Mainstem Watershed is low due to the high open road and motorized trail density. An average open road density of 2.4 mi/mi² exists within the project area. Since road density within the project area is >1 mile/square mile, wolf use of the project area is highly unlikely April through November. It is possible that wolves could use the project area for foraging December through March due to limited human use and congregated elk on the winter range (EW-1). Two known wildlife travel corridors exist in the project area. These corridors are intact and function as migration routes by elk.

III - 57 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Canada Lynx Lynx were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in March 2000. The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger, et al., 2000) was completed in August 2000. In November, 2006, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx outside national forest lands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Critical habitat (1,836 mi²) in the Cascade Mountains was designated February 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009).

The amendment in 2005, revised the Conservation Agreement (USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005) and the Regional Forester’s Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement Amendment letter (USDA Forest Service 2006), so that management actions are only evaluated in “occupied” lynx habitat. Occupied lynx habitat occurs in the northern portion of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (north of Cle Elum Ranger District); Naches Ranger District was determined to be outside of “occupied” lynx habitat. Mapped potential lynx habitat on the Naches Ranger District is classified as peripheral (unoccupied). There are no requirements to manage for lynx in unoccupied habitat. However, the effects on lynx prey habitat are still considered within unoccupied lynx habitat. Designated Critical habitat for the Canada lynx does not exist on the Naches Ranger District.

Risk Factors: Indentified risked factor for the lynx is degradation or loss of prey habitat, exposure to hericides. Lynx primarily prey on snowshoe hares (Koehler and Aubry 1994). This analysis will use changes to snowshoe hare habitat as the key metrics to analyze effect to lynx in the Glass Angel Restoration project. Primarily forest types that support snowshoe hare are subalpine fir, Englemen spruce, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine (Hodges, 2000). Landscapes with various age classes, primarily mid to advanced successional stages resulting from burns or clearcuts that support dense understory vegetation, may be more likely to support high snowshoe hare populations (Poole, Wakelyn, & Niclen, 1996). Hodges (2000) found certain successional stages were important to snowshoe hares and horizontal cover appeared to be the important component. Riparian areas, aspen stands, and high-elevation willow communities are important lynx prey habitats and denning habitat must be in or adjacent to foraging habitat to be functional (Ruediger, et al., 2000).

Project Area Information Hair snares were used to survey for lynx, according to the National Lynx Survey, during the summers of 1998- 1999 on the Naches District. No lynx were detected during this survey effort. A few, incidental, unconfirmed sightings have been reported on the District but none within the project area. The few lynx recorded on the District are most likely dispersing individuals.

The western end of the Glass portion of the project occurs within the Bethel Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). Approximately 947 acres of potential habitat occurs in the Glass portion of the project area. The southern end of the Angel portion of the project occurs within the Rattlesnake Lynx Analysis Unit. Approximately 16 acres of potential habitat occurs in the Angel portion of the project area. The project area contains a small amount of snowshoe hare habitat within the mapped potential lynx habitat (329 acres in Glass and 5 acres in Angel). A large percent of the mapped potential lynx habitat is made up of mature, decadent stands of lodgepole pine and lack different successional forest stages.

Northern Spotted owl, Designated Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl and Species Associated with Late Successional Forest Habitats (LSR/MLSA) The northern spotted owl is listed as a threatened species under the ESA (USDI 1990). Critical habitat for the spotted owl was designated on January 15, 1992 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). The Northwest Forest Plan provides the conservation strategy (USDA and USDI 1994) developed for the northern spotted owl. Detailed information regarding the environmental baseline and critical habitat for the Forest can be found in the

III - 58 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Selected Forest Management activities (USDA 2008). This information is incorporated by reference and is summarized below in the Project Area Information section.

Habitat for late-successional associated species within the range of the northern spotted owl is managed within a network of reserves (USDA and USDI 1994). On the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, these reserves are called late- successional reserves (LSRs) and managed late-successional areas (MLSAs). This network of reserves was designed to provide the viability of late-successional species (Thomas et al 1993). Along with the northern spotted owl, the northern goshawk, brown creeper, marten, fisher and northern flying squirrel were also selected as focal species for mixed-conifer late successional forests (Gaines, Singleton, & Ross 2003). Focal species are closely associated with forested habitats and their populations are highly influenced by changes to forest structure (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010).

From 1994 to 2003, range-wide habitat decline due to management activities (2.11%) and natural disturbance (3.03%) was estimated at 5.14% (0.57% per year). Annual rates of habitat loss due to management activities were less than 25% of rates projected at the time of listing (Bigley & Franklin, 2004), primarily due to actual rates of logging being less than anticipated (Bigley & Franklin, 2004). However, threats from catastrophic habitat lose have increased on the east side of the Cascade Range due to wildfire, pests and pathogens. While fire exclusion may have increased the amount of suitable spotted owl habitat, especially in the dry forest type, it has also resulted in a great risk of habitat loss from wildfires, pests, and pathogens (Bigley & Franklin, 2004), (USDA Forest Service. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, 2004). Since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, wildfires have had the single greatest impact on the distribution of suitable spotted owl habitat on the Wenatchee National Forest (Halupka, 2001). Between 1994 and 2001 approximately 10,000 acres of critical habitat have burned (USDA Forest service 2004a).

Risk Factors: Indentified risked factors consist of degradation or loss of suitable habitat, disturbance and exposure to herbicides; adverse affect to late-successional habitat/species. Key metrics used to analyze risk factors to the NSO will be acres of NRF habitat degraded/downgraded and in the CHU, acres of dispersal habitat degraded/downgraded; potential for disturbance at activity centers; and potential for herbicide exposure. Key metrics used to evaluate risk factors for late-successional species will be meeting NWFP S&G (activity will be neutral or beneficial to LSR/MLSA); and human influence levels on late-successional habitat.

NSO PREY HABITAT: Richards (1989) and Forsman et al. (2001) studied the food habitat of spotted owls on the Wenatchee National Forest. The primary prey species that were found from these studies included the northern flying squirrel, bushy-tailed woodrat, deer mouse, and voles. Woodrat and flying squirrel densities in local dry and mesic forests are among the highest measured within the range of the northern spotted owl (Lehmkuhl, Kistler, Beglery, & Boulanger, 2006), (Lehmkuhl, Kistler, & Begley, 2006).

NSO HABITAT-NRF & NGH NESTING AND PREY HABITAT: Several local studies have characterized nest sites of spotted owls. Buchanann, Irwin, & McCutchen (1995) compared random sites with spotted owl nest sites and found that nest sites had more Douglas-fir trees 35-60 cm dbh, greater basal area of Douglas-fir tree, more large ponderosa pine trees (61-84 cm dbh), greater live tree basal area, and greater basal area of Class IV snags. Everett et al. (1997) found that spotted owl nest stands had multi-layered canopies and that the presence of shade-tolerant tree species have increased as a result of reduced fire effects. Based on these studies, a general definition of their nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat has been developed which includes: multilayered forest, canopy closure >60%, and a component of large trees and snags.

NSO HABITAT-DISPERSAL: Dispersal habitat provides conditions necessary for spotted owls to move between patches of nesting, roosting and foraging habitats. Dispersal habitat also provides linkages between LSRs/MLSAs

III - 59 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences for owl movement, but does not contain the structural attributes associated with nesting, roosting and foraging habitat. A general definition of dispersal habitat for our province is: single or multi-layered forest with moderate sized trees (10-15 in dbh), and a canopy closure of >40%.

NSO DISTURBANCE: Nesting activities begin in mid March with incubation of the eggs from April to June. Feeding and care of the young occurs from April through August, and juveniles disperse from natal areas in August and September. Site specific monitoring on the Wenatchee NF has shown that within the Eastern Washington Cascades Province, after July 31, spotted owl young are mobile and generally considered to be able to move from disturbance (Forest Service Protocol for Surveying Spotted Owls 1991). Limited research has been conducted on the effects of noise disturbances on spotted owls. Wasser et al. (1997) found that stress hormone levels were substantially higher in male northern spotted owls (but not females) when they were located less than 0.41 km from a major logging road, compared to northern spotted owls >0.41 km from a logging road. Delaney, Grubb, Beier, Pater, & Reiser (1999), studying the closely related Mexican spotted owl, reported disturbance from helicopter and chainsaw noise did not flush owls until the disturbance was <105 m away. Typically, project activities that may occur above ambient noise levels are timed to occur outside of the nesting period when within ¼ mile of an active spotted owl nest.

Project Area Information NSO occurrence Surveys for the NSO are current and were conducted according to R6 Spotted Owl Inventory Protocol (USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, 1991 (revised 1993)). Surveys occurred 2009 for the Dry Orr Analysis area and 2010 for the Glass Angel Project area. Spotted owl habitat in the project area was reviewed through the use of aerial photos, suitable spotted owl habitat maps, vegetation layer and field reconnaissance. There are eleven spotted owl activity centers (SO847, SO862, SO863, SO814, SO817, SO884, SO857, SO868, SO859, SO879 and SO801) whose 1.8 mile radius intersects with the project area. Two site centers occur within the Glass portion of the project area (SO863 and SO814). Refer to Table III.35

NSO habitat Aproximately 964 acres of suitable (NRF) spotted owl habitat occurs within the project area. One larger contiguous patch of NRF habitat occurs in the Glass portion of the project area and makes up spotted owl (SO863) nest stand. The rest of the NRF habitat is of small patches scattered throughout the project area. Of the 490 acres of NRF habitat that occurs in the Angel portion of the project area, 81 acres occur within owl 1.8 miles of known spotted owl site centers. No spotted owls have ever been detected within the Angel portion of the project area due to the lack of large contiguous patches of NRF, gentle topograghy of the area, and conifer species (large ponderosa pine component). For the most part, the only the outer portion of the 1.8 mile buffer around spotted owl activity centers intersect with the Angel portion of the project area. Most of the Angel portion of the project area is made up of dry forest vegetation types, while most of the Glass portion of the project area contains contains moist and mesic forest vegetation types.

The location and amount of current suitable spotted owl habitat was evaluated at a landscape level and compared to historic and future reference conditions using the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) process (USDA Forest Service 2010). The amount of existing suitable spotted owl habitat was determined to be within the middle of range for historic and future conditions within the Dry Orr Analysis area. An opportunity to create additional suitable habitat within the Dry Orr Analysis area surfaced as a result of using EMDS. It was determined the most logical location to begin the process of developing suitable spotted owl habitat was in the moist forest types, adjacent to a large intact stand of high-quality spotted owl habitat and historic spotted owl nest site (SO863).

III - 60 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Designated Critical Habitat The Angel portion of the project area intersects a small portion of two designated Critical Habitat Units (CHU) for the northern spotted owl. Unit WA-16 which is 8,763 acres in size was designated in 1992. Approximately 1,684 acres of WA-16 occurs within the project area. This critical habitat unit provides essential breeding habitat connectivity between WA-14, WA-17, and WA-18, and is important for range-wide distribution of owl habitat along the northeastern edge of the range. Southeast Washington Cascades Unit 6 which is 82,488 acres in size was designated in 2008. Approximately 75 acres of Unit 6 occurs within the project area. Unit 6 was intended to replace WA-16; providing the same function as WA-16.

LSR/MLSA A portion of Haystack MLSA- DM-10, 591 ac (2% of the MLSA) and Upper Nile LSR- RW127, 4,274 ac (47% of the LSR) occur within the Glass Angel Restoration Project area. A small portion of Rattlesnake LSR- RW128, 15 ac (<1%) occurs within the Angel portion of the project area. It primarily is made up of small slivers that exist along the southern boundary of the Angel portion of the project area and treatment is not expected to occur within this LSR. A LSR Neutral/Beneficial Effects Analysis was completed for this project. According to the LSR Assessment, open road density within RW127 is 3.65 mi/mi² and DM-10 3.78 mi/mi². There is 2% security habitat in RW127 and 6% security habitat in DM-10 (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Security habitat for late successional species is defined in Gaines et al. (2003).

Both the Nile LSR and Haystack MLSA fall in the upper 1/3 of all LSR’s/MLSA’s in terms of the amount of at risk vegetation which puts them in the lower 1/3 in terms of overall sustainablility. Haystack has a higher amount of at risk vegetation than any other LSR/MLSA on the forest There are substantial amounts of at risk vegetation between Haystack/Upper Nile, and all four of the neighboring LSR/MLSA’s (Manastash, Bumping, Milk Creek and Rattlesnake) (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997).

Using Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003) report, it has been determined that currently the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds have a low level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter habitat (5% of the late successional habitat within these two watersheds is influenced by roads). The habitat influence index is designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road-associated factors.

Approximately 69% late-successional nonwinter security habitat exists within the Mainstem Naches and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds. This equates to a moderate level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter security habitat. This index is used to evaluate the effects of displacement and avoidance, and disturbance.

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES Wildlife species discussed here include those listed in the Region’s “Special Status/Sensitve Species Program”. The “Special Status/Sensitive Species Program” and the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List are proactive approaches for meeting the Agencies obligations under the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and National Policy direction as stated in the 2670 section of the Forest Service Manual. The primary objectives of the Sensitive Species program are to ensure species viability throughout their geographic ranges and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in a need for federal listing. Species identified by the FWS as “candidates” for listing under the ESA, and meeting the Forest Service criteria for protection, are included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Lists.

III - 61 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table.27. Species of Concern (FWS 4/15/2008) and Regional Forester Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species (USFS 1/2008) on the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest (FWS 4/15/2008) Species Scientific Name Status28 Habitat in Presence the Project in the Area Project Area Mammals California Wolverine Gulo gulo lusteus C/SEN Yes no Fisher Martes pennanti SC/SEN Yes no Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) SC/SEN Yes no townsendii townsendii Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus griseus SC/SEN no no

Birds American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum SC/SEN no no falcon Ash-throated flycatches Myiarchus cinerascens SEN no no Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus SC/SEN no no Black swift Cypseloides niger SC no no Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SC no no Columbia Sharp-tailed Tympanuchus phasianellus SC no no Grouse columbianus Common loon Gavia immer SEN no no Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis SEN no no Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis SC/SEN no no Gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii SEN Yes no Great gray owl Strix nebulosa SEN/R&U Yes no Harlequin duck Histironicus histrionicus SEN no no Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis SC Yes Yes Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis SC Yes no Sandhill crane Grus canadensis SEN no no Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus SEN no no Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda SEN no no White-headed Picoides albolarvatus SEN Yes Yes woodpecker

Amphibians Larch mountain Plethodon larselli SC/SEN/ Yes no salamander R&U

Reptiles California mountain Lampropeltis zonata SEN no no kingsnake Northwestern pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SEN no no marmorata Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus SC no no Sharptail snake Contia tenius SC/SEN no no Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus SEN no no Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata SC no no

28 SEN=Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species SC=FWS Species of Concern; C=Candidate R&U=FS Rare and Uncommon species (Survey and Manage)

III - 62 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Species Scientific Name Status28 Habitat in Presence the Project in the Area Project Area

Invertebrate Blue-gray taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum SEN/R&U no no California floater Anodonta californiensis SC no no Chelan mountainsnail Oreohelix sp.1 SEN/R&U no no Grand Coulee Oreohelix juni SEN no no Mountainsnail Columbia Gorge Criptomastix hendersoni SEN/R&U Yes no Oregonian Lustrous copper Lycaena cupreus SEN no no Masked duskysnail Lyogyrus sp.2 SEN/R&U no no Meadow fritillary Boloria bellona SEN no no Melissa Arctic Oeneis melissa SEN no no Puget Oregonian Cryptomastix devia SEN/R&U yes no Shiny tightcoil Pristiloma wascoense SEN no no

Project will have “no impact” on sensitive species that do not occur and habitat does not exist within the project area. They will not be discussed further within this analysis.

California Wolverine Since the wolverine has similar security and prey requirements as the gray wolf it has been included in the previous gray wolf discussion in the Federally Listed Species section.

Fisher Although habitat for the fisher exists within the project area, populations in Washington are thought to be extirpated, or contain only remnant scattered individuals (Hayes and Lewis 2006). Fisher prefer late- successional habitat. Analysis regarding species dependant on late-succssional habitat refer to the previous northern spotted owl/LSR discussion.

No risk factors for fisher exist in the project area since the species is highly unlikely to occur.

Long-eared Myotis Cavities in snags and loose bark are common roost sited for several bat species. Long-eared myotis uses whitebark pine, alpine larch, Englemann spruce and subalpine fir as source habitats (Wisdom, Holthausen, Wales, Hargis, Saab, & Lee, 2000). Various structures are used by long-eared myotis for day and night roosts, including snags with exfoliating bark, rock crevices, mines, caves and buildings (Nagorsen & Brigham, 1993).

Risk Factors: Indentified risked factors consist of habitat loss and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information Foraging and roosting habitat (in the form of snags) is available for the long-eared myotis in the Glass portion of the project area. Bat surveys have not been conducted within the project area and no incidental sightings of long-eared myotis have been documented within the project area. Providing adequate numbers of snags for primary cavity nesters will also provide adequate quantities of roost sites for the long-eared myotis and majority

III - 63 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences of other bat species. Therefore, refer to primary cavity excavators (PCE) discussion in the Management Indicator Species section for risk factors and analysis of effects regarding snag levels.

Townsend’s Big-eared bat In general, Townsend’s big-eared bats prefer to roost in cave or cave-like structures and occasionally use cavities of large diameter trees and snags (Kerwin, 2007). The NWFP stated in addition to the snag standards, bats can be afforded protection by providing addition protection to cave, mines, and abandoned wood bridges and buildings. None of these structures exist within the Glass Angel project area.

No risk factors exist to the Townsend’s big-eared bat resulting from implementing the Glass Angel project due to lack of sightings and lack of roosting structure (cave, mines, bridges and buildings) within the project area. There are also no sightings of Townsend’s big-eared bats as well as no know maternity roosts or hibernacula documented in the project area.

Project Area Information A Townsend’s big-eared bat hibernacula is located 5 miles north of the Glass portion of the project area and approximately 12 miles north of the Dry project area. Summer time use by the Townsend’s in the project area is not likely due to the absence of suitable roost structures (cave, mines, bridges and buildings).

Gray flycatcher In northern Washington gray flycatchers inhabit dry open ponderosa pine stands with extensive bitterbrush and bunchgrasses understory. Tree size ranges from small (6” diameter breast height) to large (40 inches diameter breast height). The common factor seems to be scattered vertical structure of evergreen trees over an extensive shrub and grass understory (savannah). They are migratory and spend winters in Arizona and Mexico, leaving breeding grounds by the end of September (Csuti et al. 2001). Gray flycatchers take insects on the wing as well as by foraging on the ground. Their diet includes a variety of species ranging from small beetles to butterflies.

Risk Factors: Indentified risked factors consist of habitat loss and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information Approximately 1,766 acres of gray flycatcher habitat exists in the Angel portion of the project area. Gray flycatchers are common on the Forest. No surveys have occurred within the project area and no incidental sightings have been documented within the project area.

Olive-sided Flycatcher The olive-sided flycatcher is positively associated with recent burns (Wisdom et al. 2000). They have been known to take advantage of areas that have been recently logged. They use clearings and edges. According to Wisdom et al., (2000), source habitat consists of old-forested single and multi-storied and stand- initiation stages of subalpine, montane, and lower montane forests. Broad-scale changes in source habitat indicate an increas of more than 60% in more than 40% of the watersheds sampled.

Risk Factors: Indentified risked factors consist of habitat loss and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information Limited amount of habitat, approximately 500 acres, exists for the olive-sided flycatcher in the Glass portion of the project area. No surveys or sightings occur within the project area.

III - 64 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Great Gray Owl Although habitat for the great gray owl exists within the project area, Naches is considered to be outside the range of breeding great gray owl populations. In 2005 the Okanogan-Wenatchee leadership team, upon the recommendations of the Forest wildlife biologists, determined that surveys were only required and management would occur within the range of breeding great gray owl populations. Since the district does not occur within the breeding range, no further discussion will occur for the great gray owl.

No risk factors exist to the great gray owl resulting from this project as Naches Ranger District it outside the breeding range.

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk was selected as a focal species for mixed-conifer late-successional forests (Gaines, Singleton, & Ross 2003; USDA 2010). It is managed for within the network of LSRs and MLSAs; refer to the LSR/MLSA discussion with the previous northern spotted owl discussion.

White-headed Woodpecker The white-headed woodpecker is a Species of Concern as well as a R6 sensitive species, inhabiting late-seral ponderosa pine habitat. It was chosen as focal species under the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy. Focal species are closely associated with forested habitats and their populations are highly influenced by changes to forest structure. The white-headed woodpecker was selected as one of the focal species in the Glass Angel Restoration Project to represent old-forest structural class in the ponderosa pine cover type.

According to Wisdom et al. (2000) broad-scale trends in habitat for white-headed woodpeckers have declined by >60% from historical to current periods, and been completely eliminated in >40% of the watersheds within the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). More specifically, this habitat has declined by >60% in more than 50% of the watersheds sampled within the North Cascades ecological reporting unit.

Risk Factors: Indentified risked factors consist of habitat loss and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information White-headed woodpecker surveys have occurred within the Angel portion of the project area. Incidental sightings and one nest were documented at the eastern edge of the Angel portion of the project area. Approximately 2,375 acres of marginal white-headed woodpecker habitat occurs in the Dry Orr Analysis area but none of it occurs within the project area (WHWO habitat created from the District vegetation layer 2010). Habitat was considered marginal because it lacked the higher quantities of large and medium size trees. The location and amount of habitat that currently exists was evaluated at a landscape level and compared to historic and future reference conditions using the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) tool. The amount of current white-headed woodpecker habitat was determined to be at the lower end of the historic and future range conditions within the Dry Orr Analysis area; indicating a need to restore white-headed woodpecker to the Dry Orr Analysis area. A large stand of mature, overstocked ponderosa pine in the Glass portion of the project area was identified as a good location to restore white-headed woodpecker habitat; it would provide recruitment habitat soon after treatment (within 5 years). This stand was located near an active white-headed woodpecker nest stand (Kozma, 2010).

Using DecAid analysis, current dead wood component (snag density) appears to be more than adequate for supporting White-headed woodpeckers, in the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat. Although the dead wood component (snag densities) appears to be sufficient, the current stand condition of closed canopy, multi-story,

III - 65 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences heavily stocked is not ideal for white-headed woodpecker habitat, as white-headed woodpeckers require mature old-growth ponderosa pine forest with an open canopy, gaps and clump configuration. Refer to the PCE discussion in the MIS section for a description of DecAid.

Larch Mountain Salamander The Larch Mountain Salamander is a Survey and Manage species of the NWFP that has been given Sensitive Species status on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and is included on the Region 6 Sensitive Species list. Larch Mountain salamanders are associated with talus, scree, gravelly soils and other areas of accumulated rock where interstitial spaces exist between the rock and soil. Steep slopes are also an important habitat feature. They inhabit a diverse range of forested and non-forested habitat. Occupied rocky substrates in non- forested areas are usually north facing and nonvascular plants, especially mosses, dominate the ground cover (Washington Herp Atlas 2010). In some areas of the Cascade Mountains, Larch Mountain salamanders inhabit old-growth coniferous forests without significant exposed rocky areas. In all of these habitats, important microhabitats include woody debris, leaf litter and rocks.

Nine Larch Mountain salamander sites have been documented on the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest. All of them were on sites between 3,000 feet and 4,200 feet in elevation; receiving over 60 inches of annual precipitation; and in talus adjacent to old forest.

No risk factors exist with this project since it was determined not present through surveys of habitat.

Project Area Information Potential habitat occurs on within the project area, primarily along the headwaters of Glass Creek and Nile Creek. Region 6 protocol surveys have been completed within the project area for the Larch Mountain salamander and none were found.

Puget Oregonian The Puget Oregonian is a Survey and Manage species of the NWFP that has been given Sensitive Species status on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and is included on the Region 6 Sensitive Species list. This snail’s habitat consists of mature to late successional moist forest and riparian zones, springs, and seeps where canopy cover is generally high. The Puget Oregonian hides under logs, moss, leaf litter, and/or talus; often under, near, or on large (greater than 20 inches dbh) big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and vine maple (Acer circinatum).

Habitat for the Puget Oregonian is limited on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The only documented site on the Forest (Cle Elum Ranger District), was found in habitat similar to the Larch Mountain salamander habitat. Conditions at this site were most like the west-side Cascades; greater than 60 percent precipitation.

No risk factors exist with this project since it was determined not present through surveys of habitat.

Project Area Information Potential habitat occurs on within the project area, primarily along the headwaters of Glass Creek and Nile Creek. Region 6 protocol surveys have been completed for the Angel portion of the project area spring/fall 2000 and 2001 and for the Glass portion of the project area spring/fall 2010. No Puget Oregonians were found.

Columbia Gorge Oregonian The Columbia Gorge Oregonian is a Survey and Manage species of the NWFP that has been given Sensitive Species status on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and is included on the Region 6 Sensitive Species list. It is a terrestrial snail found in moist areas within 100 meters of streams, seeps, and springs, including

III - 66 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences riparian areas in shrub-steppe and dry forest habitats. Other habitat components include talus, leaf litter, shrubs, logs, or other debris in moist sites.

On Forest, its range is believed to include the Naches Ranger District only. The closest site was found Three miles north of Yakima; presumed within the Yakima Canyon. There are no known documented occurrences on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. On the Forest, habitat is limited and they are unlikely to occur.

No risk factors exist with this project since it was determined not present through surveys of habitat.

Project Area Information Potential habitat occurs on within the project area. Region 6 protocol surveys have been completed within the project area for the Columbia Gorge Oregonian and none were found.

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) MIS are species whose population parameters appear to show the effects of land management practices on specific types of wildlife habitat. The MIS is a wildlife scheme in which the welfare of a selected species is presumed to indicate the welfare of other species. The condition of the selected species habitat can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area. Several Management Indicator species were selected for the Wenatchee National Forest. The following discusses those species and what habitat they were chosen to indicate on the forest. Amount of available habitat on the Forest (for the Wenatchee only) as well as within the project area will be discussed. Using Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003), disturbance levels were calculated for each MIS whose habitat occurs within the project area. Project area is located at the south end of the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest, at the edge of all MIS habitat on the Forest.

Table III.28. Management Indicator Species and their associated habitat for the Wenatchee NF (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990). MIS Habitat Description Habitat Present Species Present Species in Project Area in Project Area Primary cavity Dead & live defective standing trees/ dead & down tree habitat excavators structure Yes Documented Pileated Mature and old growth conifer (defect & dead standing/down Woodpecker tree habitat) Yes Documented Three-toed Mature and old growth conifer (defect & dead standing/down Woodpecker/ tree habitat); mesic including lodgepole pine Yes Documented

American Mature and old growth conifer; mesic and lodgepole pine Marten climax Yes Suspected Northern Spotted Owl Mature and old growth conifer Yes Yes Beaver Riparian and deciduous forest habitat Yes Suspected Ruffed Grouse Riparian and deciduous forest habitat yes Yes Rocky Edge condition between dense forest and meadows and/or Mountain elk & early successional habitat and winter ranges (forage: shrub, Yes Yes Mule Deer grass, meadow; cover: thermal and hiding) Mountain Goat Rockland, alpine, high elevation old growth conifer No Not Suspected

III - 67 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The mountain goat is an indicator species of high elevation talus. The Glass Angel Restoration Project will not affect the mountain goat; no habitat or sightings exists within the project area. Therefore, the Glass Angel Project will not contribute to negative trend in viability on the Wentachee National Forest for the mountain goat. No further discussion will occur regarding the mountain goat.

Primary Cavity Excavators (PCE)/CWD Primary cavity excavators (woodpeckers) that reside, or potentially reside in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field Watersheds are pileated woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker, red-breasted sapsucker, and northern flicker. This group as a whole was intended to be indicators of special habitat features. Special habitat features for this group are dead and live defective standing trees as well as dead and down trees (coarse woody debris-CWD). The analysis for these species will be for the group (PCE) as a whole.

Risk Factors: habitat degradation and removal and exposure to herbicides. The key metric used to analyze risks factors for the PCE will be determining if WFP Standards and Guides for coarse woody debris (CWD) and snag levels are met and evaluating road influence on PCE habitat.

Snag and Down Wood (CWD) Management Recommendations The Wenatchee National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990) prescribed snag and log retention levels based on potential population models for woodpeckers. An underlying assumption was that maintaining enough snags to support woodpeckers at the 20% potential population level, in General Forest (GF) land allocation, would ensure their viability and that of other snag and log dependent wildlife species. Managers now look beyond one-size-fits all snag management prescriptions, to consider a broader range of wildlife uses and the inherent capability of each habitat type to provide snag and down wood habitat.

The WFP was amended in 1994 by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Portion of the project area occurs in Administratively Withdrawn (0.5%), Congressionally Withdrawn (0.5%), Matrix (56%), LSR (38%) and in the MLSA (5%). An Assessment for Late Successional Reserves and Managed Late Successional Areas for the Yakima Province was written under the direction of the NWFP in 1997. The LSRA provided the following management objectives for snags and down wood in the MLSA: Provide sufficient numbers, sizes, and distribution of snags and logs to support moderate-to-large populations of snag and log dependent wildlife. The Forest LSRA describes desired densities and characteristics of snags and logs for various types of late successional habitat found in LSRs, based on species needs and historic range of variability (HRV). Levels within HRV are considered ecologically sustainable, and have already been shown to ensure persistence of snag and log dependent wildlife (LSRA, Table VII-1, pp. 105). The LSRA standards for snag and down wood levels are above the WFP S&G. Therefore meeting the LSRA S&G will more than cover the S&G for WFP.

DecAID Tool Subsequent to the NWFP direction on snags and downed wood, the DecAID Advisor (Mellen et al 2010) was completed, and is available to aid in the analysis of projects. It is being used to meet the best available science stipulation. DecAID is an internet-based computer program developed as an advisory tool to help federal land managers evaluate effects of management activities on wildlife species that use dead wood habitats. DecAID is a compilation of the best available science of primary cavity excavator’s habitat needs, and historical information etc. The tool synthesizes published literature, research data, wildlife databases, and expert judgment and experience. DecAID provides both wildlife use and forest inventory data. DecAID will be used in this analysis to facilitate the comparison of dead wood levels between historic and current conditions. DecAID

III - 68 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

(Mellen, Marcot, Ohmann, Waddell, Livingston, & Wilhite, 2009) was also used to update snag management recommendations for dry and mesic forest types in the Forest Restoration Strategy, Table 5, pp. 55.

Project Area Information Concerning viability The project area makes up less than 1% of the forest habitat on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. (Youkey et al. 2011). For broadscale trends in the beaver and ruffed grouse populations refer to Youkey et al. 2011.

Existing Special Habitat Features (Snag & CWD) Based on the analysis using DecAID, the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field HUCs appear to be within historic conditions in the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and Eastside Mixed Conifer wildlife habitats for snags greater than 10” and 20” dbh. These two watersheds currently meet LSRA snag density direction for the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and Eastside Mixed Conifer wildlife habitat type. For the Montane Mixed Conifer habitats for snags greater than 10” and 20” dbh, the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field HUCs appear to be outside historic conditions. These two watersheds appear to currently not meet LSRA snag density direction for the Montane Mixed Conifer wildlife habitat type.

Although a few snag surveys have been conducted in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds, there is not enough field data collected to substantiate or dispute these findings. In the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and Eastside Mixed Conifer habitat types, current snag distribution within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds is highly variable, with frequent clumping and large areas with few or no snags. An examination of unharvested forest inventory plots in DecAID yields similar results, indicating that uneven distribution of snags and down wood cover occurred historically in these habitat types. The wilderness (no harvest treatment area) makes up a large portion of the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed. These areas, along with insect and disease outbreaks have undoubtedly had a large influence on the current snag density at a landscape scale. Although snag levels appear to be sufficient at the landscape scale in the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and Eastside Mixed Conifer habitat types, Large (>20” dbh) snags are likely below the range of variability within the Glass Angel Project area due to past timber harvest, fire suppression and wood cutting (Harrod, Gaines, Hartl, & Camp, 1998). Logging has occurred on approximately 70 percent (7,979 ac) of the project area, and mostly in stands with old, large/very large trees were relatively abundant (refer to Vegetation and Fuels discussion).

In summary current dead wood component (snag density) appear to be more than adequate for supporting White-headed woodpeckers, Pileated woodpeckers, and other Cavity Nesting Birds in the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and Eastside Mixed Conifer habitat types. Although the dead wood component (snag densities) appears to be sufficient, the current stand condition of closed canopy, multi-story, heavily stocked is not ideal for white-headed woodpecker habitat, as white-headed woodpeckers require mature old-growth ponderosa pine forest with an open canopy, gaps and clump configuration. A need to increase snag densities of both medium and large size snags exist in the Montane habitat; providing quality habitat for the three-toed woodpecker and Pileated woodpecker.

Down Wood Component (CWD) The District does not have a data base of current downed wood levels in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds or in the project area.

Road Influence on Primary Cavity Excavator Habitat (Disturbance Level) Currently, a low level of human influence on primary cavity excavator habitat exists within the Dry Orr Analysis area. The existing road density has minor impacts on primary cavity excavators. Although there are negative

III - 69 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences factors associated with roads such as snag and log removal from firewood cutting and hazard tree management and the creation of edge (Gaines, Singleton, & Ross, 2003), these effects are minor within the watershed (due to the low level of human influence on primary cavity excavators).

Pileated Woodpecker/Marten/Three-toed Woodpecker/Northern Spotted Owl The pileated woodpecker, marten/three-toed woodpeckers and Northern Spotted Owl were chosen as management indicators of a structural component of defected and dead standing/down tree habitat; typically found in mature and old-growth coniferous forested habitat. The American marten/three-toed woodpecker were chosen as indicators of this component in montane mixed conifer, whereas the pileated woodpecker as an indicator in montane mixed and eastside mixed conifer habitat types (Johnson & O'Neil, 2001). Eastside mixed conifer habitat, composed of dry and mesic forest types; and montane mixed conifer, composed of cold-dry and cold-moist forest types exist within the project area.

According to Wisdom, et al., (2000) broad-scale trends in habitat for the pileated woodpecker has declined moderately or strongly from historical conditions in more than 50% of watersheds containing appropriate habitat types, within the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). For the North Cascades ecological reporting unit, approximately 38% of the watersheds sampled had a decrease of >60% and approximately 35% of the watersheds had a decrease of >20% but <60% from historical to current periods.

According to Wisdom et al., (2000) broad-scale trends in habitat for the three-toed woodpecker in the northern portion of their range has generally declined from historical conditions, within the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2000), (Wisdom, Holthausen, Wales, Hargis, Saab, & Lee, 2000). For the North Cascades ecological reporting unit, approximately 48% of the watersheds sampled had a decrease of >60% from historical to current periods. Management considerations for the three-toed woodpecker can also be applied to the black-backed woodpecker.

According to Wisdom et al., (2000) broad-scale trends in habitat for the marten in the northern portion of their range have the most strongly negative trends. For the North Cascades ecological reporting unit, approximately 63% of the watersheds sampled had a decrease of >60% from historical to current periods.

The northern spotted owl was not analyzed for the Interior Columbia Basin by Wisdom et al. (2000). More detailed habitat information and population trend for the northern spotted owl can be found in the previous “federally listed species” section.

Risk Factors: habitat degradation and removal (special habitat elements) and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information Existing Habitat For the pileated woodpecker, marten and three-toed woodpecker, refer to the previous PCE discussion for existing condition of snags and CWD levels within the eastside mixed conifer and montane mixed conifer habitat for the Rattlesnake Creek and Naches Mainstem Watersheds.

Concerning viability Approximately 964 acres of suitable (NRF) spotted owl habitat occurs within the project area. Using the habitat model developed for the Wenatchee Forest Plant Revision the following was determined: For acres of suitable owl habitat on the Forest refer to Youkey et al. 2011. The project area makes up less than 1% of suitable (NRF) habitat on the Forest.

III - 70 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Road Influence (Disturbance Level) Using Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003), disturbance levels for primary cavity excavators, marten and spotted owls in the Dry Orr Analysis area were determined to be as follows. There is an existing low level of human influence on primary cavity excavator habitat within the Dry Orr Analysis area. Currently the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds have a low level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter habitat (5% of the late successional habitat within these two watersheds is influenced by roads). Approximately 69% late-successional nonwinter security habitat exists within the Mainstem Naches and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds. This equates to a moderate level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter security habitat.

Beaver and Ruffed Grouse Beaver and ruffed grouse were selected as Management Indicator Species (MIS) to be surrogates for riparian forested habitat. Both beaver and ruffed grouse prefer deciduous tree and shrub habitats in riparian areas (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990). Along with deciduous trees, beaver generally use streams with less than 3% gradient and wide valley bottoms.

For broadscale trends in the beaver and ruffed grouse populations refer to Youkey et al. 2011.

Risk Factors: habitat degradation and loss and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information Concerning viability For acres of suitable ruffed grouse habitat and beaver habitat on the Forest refer to Youkey et al. 2011 . The project area makes up less than 1% of suitable ruffed grouse and beaver habitat on the Forest.

Existing habitat Riparian reserves were used to calculate acres of ruffed grouse habitat in the project area. Riparian habitat for ruffed grouse is located throughout the project area. There are approximately 2,003 acres of ruffed grouse habitat within the project area. Less than 20 acres of beaver habitat exist within the project.

Road Influence (Disturbance Level) Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003) GTR was used to determine disturbance levels for riparian dependant species (beaver and ruffed grouse). Open roads within riparian reserves were buffered by 60 meters to determine the potential influence on riparian habitat. This index was designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction road-associated factors. Currently 12% of the riparian reserves within the Dry Orr Analysis area are influenced by open roads. This is considered to be a low level of human influence on riparian habitat within the analysis area.

Rocky Mountain Elk/Mule Deer Deer and elk were selected as MIS due to their importance as big game species. They were selected as indicators of meadow and early successional habitat providing forage in the form of shrub and grasses and of winter range made up of thermal and hiding cover.

According to the draft Yakima Elk Herd Plan (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2002), approximately 3,500-3,800 elk use Population Management Unit (PMU) 35, of which the Glass Angel Project area is a small part (4% of PMU). These elk numbers were calculated from the WDFW winter elk surveys. For broadscale trends refer to Youkey et al. 2011.

III - 71 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Both elk and deer are known to be present throughout the Dry Orr Analysis area; however elk far outnumber deer and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manage this winter range for elk. Therefore this analysis will only discuss elk. The Dry Orr Analysis area provides winter, summer, transition, and calving habitat. The Glass portion of the project area provides summer habitat and the Angel portion of the project area provides transitional and winter habitat for elk (District wildlife data base 2010).

The following WFP land allocations are located within the Glass Angel Project area: General Forest (GF), Key Deer and Elk Habitat (EW-1), Scenic Travel-Partial Retention (ST2), Dispersed Recreation, Unroaded, Motorized (RE2B) and Wilderness (WI). The Forest Plan lists the following Forest-wide standards and guidelines for management of deer and elk habitat within GF, EW-1, ST2, RE2B and WI land allocations: 1) Strive to provide well distributed cover over at least 40% of a subbasin in deer and elk summer range. It would be desirable to have 50 to 100 percent of this cover as thermal cover (LRMP pp. IV-82). 2) Strive to maintain forage in areas for deer and elk of less than 40 acres in size. These should be surrounded by thermal and hiding cover. Thermal cover should be at least 20 percent of the periphery of each unit (LRMP pp. IV-83). Within EW-1 Forest Plan land allocation standards and guidelines state optimum objectives for habitat effectiveness index for deer and elk will be 80. Areas that cannot be managed at that level will be managed for the highest level possible. Reforestation will be aimed to achieve sustained optimum cover-to-forage ratio of 40% cover and 60% forage. Activities in deer and elk winter range will be limited to corridors for access to other areas from December 1 to April 15. Habitat improvement activities are excluded from this timing restriction.

Dry Orr Analysis area was used for the summer range analysis area. The Glass Angel Project area makes up 16 percent of the elk summer range analysis area. This summer range analysis area is made up of Nile, Dry, Orr and Rattlesnake subbasins.

The winter range analysis area used in this analysis is the EW-1 land allocations within the Dry Orr Analysis Area. Key elk winter range (EW-1) in the project area makes up a small percentage (4%) of a larger elk winter range (EW-1) within the Dry Orr Analysis. Thirty eight percent of the EW-1 that occurs within the project area is made up of nonforested habitat.

Risk Factors: Alteration of habitat, loss of security habitat and exposure to herbicides.

Project Area Information Concerning viability For acres of key big game winter range on the Forest refer to Youkey et al. 2011. The winter range (EW-1) that occurs within the project area makes up less than 1% of designated winter range on the Forest.

Existing habitat There is approximately 646 acres of EW-1 within the project area. The current cover-to-forage ratio for deer and elk habitat within the summer range analysis area 63/37 and within winter range analysis area 64/36. Currently, cover exceeds WFP standard and guidelines for optimum cover-to-forage ratio (40/60) within summer and winter ranges.

Road Influence (Disturbance Level) Currently the summer range analysis area receives a high level of human influence (disturbance) and the winter range analysis area receives a low level of human influence. Open road & OHV trail density within the project area is 2.4 mi/mi² (includes only FS system roads and motorized trail). Current open road and OHV trail density within the Naches Mainstem Watershed is 4.12 mi/mi² and for the Rattlesnake 1.14 mi/mi² (includes open nonsystem roads for both watersheds). A large percentage of the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed (58%) is made

III - 72 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences up of wilderness land allocation (WI-1) (USDA Forest Service 1997). Two known wildlife travel corridors exist in the project area. These corridors are important to migrating ungulates. These corridors are intact.

Migratory Landbirds Neotropical migratory birds (NTMB) are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in Central and South America. These include many of our passerine songbirds, hawks, owls and shorebirds. Direction on management of Neotropical migratory birds comes from the Neotropical Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Forest Service direction (letter dated Sept. 27, 2000 from the Regional Office, Region 6 and memo dated Aug. 1, 2001 from the Forest Surpervisor, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests). This direction states that effects to landbirds must be taken into account when analyzing and implementing projects. Effects of actions must be disclosed and where opportunities exist, impacts mitigated. In a Presidential Document from the Federal Register (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001), the Forest Service, as a federal agency, was directed to conserve migratory birds and their habitats. Specific actions were listed in the Executive Order.

In January 2000, the Forest Service has prepared a Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2000) to maintain, restore and protect habitats necessary to sustain migratory and resident bird populations to achieve biological objectives. The primary purpose of the strategic plan is to provide guidance for the Landbird Conservation Program and to focus efforts in a common direction. The Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight participated in developing publications for conserving landbirds in this region. The “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascades Mountains in Oregon and Washington” was published in June 2000 (Altman, 2000). The principal issues affecting bird populations listed in this plan include habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation resulting from timber harvesting; and habitat alteration from changes in historic fire regimes. This plan also identified invasion by exotic plants as an important issue adversely affecting landbirds.

Risk Factors: alteration to habitat and exposure to herbicides.

Application of the Landbird Conservation Plan to the Project Area The Glass Angel Project area is located in the East Slope Cascades of Washington and Oregon Bird Conservation Area, where priority habitats for landbird conservation include ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forest, lodgepole pine, and whitebark pine (Altman, 2000). Riparian habitat is also a priority habitat for landbird conservation, but is addressed under a “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the Columbia Plateau” (Altman & Holmes, 2000). Riparian woodland habitat, indicated by relatively open canopy structure and deciduous tree and shrub component, is a distinct type of riparian forest habitat, not well represented in the Glass Angle Project area. The shrub component may occur along some reaches of Rattlesnake Creek, Three Creeks, Nile Creek and Glass Creeks, however the deciduous tree structure is lacking within the project area.

Presence of invasive plant species have been documented throughout the project area primarily along roads and on landings in past harvest units (Chapter II, Invasive Species Management discussion). Approximately 70% of the project area has been harvested in the past. Some of the Landbird habitat, within the project area, is degraded to some extent due to invasive plant species.

III - 73 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

The scale of analysis varied according to species and often extended well beyond the Glass Angel Project area. The project area occurs within two 5th field watersheds: Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds. These watersheds along with the Dry Orr Planning Area were used for several cumulative effects analysis. Methodology developed by Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003) was used to evaluate cumulative effects associated with existing roads and motorized trails.

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on all Wildlife Species

Direct and Indirect Effects Some of the purposes listed for the Glass Angel Restoration Project are restore core components of the ecosystem (structure, composition, and pattern); reduce risk of habitat loss to uncharacteristic wildfire; and to protect, enhance, and accelerate the development of Late Successional Old Forest structure for focal wildlife species such as the northern spotted owl and white-headed woodpecker. These benefits to wildlife species would not be realized under the “no action” alternative. Another indirect effect on all species of wildlife, associated with the “no action” is the risk of large scale alteration of habitat due to stand replacing fire. The current insect and disease outbreaks will continue to add to tree mortality and increase fuel loading. Climate change will likely exacerbate insect and disease problems (Binder, et al., 2009). Fuel loads and continuity of fuels have increased to a point where, under the right conditions, a large percent of the watershed could burn at high intensity; a much higher percentage than would have occurred here historically. The resulting loss of habitat could impact several resident wildlife species. Severely burned areas may also be slower to recover, prolonging impacts to wildlife. The “no action” alternative would have no disturbance effects resulting in project implementation.

Road density would remain high in the Naches Mainstem Watershed; resulting in high level of human disturbance to species sensitive to human disturbance. Road density in the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed would remain low to medium; providing security habitat to a variety of wildlife species.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Alternative-Invasive Plant Treatment on all Wildlife Species

Direct and Indirect Effects All invasive plant treatment types- Most of the invasive plants and proposed treatment will occur along road corridors (refer to Figures III.11 & III.12). Habitat does not occur along these corridors for most wildlife species and some wildlife species are known to avoid roads (Gaines et al. 2003). Therefore the potential for disturbance and direct contact to invasive plant treatments, for most species, is fairly low.

Herbicide treatment- Actual doses of herbicides exceeding levels of concern are unlikely. Exposure scenarios used to analyze potential effects from herbicides are discussed in the USFS 2005b, Appendix B, p. 461. None of the herbicides proposed for use nor NPE surfactants, applied at typical application rates, pose risk to any wildlife species analyzed for in the project area. At typical application rates, the estimated acute doses from the exposure scenarios are less than the reported NOAELs (no-observable adverse effect level) for all herbicides and NPE. The estimated dose from an NPE-base surfactant applied at the highest rate, an application rate that is four times the typical application rate, did exceed the NOAEL. These interpretations of exposure scenario results are made with the reservation that toxicity data was generated from laboratory animals which may not accurately represent potential effects to free-ranging wildlife.

III - 74 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects A draft EIS for the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF is currently being written for the invasive plant program. Proposed treatments and herbicides discussed within this EIS have the potential to be used in this project and other future projects (Table III.1 for list of projects) within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek EIS. Exposure to herbicides and potential for disturbance to wildlife resulting from the Forest invasive plant treatment program are low due to: 1) Majority of treatment areas are along roads corridors (outside of most wildlife habitat) and 2) Actual doses of herbicides exceeding levels of concern are unlikely. Exposure scenarios used to analyze potential effects from herbicides within this draft EIS were obtained from the BA for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program (USFS 2005b, Appendix B, p. 461). None of the herbicides proposed for use nor NPE surfactants, applied at typical application rates, pose risk to any wildlife species analyzed for in the project area. At typical application rates, the estimated acute doses from the exposure scenarios are less than the reported NOAELs (no-observable adverse effect level) for all herbicides and NPE. The lowest effective rates of NPE surfactant will be used. Therefore, the effects from invasive plant treatments will not add to past, present, or future effects to create any substantial cumulative effects. Invasive treatments of past projects within these two 5th field watersheds do no overlap in time or space to create any cumulative effects.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management, -Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on all Wildlife Species

Direct and Indirect Installation of erosion control structures, vegetation, grass seeding, fertilization, dust abatement, and transportation of biomass will have no impacts/effects to wildlife species considered in this analysis. Most of these activities would occur near roads and landings where treatment would be within normal ambient levels. Vegetation, grass seeding and fertilization could improve forage quantity and quality for some species, however actual use by wildlife may be limited due to the close proximity to roads.

Cumulative Generally, the past and foreseeable road and trail closures within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed will improve the security habitat for most species that are affected by human presence. The effects of road closures from past projects have been already calculated into the existing road’s baseline. The Forest Motorized Vehicle Use would mainly have a positive effect through not permitting off-road vehicle traffic. The Forest Motorized Vehicle Use program proposes less than 5 miles of additional motorized trails within the Rattlesnake Creek and Naches Mainstem Watersheds. These trails would add to the existing human use but not detectable at a landscape level. The effects resulting from public firewood collection and hazard tree maintenance have been analyzed within the “human influence models” used in the Gaines, Singleton, & Ross (2003) report, for late-successional nonwinter habitat model”. The habitat influence index is designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road- associated factors such as firewood cutting and hazard tree removal.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Alternative-1605 Crossing on all Wildlife Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative No direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur to any wildlife species addressed in this analysis resulting from the 1605 crossing. This is based on no new ground disturbance (crossing will replace an existing ford); and installation would not create noise above normal ambient levels. Therefore habitat would not be altered and there would be no disturbance resulting from the 1605 crossing.

III - 75 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of the Refined Proposed Alternative-Trail 665 Bridge Construction on all Wildlife Species

Direct and Indirect Constructing Trail 665 bridge would result in no effect/impacts to any of the wildlife species addressed in this analysis. This determination was made based on the following factors: habitat does not exist; or through surveys, it has been determined that habitat is unoccupied. Noise generated from bridge construction is determined to be short in duration (3 days) and to be within normal ambient levels.

Effects of the Adaptive Management-Forest Restoration, Fuels Reduction, and Commercial Harvest on all Wildlife Species

Direct and Indirect Effects Since all of these proposed adaptive management vegetation and treatment activities occur within the same footprint as the “refined proposed alternative-vegetation and fuels treatments”, the effects for the adaptive management activities would be the same as for the refined proposed alternative. The method of treatment does not change effect determinations for any wildlife species considered in this analysis; noise and ground disturbance would be the same and in the same location regardless of methods used to treat vegetation.

EFFECTS TO FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

Effects to Gray Wolf and North American Wolverine The gray wolf and North American wolverine are wide-ranging carnivores, highly sensitive to disturbance cause by human use of roads and trails. Elk are the main source of ungulate carrion in the project area. Indentified effects in this analysis for the wolf apply to the wolverine as well.

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action to Gray Wolf and Northern American Wolverine

Direct and Indirect Effects Not treating vegetation would reduce the quality and quantity of forage for prey indirectly affecting wolves and wolverine. Short-term cover would remain high and forage low for elk (63/37 summer range and 64/36 winter range). These ratios exceed the cover levels recommended in the WFP for cover-to-forage of 40/60. Long-term if a large scale wildfire were to occur, cover has the potential to decrease and forage increase dramatically. These results could continue 15 to 20 years post wildfire activity; potentially improving elk forage. However these disturbed sites also have the potential to establish new invasive plant sites and increase the spread of existing sites; reducing the quality of elk forage. Large scale fires also have the potential to decrease cover on the summer and winter range below the WFP S&G of 60. Large portions of the elk summer range would be unusable due to the absence of nearby hiding cover. If wildfires did not occur, the quantity of prey forage would continue to decrease as conifer growth continues.

The level of human influence would remain high within the project area as well as the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds, resulting in potentially little to no use of the analysis area by wolves or wolverine. In addition to the high road density, stand replacing fires would result in far less hiding cover; adding to the impacts of low security habitat.

III - 76 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Gray Wolf and North American Wolverine

The refined proposed action has the potential to affect the gray wolf directly through disturbance and indirect through prey habitat alteration. Disturbance to wolves will be measured by changes in road density, level of human influence, and security habitat. For discussion of effects to prey species by alternative refer to the Rocky Mountain Elk/Mule Deer discussion under the MIS section. This analysis considers the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field watersheds as the cumulative effects analysis area for wolves and wolverine. Since wolf den or rendezvous sites have not been documented on the Naches Ranger District, and are highly unlikely within the project area, the potential for disturbance during denning will not be evaluated in this analysis. If wolf den or rendezvous site are discovered at anytime during the project, conservation measures included in the harvest contract would be implemented, therefore potential effects would be reduced to discountable levels.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on Gray Wolf and North America Wolverine

Direct and Indirect Effects The potential effects of the Glass Angel project on available forage for elk are based on results from studies of thinning and prescribed fires in similar environments. Studies have shown an increase in forage production in ponderosa pine forests following thinning and/or prescribed fire due to reducing competition for light, moisture and soil nutrients (Leege and Godbolt 1985, Gibbs et al. 2004). While forage production is one aspect of forage availability for elk, changes in the species composition is also important as only some species are highly palatable to elk. However, Harrod et al. (2008) showed little change in the composition of the understory plant community following thinning and burning. The Glass Angel project is likely to increase forage production but not dramatically alter the understory community composition which might eliminate or reduce key elk forage species. This project will likely have a positive effect on the availability of elk forage; slightly increasing predaceous foraging opportunities.

Proposed treatments would reduce or eliminate some vegetative screening along roads and may increase distance-to-hiding cover for deer and elk, resulting in brief local displacement from “seen” areas. Plans for retention of cover along streams, in upland areas and travel corridors would reduce the magnitude of this effect. No active prescribed fire ignition would take place within the travel corridors. It is highly probable that fire would back down into these corridors, removing minimal amounts of hiding cover. Travel corridors would remain intact and functional upon completion of the silvicultural and fuels treatments.

Effects from Disturbance: The noise associated with use of chainsaws, heavy equipment, portable pumps, and airhorns at landings would exceed ambient conditions in all proposed treatment areas, and may result in localized, displacement of prey and associated predators (wolves) during the operation periods. Overall disturbance to wolves is expected to be minor and short term as a result of project implementation.

Cumulative Cumulative effects on the gray wolf resulting from implementation of the action alternative, and other past and foreseeable future fuels and vegetation treatment in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds, are based largely through their effects on important prey species, (refer to deer/elk effects section). For list of past and foreseeable projects refer to Table III.1. Considering this list (Table III.1), more than 50% of the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds will be treated in the next 5 years. Treating over 50% of these two 5th field watersheds will substantially improve forage quantity and quality at a landscape level. The amount and quality of forage created is difficult to determine as it depends on vegetation prescriptions and site potential (refer to deer and elk effects discussion). However improving forage at this scale would undoubtedly have a

III - 77 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences positive impact on the health and production of the elk herd. Wolves would benefit from slightly increased predaceous foraging opportunities resulting from these past, ongoing and planned projects.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Plant Species Treatments on Gray Wolf and North American Wolverine

Direct and Indirect Most of the invasive plants and proposed treatment will occur along road corridors (refer to Figures III.11 & III.12). Since wolves, wolverines, and their prey avoid roads, the short duration, low intensity invasive plant treatments are not likely to have any disturbance effects to wolves or wolverine during application. For this reason, the potential for direct herbicide exposure and indirect exposure through prey is unlikely. Therefore, “no effects” to the gray wolf and “no impact” to North American wolverine will occur because of the invasive plant treatment. Removing invasive plants would improve the quality and quantity of prey (elk) forage indirectly benefiting the gray wolf and wolverine.

Cumulative The past, existing, and foreseeable future planned invasive treatments in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed (Table III.1 for list of projects) will not occur within wolf/wolverine security habitat. Therefore, the effects from invasive plant treatments will not add to past, present, or future effects to create any substantial cumulative effects to security habitat. However the removal of invasive plant species at a landscape scale would be beneficial to the gray wolf by slightly improving the quality of forage and potentially the health of the local elk herd. Wolves would benefit from slightly increased predaceous foraging opportunities resulting from ongoing and planned projects. Invasive treatments of past projects within these two 5th field watersheds do no overlap in time or space to create substantial cumulative effects to wolf prey.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management, Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on Gray Wolf and North American Wolverine

Direct and Indirect The 5.18 miles of temporary road construction will result in a slight increase in disturbance to prey during project implementation. However, this would be short term as these temporary roads will be decommissioned after timber harvest activities. Temporary roads would be constructed in existing disturbed areas, outside of wolf security habitat. Therefore, it is highly unlikely this activity would have disturbance effects on wolves or wolverines. Open system road density within the project area will decrease from 2.4 mi/mi² (existing) to 1.9 mi/mi²; resulting in improved security habitat for the gray wolf at the project level. However road density and human influence level, at the watershed level (Naches Mainstem in particular), would remain high. Consequently, gray wolf and wolverine use of the project area would remain highly unlikely.

Considering the temporary road construction & decommissioning, travel and access management, security habitat in Glass Angel project area would slightly improve. However, this would be undetectable at a landscape scale. Considering all proposed road and trail actions, the open road and motorized trail density within the project area would decrease to 2.0 mi/mi² after completion of this project. The Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds would continue to have a high level of human influence on wolf habitat. Therefore, the low probability of wolf use in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds as well as the project area would continue upon completion of the road and trail proposed actions.

III - 78 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

There would be no risk of displacing wolves or wolverines with the short Trail 697 reroute (proposed Alt.) as this reroute occurs outside security habitat and would result in no addition to the road density within the project area. There would be no change in gray wolf security habitat resulting from the meadow reroute action.

Adaptive Mangement Trail 697 reroute (long reroute) would add 1.6 miles of new system OHV trail, which results in a slight increase in OHV trail density within the project area. The total open road and trail density within the project area (including the road closures) would be 2.0 mi/mi². The longer reroute would occur outside of existing security habitat; resulting in no reduction in current levels of security habitat. No increase in disturbance would result from the longer reroute. The longer trail potential could displace localized elk herd use of the meadow.

Cumulative Effects Generally, the past and foreseeable road and trail closures within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed will improve the security habitat for the gray wolf. The Forest Motorized Vehicle Use program proposes less than 5 miles of additional OHV trails within the Rattlesnake Creek and Naches Mainstem Watersheds. These trails would add to the existing high level of human influence on wolf habitat in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds. Therefore, the low probability of wolf use in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds as well as the project area would continue upon completion of past, ongoing and foreseeable projects.

Effects Summary Implementing the refined proposed action alternative “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” gray wolves and “may impacts, but not likely lead to trend toward federal listing” for the wolverine, based on the potential for minimal disturbance to the gray wolf, wolverine and affects to prey.

Effects to Canada Lynx Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on Canada Lynx

Direct and Indirect Effects Left in its present condition, dense, overstocked stands with closed tree canopies would continue to result in increased risk for insect and disease epidemics, leading to increases in tree mortality, fuel loading and risk for large, high-severity wildland fires outside of the normal (historic) range of variability (Rippy et al. 2005). Short term these dense, mature stands in the subalpine fir forest are not lynx prey habitat. Once a wildfire occurred it has the potential of creating large stands of snowshoe hare habitat (5-10 years post fire).

There is no documentation of non-native invasive plant infestation effects specifically on lynx habitat in the United States (Ruediger, et al., 2000). Invasive plants have no known impacts on snowshoe hare habitat. Left in its present condition, invasive plant species would have no affect on snowshoe hare habitat or the Canada lynx.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Canada Lynx

Potential indirect effects the refined proposed action could have on the Canada lynx are effects to prey through the alteration of snowshoe hare habitat. To evaluate effects to the Canada lynx, changes to lynx prey (snowshoe hare) habitat will be analyzed. Effects of herbicide exposure to prey will also be analyzed.

III - 79 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on Canada Lynx

Indirect Approximately 69 acres of commercial thinning and fuels treatments will occur in mature forest stands in mapped potential lynx habitat. Treating these stands would help promote the development of snowshoe hare habitat 5 to 15 years post treatments. Approximately 133 acres of precommercial thinning and underburn treatments would occur within young conifer stands (existing prey habitat). Since it has been documented that burning and clearcuts result in various age classes that support dense understory vegetation and promotes high snowshoe hare populations (Poole, Wakelyn, & Niclen, 1996), precommerical thinning and fuels treatments would be beneficial to snowshoe hare. Short term (5-7 years) prey habitat would be degraded. Canada lynx would benefit from slightly increased predaceous foraging opportunities.

Mosaic patterns of successional stages would remain with the retention of clumps and complex patches. Large down wood and snags would be retained at the levels recommended in the Wenatchee National forest Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1997). However, the Naches Ranger District lacks the site potential of growing high quality snowshoe hare habitat; dense stands of lodgepole pine. Snowshoe hare numbers have never been documented to occur in high densities on the district most likely due to lack of high dense stands of lodgepole pine.

Cumulative Silvicultural and fuels treatments from other past and foreseeable future fuels and vegetation treatments in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds do not treat mapped potential lynx habitat. Therefore, the proposed project in conjunction with the surrounding silvicultural and fuels treatment projects will not add to past, present, or future impacts to create substantial cumulative effects.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Plant Species Treatment on Canada Lynx

Direct and Indirect Invasive plants generally do not occur in dense stands of lodgepole pine that are used by snowshoe hare or within late-succssional lynx habitat. Majority of invasive plant treatment will occur; along roadsides, trail corridors, and landings (refer to figure III.11 & III-112).

No effects to the lynx will result from the invasive plant treatment. This is based on the project area occurs in unoccupied lynx habitat (lynx presence within the project area is highly unlikely and direct contact with herbicides is expected to be extremely rare); and invasive plant treatments are not expected to occur in lynx prey habitat.

Cumulative There would be no measurable effects to snowshoe hare or their habitat resulting from the invasive plant treatments. Even effects of chemical exposure to individuals have a very low probability of occurring. The past, ongoing and foreseeable projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds do not treat mapped potential lynx habitat. Therefore, the proposed project in conjunction with the surrounding invasive plant treatment projects will not add to past, present, or future impacts to create substantial cumulative effects to prey habitat. Therefore, these actions will have no effect on the Canada lynx

III - 80 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management, Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on Canada Lynx

Direct and Indirect Both Trail 697 reroute options do not occur within lynx prey habitat. Approximately 3.24 miles of new temporary road will be constructed and approximately 1.94 miles of previously used temporary roads maybe reconstructed to facilitate timber harvest operation all in the Glass portion of the project area. Approximately 0.75 mile of the proposed temporary roads will occur in mapped potential lynx habitat. Of that total, approximately 0.25 miles occurs in prey habitat. This equates to a total of 0.4 acres of lynx prey habitat removed short term (10 years). In ten plus years it would develop into snowshoe hare habitat again. Approximately 0.5 mile of Forest Service system roads are proposed for closure in mapped potential lynx habitat. These closed roads do not have the potential of becoming lynx prey habitat as the roads could be reopened if needed for future administrative purposes. The overall travel and access management would have a slight benefit to the Canada lynx resulting from the increase of 0.4 acres of lynx prey habitat.

Cumulative The travel management associated with the past and foreseeable future projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds do not occur in lynx prey habitat. There are approximately 1.5 acres of new OHV trails proposed in lynx habitat for the future Forest Motorized Vehicle Use proposal. None of this occurs in lynx prey habitat. Therefore, the proposed project in conjunction with past, ongoing and future travel management activities will create substantial cumulative effects to prey habitat or the Canada lynx.

Effects Summary When considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the refined proposed action alternative, a determination of “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” was concluded for the Canada lynx. Effect determination was based on alteration of prey habitat within mapped potential lynx habitat. Direct effects to lynx, such as disturbance, were not considered as the LAUs that occur within the project area are classified as “unoccupied” lynx habitat (peripheral) and therefore lynx use of the project area is highly unlikely. There is no management for lynx in unoccupied habitat, but the effects on lynx habitat are still considered (Canada lynx Conservation Agreement Amendment 2005).

Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on Northern Spotted Owl and Late- successional Dependant Species (LSR/MLSA)

Direct and Indirect Effects Left in its present condition, dense, overstocked stands with closed tree canopies would continue to result in increased risk for insect and disease epidemics, leading to increases in tree mortality, fuel loading and risk for large, high-severity wildland fires outside of the normal (historic) range of variability (Rippy, et al., 2005). Short term this increase in tree mortality would be favorable for the northern spotted owl, adding diversity to forest structure. Long term as numerous trees die and canopy closure drops below 70%, suitable owl habitat would downgrade to dispersal habitat. Existing habitat is at different stages of this process.

The risk of stand replacing fires within and adjacent to the project area, within the Naches Mainstem, Wenas and Rattlesnake watersheds would remain high (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 2007). Stand replacing fires is highly likely within the near future (see expected future condition in fuels section earlier in this

III - 81 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences chapter) likely resulting in substantial removal of NRF habitat at a landscape scale. This would result in substantial adverse effects to the northern spotted owl.

Invasive plants are not known to affect the northern spotted owl or its habitat. This applies to all species dependant on late-successional habitat (USFS 2005a; pp. III-61). Therefore left in its present condition invasive plant species would have no effect on the northern spotted owl or late-successional dependant species.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Northern Spotted Owl and Late-successional Dependant Species (LSR/MLSA)

The refined proposed action has the potential to affect the northern spotted owl directly through disturbance and habitat alteration and indirect through impacts to prey. To evaluate the effects of Glass Angel Project on late-successional associated species, changes to road density and security habitat within the in the MLSA/LSR were assessed. Consistency with LSR and MLSA objectives was also evaluated. The Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field HUCs were used as the analysis areas to determine cumulative effects on late- successional species.

Effects of the Refined Proposed-Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Northern Spotted Owl and and Late-successional Dependant Species (LSR/MLSA)

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed Glass Angel Project is designed to minimize impacts to spotted owls and to protect existing NRF habitat, per the Northwest Forest Plan, Forest LSR Plan, and Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010).

Silvicultural treatments within the Glass Angel Restoration Project area will not alter spotted owl NRF habitat. Suitable spotted owl habitat (NRF) will not be treated with fuels in the Glass portion of the project area. Fuels treatments (natural fuels) in the Angel portion of the project area will degrade but not downgrade approximately 490 acres of NRF habitat. Majority of NRF habitat proposed for treatment (410 acres) occurs outside the 0.7 mile and 1.8 mile buffers around spotted owl activity centers (Table III.29). Proposed treatment of NRF habitat will occur in the dry forest habitat type.

Table III.29. NRF habitat degraded by spotted owl activity centers. Activity Center 0.7 mi Buffer 1.8 mi Buffer Current ac Degraded ac Current ac Degraded ac Lindsay Camp 75 0 369 0 SO862 188 0 700 0 Upper Nile SO863 342 0 854 0 Glass Cr SO814 448 0 1667 0 NF Rattlesnake Cr SO817 448 0 1678 0 Nelson Cr SO884

III - 82 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Activity Center 0.7 mi Buffer 1.8 mi Buffer Current ac Degraded ac Current ac Degraded ac 379 0 1262 0 Clover Spring SO857 512 0 1467 40 Coral Meadows SO859 427 0.4 1156 47 L. Rattlesnake SO801 462 0 2566 0 Timberwolf Mtn SO847 242 0 741 33 Meeks Table SO868 38 0 324 0.6 South Dry Creek SO879

Silvicultural and fuels treatment will not occur in suitable spotted owl habitat within the Upper Nile LSR RW127. Within the Haystack MLSA (DM-10) approximately 38 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat will be degraded but not downgraded by underburn treatment. Fuels treatment within nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl was designed to reduce the risk of habitat loss from high severity wildfires that would remove the forest canopy and to reduce the landscape level risk of high-severity wildfire that could result in substantial loss of old-forest habitats. Fuels treatments were strategically located to reduce the spread of wildfire in the remaining portions of the LSR/MLSA. Based upon the available information, it has been determined through the Neutral/Beneficial Analysis that the fuels treatments (vegetation and prescribed fire) meet LSR/MLSA objectives and have long-term beneficial effects to the northern spotted owl and late- successional dependant species.

Design criteria and specific monitoring strategies were developed to insure NRF habitat is not downgraded. Treatment in NRF habitat would retain the following stand level structural characteristics: >60% canopy closure; multiple layers including some small patches that retain lower limbs on conifer trees, large overstory trees, large snags and large downed woody debris at levels recommended in the Wenatchee National Forest Late- Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997). Although these treatments would degrade NRF habitat it would still function as NRF habitat.

Approximately 1,109 acres of dispersal habitat will be treated with an underburn treatment within Critical Habitat Units (CHU WA-16 and 6). Fuels treatment within spotted owl dispersal habitat that occurs in Critical Habitat Unit (CHU WA-16 and Unit 6) were designed to reduce the risk of habitat loss from high severity wildfires that would remove the forest canopy while retaining the dispersal habitat function. The treatment would retain the following stand level structural characteristics: >40% canopy closure, one or more canopy layers, large overstory trees, large snags and large downed woody debris at levels recommended in the Wenatchee National Forest Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997). These treatments would retain the dispersal habitat function but may degrade the habitat.

Potential disturbance to SO814 and SO863, caused from chain saws and smoke, could result from project implementation. These sites are within ¼ mile of precommercial and prescribed fuels treatment areas. Mitigations, in the form of timing restrictions, are in place to reduce potential disturbance to spotted owls in

III - 83 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences these areas. Silvicultural treatments will be timed to occur outside the nesting period (after 31 July and before 1 March) if spotted owls are found nesting during the year treatment will be implemented. Mitigations are also in place to mitigate disturbance cause from smoke. With these mitigations in place, it is anticipated that silviculutural and fuels prescriptions would result in minimal disturbance effects to the northern spotted owl.

The removal of canopy cover will not likely affect woodrat populations as long as snags, downed wood, and mistletoe persist following treatments (Lehmkuhl, Kistler, Beglery, & Boulanger, 2006). Project designs are in place that assures large snag structure and eventually large downed wood which will provide habitat for spotted owl prey. Mistletoe is an important component of habitat for flying squirrels. The treatment prescribed for this project would reduce the amount of mistletoe within stands, but would not eliminate it. Efforts made to retain clumps of mistletoe trees were incorporated in this project. Buffers consisting of complex patches will serve as protection to retain snags during timber harvest. The clumps, patches and retention/protection of biological legacies such as large, old trees and snags, down logs and diseased trees will assure prey habitat is maintained in the Glass Angel Project area. The treatment in approximately 50 acres will be designed at developing long term high quality spotted owl habitat. This treatment stand will occur adjacent to existing high-quality spotted owl habitat and a historic spotted owl nest site.

Cumulative Proposed treatment will not remove or downgrade but would degrade nesting, roosting or foraging (NRF) habitat. Dispersal habitat in CHUs will be altered (degraded) but not downgraded.

Table III.30. Changes to northern spotted owl habitat by Northwest Forest Plan land allocations and spotted owl critical habitat. Existing acres incorporate past projects that have occurred within the Project area. This does not include future projects as the specific project designs have not yet been developed. NWFP NUMBER CHU HABITAT w/in Degraded ac29 ALLOCATION project area NRF Dispersal NRF Dispersal Matrix 434 4,087 434 4,087 30 17 -w/in CHU WA-16 135 1, 041 Haystack MLSA DM-10 126 223 38 NA Upper Nile LSR RW-127 386 2,754 0 NA

Rattlesnake LSR RW-128 6 9 6 9 6 -w/in CHU 617 917 WA-16 -w/in CHU 0 317

Adminstrative Withdrawn 0 56 0 56 6 -w/in CHU 0 5617

Congressionally Withdrawn 12 30 12 NA 31 17 17 17 17 CHU WA-16 135 1,044 135 1,044

CHU18 6 617 6517 617 6517

Total acres 964 7,159 490 1,109

29 Degraded acres include all proposed activities. However only fuels treatment will occur in NRF habitat w/in the Angel portion of the project area. Acres of dispersal degraded, removed, and downgraded outside the CHU are not accounted for. 30 CHU NRF and dispersal habitat acres overlap with NWFP allocation NRF and dispersal acres. 31 CHU WA-16 and 6 NRF and dispersal acres do not overlap within the project area.

III - 84 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The silvicultural and fuels treatments proposed in the Glass Angel Restoration project along with the past ongoing and future projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds will/have made substantial progress at restoring ecological processes and functions, and reducing the potential for substantial losses by uncharacteristic fires, insects and disease at a landscape scale.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Species Treatments on Northern Spotted Owl and and Late-successional Dependant Species (LSR/MLSA)

Direct and Indirect Effects Disturbance by motorized vehicles or equipment during project implementation is the only plausible effect resulting from the invasive plant treatments. This would have a potential for disturbance along closed roads only as motorized use on open roads is within normal ambient noise levels. Majority of invasive plant treatment would occur along roadsides. Therefore potential for disturbance is extremely low; only 0.25 mile of open road proposed for invasive treatment occurs within ¼ mile of an owl activity center and it is proposed for decommissioning. Since it is and open road, invasive plant management activities are not anticipated to create noise above normal ambient levels. Therefore disturbance to the northern spotted owl, resulting from implementing the invasive species treatment, will not occur.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management, Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on Northern Spotted Owl and and Late-successional Dependant Species (LSR/MLSA)

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the refined proposed action, none of the 5.18 miles of temporary roads proposed for construction will occur in suitable spotted owl habitat or within riparian reserves. Riparian reserves serve as dispersal corridors for the northern spotted owl. Temporary roads are not located within ¼ mile of any owl activity center therefore no disturbance to the spotted owl would result from the travel and access management activities. There would be no habitat fragmentation resulting from temporary road construction. No new system roads are proposed for this project.

None of the proposed road closure and trail reroutes occur within ¼ mile of a spotted owl activity center. Approximately 0.23 mile of road decommissioning will occur within ¼ mile of a spotted owl activity center. Both Trail 697 reroutes do not occur within suitable spotted owl habitat. Therefore, disturbance to the northern spotted owl is highly unlikely. If nesting spotted owls are found within ¼ mile of road closure and decommissioning activities, possible disturbance risks will be mitigated by appropriate timing restrictions. With this mitigation in place, road construction, trail relocation and decommissioning actions would have no disturbance effects to the northern spotted owl.

The proposed 4.71 miles of decommissioned and 4.42 miles of closed Forest Service system roads in the Glass Angel Project would have minimal benefits to late successional dependent species at the project scale. This small change in road density will not affect human influence levels at the landscape level (within the Dry Orr Analysis area). The Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds would remain at a low level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter habitat and a moderate level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter security habitat.

III - 85 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Although the refined proposed action would change the existing open road density & OHV trail density within the project area from 2.4 mi/mi² to 1.9 mi/mi², there will be little measureable change in road density and security habitat within the Upper Nile LSR and Haystack MLSA. Open road density within RW127 will remain at 3.65 mi/mi² and at 3.78 mi/mi² in DM-10. Security habitat in RW127 will remain at 2% and security habitat in DM-10 will remain at 6%.

Cumulative Generally, the past and foreseeable road and trail closures within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed will improve the security habitat for late-successional habitat. The Forest Motorized Vehicle Use program proposes less than 5 miles of additional OHV trails within the Rattlesnake Creek and Naches Mainstem Watersheds. These trails would add to the existing human use but not detectable at a landscape level; Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds would remain at a low level of human influence on late- successional nonwinter habitat and a moderate level of human influence on late-successional nonwinter security habitat. Therefore, the late-successional species would continue to use the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds upon completion of past, ongoing and foreseeable projects. The effects of public firewood collection and hazard tree maintenance associated with roads have been analyzed for within the “human influence on late-successional nonwinter habitat model”. The habitat influence index is designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road- associated factors such as firewood cutting and hazard tree removal.

Effects Summary Based upon the available information and evaluation of the effects, it has been determined that the proposed Glass Angel Restoration Project will have a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for the northern spotted owl. This determination is based on the potential for minimal disturbance and suitable habitat alteration to the northern spotted owl. The proposed Glass Angel Restoration Project will have a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for designated critical habitat for the spotted owl based on the degrading nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal northern spotted owl habitat.

The Glass Angel Restoration Project will benefit late successional associated species through the reduction of stand replacing fire risk and reduction in disturbance. Therefore, it has been determined that species viability for all late successional associated species would continue upon completion of this project.

Left blank for formatting

III - 86 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Summary of Effects to Federally Listed Species Table III.31. Effects determination for federally listed species for all alternatives Species Status Effects Determinations No Action Refined Proposed Gray wolf Endangered No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Canada lynx Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Critical Habitat Designated No Effect No Effect for the Canada lynx Grizzly Bear Threatened No Effect No Effect Northern spotted Threatened No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect owl Critical Habitat Designated No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the Northern spotted owl Marbled Threatened No Effect No Effect murrelet

EFFECTS TO FOREST SENSITIVE SPECIES

Effects to Gray Flycatcher

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on Gray Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Left in its present condition, dense, overstocked stands in the dry forest type would continue to increase; resulting in decreased habitat quality and quantity for the gray flycatcher.

If a wildfire were to occur, there is the potential for loss of habitat. Severely burned areas may also be slower to recover, prolonging impacts to this species.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Gray Flycatcher

Potential effects the refined proposed action could have on the gray flycatcher are alteration of habitat and potential for direct and indirect herbicide exposure.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on Gray Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Since gray flycatcher habitat exists in the Angel portion of the project area, proposed vegetation treatments will have no impact on the gray flycatcher. Potentially an additional 4,600 acres of gray flycatcher habitat could be created following fuels treatment in the Angel portion of the project area. The fuels treatment could also alter approximately 1,766 acres of existing habitat. Overall the fuels treatments will improve conditions for the gray flycatcher within the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed. Prescribed fire should not pose any risk to nesting birds, since burning will not occur during nesting season.

III - 87 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Silvicultural and fuels treatments from other past and foreseeable future fuels and vegetation treatments in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds have and will focus on treating dry forest types. More than 50% of these 5th field watersheds will be treated within the next 10 years; which equates to a significantly amount of improved habitat. Therefore, the proposed project in conjunction with the surrounding silvicultural and fuels treatment projects will add to past, present, or future impacts to create substantial cumulative effects that would benefit the gray flycatcher.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Plant Species Treatment on Gray Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Gray flycatchers nest in trees and are not susceptible to the short-term disturbance created by invasive plant treatments. Gray flycatchers are insectivorous birds and could be exposed to herbicides by consuming contaminated insects. Most of the insects consumed by gray flycatchers are unlikely to become contaminated with herbices because they inhabit tree canopies, are not necessarily associated with invasive plant species, and foliage would intercept most herbicide applied. The applied doses are not a concern (refer to effects common to all wildlife species).

Cumulative There would be no substantial effects to gray flycatchers or their prey resulting from past, ongoing and foreseeable projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds. Even effects of herbicide exposure to individuals have a very low probability of occurring due to the birds nesting and feeding behaviors as stated above.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management, -Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on Gray Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect No new temporary roads or Trail 697 proposed reroutes will be constructed in gray flycatcher habitat. Approximately 4.48 miles of system roads are proposed for decommissioning in dry forest habitat. An additional 11 acres of gray flycatcher habitat would develop in 10-15 years post treatment. Road closures will have no affect on gray flycatcher habitat as this closure is not permanent. Gray flycatchers nest in trees and are not susceptible to the short-term disturbance created by road work.

Cumulative The travel management associated with the past and foreseeable future projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds along with the future Forest Motorized vehicle Use proposal on the Forest will alter insufficient amounts of habitat (less than 10 acres) to create substantial cumulative effects to the gray flycatcher.

Effects Summary When considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the refined proposed action alternative, a determination of “may impact, but not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing” was concluded for the gray flycatcher. Effect determination was based on alteration of habitat and potential for minimal herbicide exposure.

III - 88 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects to Olive-sided Flycatcher

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on Olive-sided Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect If a wildfire were to occur, there is the potential for substantial amounts of olive-sided flycatcher habitat to be created in the the subalpine, montane and lower montane forest types in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Olive-sided Flycatcher

Potential effects the refined proposed action could have on the olive-sided flycatcher are alteration of habitat and potential for direct and indirect herbicide exposure.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on Olive-sided Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Proposed vegetation and fuels treatments in the Glass portion of the project area would create potentially 1,047 acres of olive-sided flycatcher habitat immediately after treatment. Overall the fuels and vegetation treatments would substantially improve conditions for the olive-sided flycatcher within the Naches Mainstem Watershed. Prescribed fire should not pose any risk to nesting birds, since burning will not occur during nesting season.

Cumulative Silvicultural and fuels treatments from other past and foreseeable future fuels and vegetation treatments in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds have and will focus on treating dry forest types. They have had no impacts to the olive-sided flycatcher as these projects have occurred outside of olive-sided flycatcher habitat. The past, ongoing and foreseeable projects have had no substantial cumulative effects to the olive-sided flycatcher.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Plant Species Treatment on Olive-sided Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Olive-sided flycatchers nest in trees and are not susceptible to the short-term disturbance created by invasive plant treatments. Olive-sided flycatchers are insectivorous birds and could be exposed to herbicides by consuming contaminated insects. Foliage would intercept most herbicide applied. The applied doses are not a concern (refer to effects common to all wildlife species).

Cumulative Impacts to the olive-sided flycatcher from past, ongoing and foreseeable projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds would be minimal. Impacts of herbicide exposure to individuals have a very low probability of occurring due to the birds nesting and feeding behaviors as stated above. Past herbicide treatments do not overlap in time or space to create cumulative effects.

III - 89 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management;-Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on Olive-sided Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Temporary road construction would create addition edge; improving habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher (approximately 6 acres of habitats would be improved). Road decommissioning, closure and Trail 697 reroutes do not occur in olive-sided flycatcher habitat. Therefore there will have no impacts to the olive-sided flycatcher.

Cumulative The travel management associated with the past and foreseeable future projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds along with the future Forest Motorized vehicle Use proposal will alter an insufficient amount of habitat (less than 10 acres) to create substantial cumulative effects to the olive-sided flycatcher.

Effects Summary When considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the refined proposed action alternative, a determination of “no impact” was concluded for the olive-sided flycatcher. Overall habitat would be created resulting from the Glass Angel Restoration project.

Effects to White-headed Woodpecker

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on White-headed Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Left in its present condition, dense, overstocked stands with closed tree canopies would continue to result in increased risk for insect and disease epidemics, leading to increases in tree mortality, fuel loading and risk for large, high-severity wildland fires outside of the normal (historic) range of variability (Rippy, et al., 2005). Snags created would most likely be small and medium in size, not favoring white-headed woodpecker needs. Tree growth would continue to be stunted, giving little opportunity for large tree or snag development and preventing the development of white-headed woodpecker habitat in the dry forest types (refer to vegetation existing condition in Chpt 3).

The risk of stand replacing fires within and adjacent to the project area, within the Dry Orr Analysis area would remain high (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 2007). A stand replacing fire is highly likely within the near future. If a wildfire were to occur, there would be no change in use by white-headed woodpeckers (Saab, Dudley, & Thompson, 2003). A stand replacing fire would provide little to no foraging opportunities for the white-headed woodpecker (Rapheal & White, 1984), (Wightman, Saab, Forristal, Mellen-Mclean, & Markus, 2010).

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on White-headed Woodpecker

Potential effects the refined proposed action could have on the white-headed woodpecker are alteration of habitat and potential for direct and indirect herbicide exposure.

III - 90 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on White-headed Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect The vegetation treatment will not occur in existing white-headed woodpecker habitat. Approximately 183 acres are proposed for treatment in Units 4 & 5. When combined with existing white-headed woodpecker habitat located east of this unit, it provides an adequate patch size of habitat that could be used by white-headed woodpeckers. The vegetation treatment (both commercial and non-commercial thinning), and fuel treatment have the potential to accelerate the development of large diameter dominant and co-dominant trees, including snag recruitment. Retention of the following will occur in all units treated: All trees greater than 150 years old, as defined by Van Pelt (2008); trees >25”dbh; and most trees 21-25” dbh. Young trees up to 15-30 feet from the bole of old ponderosa pine trees will be removed to reduce competition and allow growth. Units 4 & 5 vegetation treatments are specifically designed to create white-headed woodpecker habitat (refer to Chapter 2). Although Unit 4 would become suitable white-headed woodpecker habitat soon after commericial thinning treatment; Unit 5 would take several decades after vegetative treatment to develop into white-headed woodpecker habitat. This would be extremely beneficial to the white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, flammulated owl and pileated woodpecker species. (refer to Chapter 2).

The Angel portion of the project will apply fuels prescription to dry, ponderosa pine forest types that could become habitat for white-headed woodpecker habitat (6,893 acres). Once treated these stand would become high quality source habitat within 20-30 years post treatment. Although habitat will not be high quality directly after treatment, it would be improved. White-headed woodpecker are expected to move into the treatment area within 5 years post treatment as was documented in the Nile Timber Sale area (Kozma 2010).

Some loss of snags may occur during fuels treatment in the Angel portion of the project. However additional large snags will likely be created as a result of the prescribed burning (Table III.28) (Harrod et al. 2007, Saab et al. 2006); as part of the project design criteria, treatments will be monitored to insure snag and down wood habitat are at levels specified in the LSRA (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997) and Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010).

For more details regarding snag densities after treatment refer to MIS section for Primary Cavity Excavator discussion.

Cumulative Effects of past vegetation management activities (logging, piling and burning) and woodcutting have had major impacts on historic snag and down wood levels within the project area as well as the Dry Orr Analysis area. Widespread removal of large ponderosa pine trees occurred on the District in the early to mid 1900s. Large and very large larch snags have also been removed as firewood in the Glass portion of the project area. Seventy percent of the project area has been harvested in the past, mostly between 1960 and 1990 and mostly in stands with old, large/very large trees relatively abundant. Prior logging has included individual tree selection (approximately 57 percent of the logged area) and clear cutting (approximately 33 percent). Many large and very large larch snags were removed as firewood from both logged and non-logged stands on flat ground. The cumulative effect at the scale of the project area and its component stands is that old, large/very large trees occur at much lower levels than historically. The majority of the forested acres in the project area are in the middle or small size class with very little in the large size class currently present on the landscape. This condition lacks the current availability of large snags and logs and large green trees on the landscape and the recruitment of future large snags and down logs.

III - 91 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The Glass Angel Project area makes up a small percentage of the Dry Orr Analysis area (16%). This project in itself will have little change on cavity excavator habitat at a landscape scale. Silvicultural and fuels treatments from past, ongoing and foreseeable future fuels and vegetation treatments in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds have and will focus on implementing dry forest restoration treatments; creating white-headed woodpecker habitat. More than 50% of these 5th field watersheds will be treated within the next 5 years. Treating high risk vegetation would reduce fuel loading, creating effective fuel breaks for primary cavity excavators/nesters habitat. Since more than 50% of the two 5th field watersheds will be treated with the forest restoration and dry site strategy, the proposed project in conjunction with the surrounding silvicultural and fuels treatment projects will add to past, present, or future impacts to create substantial cumulative effects that would benefit the white-headed woodpecker.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Plant Species Treatment on White-headed Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect The white-headed woodpecker nests and forages in trees. They are not likely to be exposed to herbicides because no trees will be treated and no aerial application is proposed. They do forage on the ground during the fall but majority of herbicide treatments will not occur during this time. This species is not susceptible to the low magnitude, extent, and duration of disturbance caused by treating patches of invasive plants, which occur mostly along roadsides. Invasive plant treatments will not cause adverse effects to this species as a result of human or mechanical disturbance. The applied doses are not a concern (refer to effects common to all wildlife species).

Cumulative Impacts of herbicide exposure to individuals have a very low probability of occurring due to the birds nesting and feeding behaviors as stated above. Therefore, impacts to the white-headed woodpecker from past, ongoing and foreseeable projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds would be highly unlikely. No threat to viability of populations exists.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management; Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on White-headed Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Temporary road construction and the two trail 697 reroute options do not occur in white-headed woodpecker habitat. Therefore no direct, or indirect effects would occur to the white-headed woodpecker as a result of travel and access management. The decommissioned and closed roads would have no effect on the white- headed woodpecker as they are not susceptible to the short-term disturbance created by road work.

Cumulative The travel management associated with the past and foreseeable future projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds along with the future Forest Motorized vehicle Use proposal will alter an insufficient amount of habitat (less than 10 acres). No substantial cumulative effects to the white-headed woodpecker would result.

III - 92 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects Summary When considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the refined proposed action alternative, a determination of “no impact” was concluded for the white-headed woodpecker. Effect determination was based on habitat improved as a result of the refined proposed action.

Summary of Effects to Forest Sensitive Species

Table III.32. Effects determination for Forest Service Sensitive Species for Action Alternative. The determination for all species is “no impact” for the No Action Alternative. Sensitive species that had habitat within the project area. Species Determination Reason

Fisher No impact Not present in treatment areas Townsend’s Big- No impact Not likely present in treatment areas eared Bat Gray flycatcher No impact Will create and improve habitat Northern Goshawk No impact Will create and improve habitat Olive-sided MINL32 Altered habitat Flycatcher White-headed No impact Will create and improve habitat woodpecker Larch mountain No impact Not present in treatment salamander Columbia Gorge No impact Not present in treatment Oregonian Puget Oregonian No impact Not present in treatment

EFFECTS TO MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

Effects to Primary Cavity Excavators

The Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field HUCs were used to address effects on snag levels at a landscape level using DecAID. The Dry Orr Analysis area will be used for addressing cumulative effects on primary cavity excavators in regards to road density.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Primary Cavity Excavators

Potential effects the refined proposed action could have on the primary cavity excavators (PCE) are alteration of habitat and potential for direct and indirect herbicide exposure.

32 MINL = may impact, but not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing.

III - 93 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on Primary Cavity Excavators

Direct and Indirect It is expected that individual snags and pieces of downed wood would be lost through fuels treatment and felling of snags that pose a hazard to workers and equipment. Generally, snags will be avoided during these operations. However, it is assumed that a low level of direct impact would occur, as OSHA regulations requirements and the realities of ground based operations and activities will inevitable result in snag loss. Mechanical treatment is expected to decrease mean snag density and percent of down wood (refer to Table III.34). Monitoring and project design described below, will be implemented to assure snag and down wood will meet levels specified in the LSRA (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997) and Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010).

The following measures should ensure that large snag structure and eventually large downed wood are restored to the forest within the project area in amounts and size classes that approximate the historical range of variation (Harrod, Gaines, Hartl, & Camp, 1998) and meet NWFP recommended levels: 1) treatment prescriptions will retain large, very large and old trees and promote the development of future large tree structures (both of which are necessary for future large snag and downed wood recruitment); 2) existing large snags will be protected (to the extent that safety allows), clumps of live trees will be left to act as a buffer of protection around large snags; 3) additional large snags will likely be created as a result of the prescribed burning (Table III.28) (Harrod et al. 2007, Saab et al. 2006); 4) where large snag structure is lacking, medium sized snags will be substituted and marked as wildlife trees to protect; 5) Snags will be retained in clumps and complex patches; 6)Prescription guides will be written to incorporate the down wood levels (CWD) stated in the NWFP LSRA and the Forest Restoration Strategy.

Prescribed burn areas that create new concentrations of fire-killed snags will benefit species such as the black- backed woodpecker (Winkler, Christie, & Nurney, 1995). Prescribed burn areas would be less likely to provide foraging opportunities for pileated woodpecker (Bull, Abe, & Shepherd, 2005). Wightman et al., (2010) found that a mosaic of burn severity across the landscape improved white-headed woodpecker habitat by opening forest canopies in the higher severity burn areas, while retaining decayed snags created before wildfire and live, cone-producing trees in unburned or low-severity burn areas.

The vegetation treatment (both commercial and non-commercial thinning), and fuel treatment have the potential to accelerate the development of large diameter dominant and co-dominant trees, including snag recruitment. Retention of the following will occur in all units treated: All trees greater than 150 years old, as defined by Van Pelt (2008); trees >25”dbh; and most trees 21-25” dbh. Young trees up to 15-30 feet from the bole of old ponderosa pine trees will be removed to reduce competition and allow growth. Units 4 & 5 vegetation treatments are specifically designed to create white-headed woodpecker habitat (refer to Chapter 2). Although Unit 4 would become suitable white-headed woodpecker habitat soon after commericial thinning treatment; Unit 5 would take several decades after vegetative treatment to develop into white-headed woodpecker habitat. This would be extremely beneficial to the white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, flammulated owl and pileated woodpecker species. (refer to Chapter 2). White-headed woodpeckers need large patches of contiguous habitat, at least 350 acres of high quality habitat or 700 acres of moderate quality (Altman 2000). Approximately 183 acres are proposed for treatment in Unites 4 & 5. When combined with existing white-headed woodpecker habitat located east of this unit, it provides an adequate patch size of habitat that could be used by white-headed woodpeckers. A pair of white-headed woodpeckers has nested within two miles of Units 4 & 5.

III - 94 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The full vegetation and fuels restoration treatment (including prescribed fire) would effectively provide long term protection to the future development of late successional habitat. This alternative would treat high levels of vegetation at risk of stand replacing fires and destruction of stands from disease and insect. Treating high risk vegetation would reduce fuel loading, creating effective fuel breaks for primary cavity excavators/nesters habitat that exists within the project area as well as the Dry Orr Analysis area. This is particularly crucial due to the numerous potential fire starts resulting from private and state land holdings located east of the Dry Orr Analysis area. Treating the fuel on Forest Service land would increase the probability of catching a running fire. Future snag recruitment would remain intact with the development of future large snags.

Table III.33: Changes to snag densities after vegetation treatments. Table was developed by the Forest Plan Revision team. Change in Snag Density resulting from the following Treatment Snag Size mechanical prescribed fire mechanical and prescribed (dbh) treatments treatments treatment 6-10 -48.1% +14% +55% 10-20 -34.2% +10% +45% >20 -30.0% 0% +100%

Commercial (selection cut and regeneration harvest treatments) and noncommercial thinning would modify tree species composition, reduce stocking levels and potentially lead to the decrease in vulnerability to insects and pathogens. This would also result in an increase in tree vigor and a decrease in tree mortality. Short term this would reduce the number of small & medium size snags that are currently being added to the landscape. Long term, as large trees develop, this area would be able to provide large diameter snags on the landscape. Not all of the forested stands within the project would be commercially treated. There will be clumps and complex patches that will be left within the large treatment blocks. These patches would have a slightly increased risk of tree mortality from insects, disease or fire. However they would also add diversity. Patches rather than landscapes would be susceptible to defoliators and bark beetle outbreaks, the extent and severity would be reduced due to the reduction in uniformity and continuity of habitat for the host species. This added diversity would benefit cavity excavators.

Treatment prescribed in this alternative would reduce the amount of mistletoe within stands, but would not eliminate it. An extensive effort was made to identify clumps of mistletoe trees that would be retained in units. This again would add diversity; benefiting species that use mistletoe brooms such as blue grouse, spotted owls and flying squirrels. Mistletoe would eventually kill trees, adding snags to the landscape which would be beneficial to numerous cavity excavator species.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects: Due to planned retention of green trees, snags and logs at levels consistent with the LSRA (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997) and Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 2010), treated acres would continue to provide habitat for snag- and log-dependent wildlife over the short and long term. Accelerated development of large tree structure would develop future habitat for the white-headed woodpeckers, Pileated woodpeckers, and bats.

III - 95 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences very large larch snags have also been removed as firewood in the Glass portion of the project area. Seventy percent of the project area has been harvested in the past, mostly between 1960 and 1990 and mostly in stands with old, large/very large trees relatively abundant. Prior logging has included individual tree selection (approximately 57 percent of the logged area) and clear cutting (approximately 33 percent). Many large and very large larch snags were removed as firewood from both logged and non-logged stands on flat ground. The cumulative effect at the scale of the project area and its component stands is that old, large/very large trees occur at much lower levels than historically. The majority of the forested acres in the project area are in the middle or small size class with very little in the large size class currently present on the landscape. This condition lacks the current availability of large snags and logs and large green trees on the landscape and the recruitment of future large snags and down logs.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Plant Species Treatment on Primary Cavity Excavators

Direct and Indirect Species that forage and nest in trees are not likely to be exposed to herbicides because no trees will be treated and no aerial application will occur. White-headed woodpeckers do forage on pine seed on the forest floor during late fall through early spring. Herbicide application would occur June-September. Northern flicker are the only other cavity excavator that may feed on the ground or low shrubs. They may encounter contaminated insects. Given the varied diet and movement of these birds, they are unlikely to forage exclusively within one patch of treated invasive plants and actual doses exceeding levels of concern are unlikely. Direct contact with herbicides is expected to be extremely rare. Invasive plant treatment will not cause adverse effects (resulting from disturbance or herbicide exposure) to any primary cavity excavators/nesters or bat species. Refer to riparian habitat discussion for additional discussion regarding direct effects to foraging bat species.

Invasive plants are not currently affecting habitat for white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, flammulated owl, black-backed woodpecker three-toed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker or any other primary cavity excavator/nester or bat species. There would be no benefits to primary cavity excavators resulting from the invasive plant treatment.

Cumulative Impacts of herbicide exposure to individuals have a very low probability of occurring due to the birds nesting and feeding behaviors as stated above. Therefore, impacts to the PCE from past, ongoing and foreseeable projects in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds would be highly unlikely. There is no overlap in space and time from past projects, resulting in no cumulative effects. No threat to viability of populations exists.

III - 96 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management; -Trail 697 Reroute (Including Adaptive Management option) on Primary Cavity Excavators

Direct and Indirect Approximately 3.24 miles of new temporary road will be constructed and approximately 1.94 miles of previously used temporary roads maybe reconstructed to facilitate timber harvest operation all in the Glass portion of the project area. This increase of 5.18 miles of new temporary road will remove snags as a result of road construction and hazard tree management. This 7.5 acres of snag reduction is minor Impacts of removal would be dissipated along a linear route, rather than concentrated to a single area. Approximately 7.5 acres would have increased snag removal resulting from travel management under the Glass Angel Project. This would result in minor impacts due to the small area affected.

Following mechanical and fuels treatments, as funding is available, approximately 4.42 miles of system road will be closed and another 4.71 miles of system road will be decommissioned. This would result in a decrease of 9.03 miles or 55 acres of hazard tree maintenance felling, benefiting snag dependant wildlife species at the project level. Low level impacts to snag dependent wildlife species would result from the trail 697 reroute as it would avoid cutting trees larger than 10” dbh. All CWD would remain on site. Hazard tree management does not occur on OHV trails. No personal firewood cutting will occur along the new trail reroute as it is within an LSR, where personal firewood collection is not allowed.

Considering the temporary road construction and decommissioning, road closures and the Trail 697 reroute proposals, human influence on cavity excavator habitat would remain at a low level. Overall road density in the Glass Angel Project area will reduce from a density of 2.4 mi/mi² to 1.9 mi/mi². Reducing road density would result in less area firewood gathering would occur on. More snags would be retained benefiting snag dependant wildlife species at the project level.

Cumulative Generally, the past and foreseeable road and trail closures within the Dry Orr Analysis area will improve habitat for PCE by the reduction of open roads. The Forest Motorized Vehicle Use program proposes less than 5 miles of additional OHV trails within the Dry Orr Analysis area. These trails would add to the existing human use but not detectable at a landscape level. Currently, a low level of human influence on primary cavity excavator habitat exists within the Dry Orr Analysis area. The existing road density has minor impacts on primary cavity excavators. Although there are negative factors associated with roads such as snag and log removal from firewood cutting and hazard tree management and the creation of edge (Gaines, Singleton, & Ross, 2003), these effects are minor within the watershed (due to the low level of human influence on primary cavity excavators). The effects of public firewood collection and hazard tree maintenance associated with roads have been analyzed for within the “human influence on primary cavity excavators”. The habitat influence index is designed to address edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road- associated factors such as firewood cutting and hazard tree removal.

Effects Summary The Glass Angel Restoration Project will improve conditions for primary cavity excavators (including pileated woodpeckers and three-toed woodpeckers) in the project area. Therefore, the Glass Angel Restoration Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest for the primary cavity excavators (including pileated woodpeckers and three-toed woodpeckers).

III - 97 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects to Beaver and Ruffed Grouse

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on Beaver and Ruffed Grouse

Left in its present condition riparian habitat would remain intact short term. However, fuel loading and risk for large, high-severity wildland fires would increase having the potential to result in removal of large amounts of riparian habitat. Since riparian areas tend to burn more severely, recovery time is expected to be much slower than the uplands. This has the potential to result in measureable negative impacts to riparian dependant wildlife species.

If no management action were taken, riparian-associated species would continue receiving low levels of human disturbance within the Dry Orr Analysis area. No alteration of riparian habitat or disturbance would occur short term. Long term, major riparian habitat removal and alteration are expected to occur resulting from stand replacing fires. Riparian reserves typically have high levels of fuel load and burn hotter than the surrounding uplands. Reestablishment of riparian habitat could take several years without human intervention.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Beaver and Ruffed Grouse

The potential impacts the Glass Angel Project could have on ruffed grouse and beaver are alteration of habitat and disturbance. Effects to the beaver, ruffed grouse and other riparian dependent species will be measured by Habitat Influence Index, herbicide exposure, treatment in riparian reserves and meeting NWFP S&Gs for riparian reserves. The Dry Orr Analysis area was used for addressing cumulative effects on riparian-associated species.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Vegetation and Fuels Treatments on Beaver and Ruffed Grouse

Direct and Indirect A small amount of non-commercial thinning (14 acres) is proposed within the outer portions of riparian reserves. This activity would not occur in riparian habitat. The precommercial thinning treatment would improve tree growth, restore fuel profiles and increase the size of LWD in riparian reserves. Thinning would also provide additional sunlight, stimulating riparian shrub growth. This improvement in habitat would benefit riparian dependent species such as the ruffed grouse. Potentially 1,258 acres or riparian reserves could be treated by prescribed underburning in the Angel portion of the project area and another 143 acres of riparian reserves in the Glass portion of the project area. These acres are the total riparian reserves within fuels treatment; however the actual acres treated is expected to be substantially less. No active prescribed fire ignition would take place within Riparian Reserves. It is highly probable that fire would back down into riparian reserves, removing riparian habitat. Approximately 2.5 acres of commercial thinning will occur in outer portions of the riparian reserves and will not remove/alter riparian habitat. Treatment would meet NWFP S&Gs for riparian reserves. Treating portions of riparian reserves would have long term beneficial effects to riparian dependent species because riparian shrub growth would be stimulated and fuels would be reduced.

Cumulative The proposed Glass Angel Project, in conjunction with past and ongoing and foreseeable projects (Refer to Table III.1) would help increase sustainability of the forest vegetation and reduce susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks and the risk of stand replacing fires. This would promote healthy riparian reserve systems at a landscape. For broad scale trends refer to Affected Environment discussion for these species.

III - 98 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Species Treatments on Beaver and Ruffed Grouse

Direct and Indirect The potential exposure of herbicides to species inhabiting riparian reserves is expected to be very low. Small patches over large areas would be treated. Treatment within 100 feet of riparian zone or standing water would consist of the aquatic formulation of glyphosate. Individual plants would be wicked or sprayed. Risk of effects from herbicide exposure on mollusk, insectivorous birds and bats is unlikely. At typical application rates, no herbicide exceeds a dose of concern for mollusk, insectivorous birds and bats (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005) and herbicides will not be applied directly to water. Exposure scenarios used to analyze potential effects from herbicides are discussed in the USFS 2005b, Appendix B, p. 461. None of the herbicides proposed for use nor NPE surfactants, applied at typical application rates, pose risk to any riparian species. As a result there should be no direct exposure to aquatic wildlife species. Risk of effects from herbicides exposure to fish eating birds is unlikely because no herbicides exceed a dose of concern for any exposure (acute or chronic) at any application rate on fish eating birds (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005).

Cumulative The proposed project in conjunction with past invasive plant treatment projects (Table III.17) in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Watersheds do not overlap in time or space resulting in no cumulative effect. For cumulative effects from foreseeable future invasive plant treatments refer to “Effects of the Refined Proposed Alternative-Invasive Plant Treatment on all Wildlife Species”.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management; Trail 697 Reroute (including Adaptive Management Option) on Beaver and Ruffed Grouse

Direct and Indirect No new system roads are proposed for this project. Approximately 5.18 miles of new temporary roads are proposed but none of these occur within the riparian reserve. The existing location of Trail 697 does not occur within riparian reserves in the Glass portion of the project area. Therefore these actions would have no affect on riparian dependent species or their habitat.

The proposed 4.71 miles of decommissioned and closing 4.42 miles of Forest Service system roads in the Glass Angel Project would benefit riparian dependent species. Approximately 1.2 miles of the Forest Service system roads proposed for closure or decommissioning exist within riparian reserves. This would improve approximately 3 acres of riparian reserve habitat. Reducing roads within riparian reserves would result in reducing human influence in riparian habitat slightly and result in a minor benefit to riparian dependent wildlife species. There would no measureable change to riparian habitat at the landscape scale (Dry Orr Analysis area). The existing low level of human influence on riparian habitat within the Dry Orr Analysis area would continue to benefit riparian dependent wildlife species following completion of the Glass Angel Project.

Effects Summary The Glass Angel Restoration Project will improve conditions for ruffed grouse and beaver in the project area. Therefore, the Glass Angel Restoration Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest for the ruffed grouse or beaver.

III - 99 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects to Rocky Mountain Elk

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Rocky Mountain Elk

The primary issues concerning deer and elk in the Glass Angel Project area are forage, open road density and intact travel corridors. Intact travel corridors are important as they provide elk security during critical spring summer migration periods. The quality (palatability) and quantity of forage has most likely been reduced due to the current dense forest conditions and the presence of invasive plant species that have been documented throughout the project area in past harvest units (Chapter III, Invasive Species discussion).

The potential impacts the Glass Angel Restoration Project could have on deer and elk are disturbance and alteration of habitat. Effects to deer and elk will be measured by the change in road density, the summer habitat disturbance index (human influence), winter habitat disturbance index described in (Gaines, Singleton, & Ross, 2003) and change to travel corridor condition. The Dry Orr Analysis area was used to address cumulative effects on deer and elk. Potential herbicide exposure and meeting WFP standards and guidelines for cover and forage, and HEI will also be discussed. A qualitative evaluation of the effects on forage availability was completed.

Effects of the Refined Proposed-Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Rocky Mountain Elk

Direct and Indirect Implementing the silvicultural and fuels treatments would change cover-to-forage ratio within the Dry Orr analysis area: summer range would change to 54/46 and winter range would change to 62/38. These changes would be an improvement from the existing condition, moving the analysis area toward optimum cover-to- forage ratio of 40/60 (WFP S&G).

Research has indicated that the availability of quality forage during non-winter periods is very important to the winter survival and productivity of elk herds (Cook J. , 2002), (Cook, Johnson, Cook, Riggs, Bryant, & Irwin, 2004), more important than thermal cover (Cook, Irwin, Bryant, Riggs, & Thomas, 1998). The potential effects of the Glass Angel Project on available forage for elk are based on results from studies of thinning and prescribed fires in similar environments. Studies have shown an increase in forage production in ponderosa pine forest following thinning and/or prescribed fire due to reducing competition for light, moisture and soil nutrients (Leege & Godbolt, 1985), (Gibbs, Jenks, & Sowell, 2004). While forage production is one aspect of forage availability for elk, changes in species composition is also important, as only some species are highly palatable to elk. However, Harrod et al., (1998) showed little change in composition of the understory plant community following thinning and burning. The Glass Angel Project is likely to increase forage production but not dramatically alter the understory community composition which might eliminate or reduce elk forage species. The vegetation and fuels treatment will likely have a positive effect on the availability of elk forage.

Proposed non-commercial thinning and/or prescribed burning in areas already classified as forage (250 ac) would enhance production of herbaceous forage, particularly grasses and sedges, by removing mostly small trees and brush that would otherwise, over time, shade out herbaceous understory plants. Planned low intensity prescribed burning would also remove needle mats, thatch, and accumulations of litter, stimulating new plant growth by improving conditions for seed germination and for resprouting of fire-killed plants from roots and root crowns. The “nitrogen flush” resulting from planned underburns may also increase palatability of subsequent forage to elk, for a few years following treatment. Burning may also result in slightly earlier spring green-up for a few years following treatment, due to increased exposure of soil to sunlight in spring.

III - 100 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Two important travel corridors would be retained within the Glass portion of the project area. Elk migration routes do not occur in the Angel portion of the project area as that is where they winter. Proposed treatments would reduce or eliminate some vegetative screening along roads and may increase distance-to-hiding cover for deer and elk, resulting in brief local displacement from “seen” areas. Plans for retention of cover along streams, in upland areas and travel corridors would reduce the magnitude of this effect. No silvicultural treatments are proposed within the travel corridors. No active prescribed fire ignition would take place within the travel corridors. However, it is highly probable that fire would back down into these corridors, removing minimal amounts of hiding cover. However, travel corridors would remain intact and functional upon completion of silvicultural and fuels treatments.

The only proposed project activity that would take place in EW-1 is prescribed fire. No timing restrictions would be necessary since fuel treatment would occur outside of winter use period (December 1 through April 15th).

Cumulative Cumulative effects on elk resulting from implementing the action alternative along with past and foreseeable future fuels and vegetation treatment in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds (Table III.1) are as follows: More than 50% of the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds will have fuels and vegetation treatments completed within the next 5 years. Treating over 50% of these two 5th field watersheds would reduce cover to varying degrees and encourage the growth of forage at a landscape level. The amount and quality of forage created is difficult to determine as it depends on vegetation prescriptions and site potential. Refer to previous discussion regarding forage production after vegetation and fuels treatments. Improving forage at this scale would undoubtedly have a positive impact on the health and production of the elk herd.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Species Treatments on Rocky Mountain Elk

Direct and Indirect Implementing invasive plant management has the potential to improve the quality of elk and deer forage; increasing the availability of palatable forage species. Thompson (1996) showed that removing knapweed by use of herbicides resulted in measurably more forage and consequently more use by deer and elk. Herbicide exposures to ungulates are expected to be extremely minimal. The grazing and browsing habits of elk and deer make it possible for them to consume vegetation that has been sprayed with herbicide. Quantitative estimates of risk using “worst-case” scenarios found that none of the herbicides considered for use, at typical application rates, would result in a dose that exceeds the toxicity indices in either acute or chronic scenario (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 2005). Spot spraying and roadside boom spraying of invasive plants are not likely to expose deer or elk to harmful levels of herbicide because they are unlikely to forage exclusively on treated invasive plants, which are not their preferred forage.

Cumulative The proposed project in conjunction with past invasive plant treatment projects (Table III.1) in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Watersheds do not overlap in time or space resulting in no cumulative effect. For cumulative effects from foreseeable future invasive plant treatments refer to “Effects of the Refined Proposed Alternative-Invasive Plant Treatment on all Wildlife Species”.

III - 101 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management on Rocky Mountain Elk

Direct and Indirect The 5.18 miles of new temporary road construction will result in a minor increase in road density and a slight increase in disturbance potential to elk and deer during project implementation. However, this would be short term as these temporary roads will be decommissioned after timber harvest activities. Temporary roads will be constructed in the Glass portion of the project area only. Fawning and calving areas and winter range do not occur in this portion of the project. Disturbance during these critical time periods due to road construction is not.

Following mechanical and fuels treatments, as funding is available, approximately 4.42 miles of system road will be closed and another 4.71 miles of system road will be decommissioned under the action alternatives. This would result in a decrease of road density from 2.4 mi/mi² to 1.9 mi/mi² within the project area. This would reduce disturbance impacts to deer and elk at a local level. No road closure/decommissioning are proposed within EW-1. Therefore, implementing the project travel and access management would have no effect on deer and elk key winter range

Considering the proposed temporary road construction/decommissioning, the Forest Service system road closure/decommissioning and the Trail 697 reroute action alternatives, there would be minimal decreases in human influence on deer and elk at the project level.

Cumulative Generally, the past and foreseeable road and trail closures from district projects within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed will improve habitat for elk. The Forest Motorized Vehicle Use program proposes less than 5 miles of additional OHV trails within the Dry Orr Analysis area. Overall, the combined effects of these actions would result in minor benefits to localized populations of deer and elk. The high level of human influence on summering deer and elk within the Dry Orr Analysis area would continue and human influence within winter range would remain low following completion of the Glass Angel Project. No road management actions are proposed in EW-1 (key deer and elk winter range). Therefore, the proposed road and trail actions will not change HEI for EW-1 within the Dry Orr Analysis area.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action-Trail 697 Reroute on Rocky Mountain Elk

The existing location of Trail 697 bisects the meadow in the eastern portion, reducing use by deer and elk to that portion of the meadow potentially disturbing local populations of elk and deer.

The short reroute of Trail 697 would continue to bisect the eastern portion of the meadow; creating a source of disturbance and reducing use by a local herd of elk. Effects of this proposed relocation to elk would be no change from existing condition.

Effects of the Adaptive Management-Trail 697 Reroute on Rocky Mountain Elk

The longer proposed reroute of Trail 697 out of the meadow would run within approximately 300 meters outside the northern edge of the meadow; along the entire length of the meadow. Although this trail would no longer be in the meadow, it would actually have more potential for disturbance due to its close proximity to the meadow (w/in 300 meters the entire length). It would increase motorized trails by 1.6 miles; potentially increasing disturbance to local elk herds.

III - 102 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects Summary The Glass Angel Restoration Project will improve conditions for the Rocky Mountain elk in the project area. Therefore, the Glass Angel Restoration Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest for the Rocky Mountain elk.

Effects to Migratory Landbirds Environmental Consequences

Effects of Expected Future Condition if No Action on Migratory Landbirds

If no management action were taken, short term there would be no alteration of migratory landbird habitat. Long term, stand replacing fires in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Watersheds would result in large scale habitat loss for species dependent on green trees of any size for most migratory landbirds in Table III.34. A Species that would benefit from wildfire would be the olive-sided flycatcher. Large densities of snags would be available at a landscape level. This would be a short term benefit; the majority of snags created from a wildfire would fall within 30 years of a fire, with little to no large green trees left for future recruitment snags (Harrod, Gaines, Hartl, & Camp, 1998), (USDA Forest Service, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, 2006). This would benefit some woodpecker species such as the Northern three-toed woodpecker; however without green trees nearby it would not benefit the white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch or brown creeper. Burned areas would most likely be slow to recover, taking 100+ years for old forest structure to begin to develop.

Effects of Refined Proposed Action on Migratory Landbirds The potential impacts the proposed project could have on migratory landbirds are alteration of habitat and herbicide exposure. Some disturbance to nesting landbirds may occur during project implementation.

Direct and Indirect Proposed thinning and burning would affect most habitat features listed in Table III.34, to some degree. Within the ponderosa pine habitat, commercial thinning and fuels treatments are designed to restore key habitat features of open ponderosa pine forest, including predominance of large trees and presence of large snags. Creating this type of habitat would benefit the pygmy nuthatch, flammulated owl, chipping sparrow, gray flycatcher and white-headed woodpecker.

Commercial thinning and fuels treatments, in mixed conifer habitat, are designed to retain and protect biological legacies such as large and old live trees, down logs and diseased trees. Clumps and complex patches will be retained to add diversity to the landscape. This type of treatment scheme would create edge and openings sought after by the olive-sided flycatcher.

Large snags would also be retained wherever safety permits. These are also more likely to burn during post-thin prescribed burning. Provisions to protect some large snags (>20” diameter) by designating “no-thin” buffers around them, and to protect these residual habitat patches from high-intensity fire during the burning operation to follow, increase the likelihood that at least some large snags will remain following treatment. Fire is also likely to create some new large snags.

Under the refined proposed action, most green trees >20 inches in diameter would be retained in treatment areas (Chapter II). These trees constitute the most desirable tree structure, and provide habitat structure for both pygmy nuthatch (in pine forest) and brown creeper (in mixed conifer forest). Some removal of trees 21-25 inches in diameter would occur in upland treatment areas. Conifer tree species selected as recruitment trees would be ponderosa pine, western white pine, Englemann spruce, and dwarf mistletoe-free western larch

III - 103 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Efforts would be made to retain clumps of mistletoe infected trees which would provide the habitat structure for blue grouse. Planned thinning and applications of prescribed fire would also create openings suitable for regeneration, and patches of burned trees beneficial to the flammulated owl and a variety of woodpecker species (refer to MIS-primary cavity excavators, environmental conditions). Large stands of mature, decadent, conifer forest habitat (spotted owl suitable habitat) will be left untreated along with dense stands of pole size trees that serve as wildlife travel corridors. These retention areas would also serve as habitat for the hermit thrush, and brown creeper.

A small amount of non-commercial thinning (14 acres) is proposed within the outer portions of riparian reserves. This activity would not occur in riparian habitat. The precommercial thinning treatment would improve tree growth, restore fuel profiles and increase the size of LWD in riparian reserves. Thinning would also provide additional sunlight, stimulating riparian shrub growth. This would benefit riparian dependent species such as the ruffed grouse. Potentially 1,258 acres or riparian reserves could be treated by prescribed underburning in the Angel portion of the project area and approximately 143 acres of riparian reserves in the Glass portion of the project area. These acres are the total riparian reserves within fuels treatment however the actual acres treated is expected to be substantially less. No active prescribed fire ignition would take place within Riparian Reserves. It is highly probable that fire would back down into riparian reserves, removing riparian habitat. Fire ignited outside the Riparian Reserves may be allowed to burn only at low to moderate intensity into the Riparian Reserve. Less than 2.5 acre of commercial thinning will occur in riparian reserves; but will not remove riparian habitat. Treatment would meet NWFP S&Gs for riparian reserves. Treating portions of riparian reserves would have long term beneficial effects to the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat through the stimulation of riparian shrub growth and reduction of fuels.

Left blank for formatting

III - 104 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.34: Priority habitat for landbird conservation in the Glass Angel Restoration Project Area, with representative focal species and key habitat features33. Priority Habitat Focal Species that HabitatFeature / Potential Are impacts for Landbird potentially occur in Conservation impacts mitigated? Conservation the Project Area Focus from Project (acres in project to Feature? area) white-headed woodpecker large patches of old Y Y forest with large snags (leaving large snags and green trees) Ponderosa Pine pygmy nuthatch large trees Y Y (1,001) (leaving large snags and green trees chipping sparrow open understory with Y Y regeneration pines (project design) brown creeper large trees Y Y (leaving large diameter Mixed Conifer Forest green trees) (Late Successional) Williamson’s sapsucker large snags Y Y (2,553 ac of mixed (leaving large diameter conifer but only 32 ac snags) are late-successional) flammulated owl interspersion of grassy Y Y openings and dense (project design) thickets

hermit thrush multi-layered dense N Y canopy (Avoid)

olive-sided flycatcher edges and openings Y Y created by wildfire (project design) Y Lodgepole Pine black-backed woodpecker old growth Y (project design) Y Whitebark Pine Clark’s nutcracker old growth Y (Avoid) Y Subalpine fir Blue grouse Patchy presence Y (project design) yellow warbler subcanopy foliage Y Y Riparian Woodland (avoid) (26) yellow-breasted chat dense shrub layer Y Y (avoid)

Cumulative Effects The proposed Glass Angel Project, in conjunction with surrounding projects (Table III.1), would help re-establish a more natural forest pattern providing a mosaic of different successional stages. It would allow natural processes to function that will provide resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change. This is one of the purposes of the Glass Angel Project. Restoration of a mixed severity fire to this landscape would benefit all wildlife. The proposed silvicultural and fuels treatment will not prevent the continued viability of any migratory landbird species.

33 Information for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forest, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine and subalpine fir habitat is from “A conservation Strategy for Landbirds for the East-slope Cascades of Washington” (Altman 200). Information for riparian woodland habitat is from “A Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Washington and Oregon” (Altman and Holmes 2000).

III - 105 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action-Invasive Species Treatments on Migratory Landbirds

Direct and Indirect For herbicide use on noxious weeds, the conservation strategies recommend that herbicides be applied by hand if practical. Most herbicide applications considered would be done by hand (selective methods, backpack or hose and wand attached to a vehicle-mounted tank). Some broadcast applications would be applied along roadside patches, trails, landings, dispersed camping, parking areas, and gravel pits. These sites are not considered landbird habitat. Invasive plants that occur within plant communities away from roadways and trails would be by spot treatment of individual plants, or groups of plants. The maximum area treated by herbicides would not exceed 1,150 acres. Herbicide treatment would not target native plants. Treatment within riparian zones or within 100 feet of standing water would consist of the aquatic formulation of glyphosate, and individual plants would be wicked or sprayed. The proposed invasive plant treatments would not affect the habitat features provided by native vegetation and may serve to improve the quality of these habitat features for the focal species identified; none of the herbicides proposed for use will substantially affect any insect prey population; and none of the herbicides or surfactants proposed for use pose toxic risk to focal species of birds (USFS 2005b).

Cumulative For cumulative effects from foreseeable future invasive plant treatments refer to “Effects of the Refined Proposed Alternative-Invasive Plant Treatment on all Wildlife Species”.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action-Travel and Access Management; Trail 697 Reroute (including Adaptive Management Option) on Migratory Landbirds

Direct and Indirect Overall, the proposed temporary road construction and decommissioning; system road closure and decommissioning as well as the Trail 697 reroute in the Glass Angel Project area would result in insignificant impacts to migratory landbirds due to the small amount of habitat affected. No new system roads are proposed for this project. Approximately 5.18 miles of temporary roads will be constructed which equals approximately 7 acres of altered landbird habitat. After project has been completed, temporary roads will be decommissioned (approximately 7 acres). New temporary roads will not occur within riparian reserves; therefore no impact to riparian dependent landbirds will occur. Leaving Trail 697 in its current condition would have minimal impacts on migratory landbird habitat due to the small area degraded within the meadow (less than 1 acre). Rerouting Trail 697 out of the meadow would slightly improve habitat for migratory landbirds (by less than 1 acre). Neither trail reroute would cut trees over 10” in diameter. Overall the proposed road closures and decommissioning within the project area would slightly improve habitat (approximately 22 acres) for a variety of landbird species as road beds grow over with shrubs and brush.

Cumulative Road closure and decommissioning within Glass Angel project along with additional road decommissioning in past, present and future projects that occur within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake watersheds (Table III.1), have the potential for minor improvements in landbird habitat; as decommissioned road beds grow over with shrubs and brush, habitats for landbirds will reestablish. An estimated 20 acres of landbird habitat/project will be restored resulting from road decommissioning and closures from past, present and future projects. Habitat removal due to new temporary road construction would be short term and temporary; habitat for landbirds would become reestablished within 5 years of decommissioning.

III - 106 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Effects Summary The long-term benefits to migratory landbirds far out-weigh the short term negative impacts anticipated with implementing the Glass Angel Project. The primary long-term benefit would be the reduction of stand replacing fire risk. The short term loss of migratory landbird habitat would be insignificant at the landscape scale (approximately 5% of migratory landbird habitat within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek Watersheds would be treated by the Glass Angel Restoration project).

Therefore, viability of the all migratory landbirds in the project area would continue upon implementing the refined proposed alternative.

VISUAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment

Scenic Assessment Scenic assessments consist of inventorying scenic quality using two primary indicators: landscape character and scenic integrity. The information presented in this scenic assessment section has been obtained from the Naches Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1995) and the Rattlesnake Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1997) unless noted otherwise.

Landscape character is defined as “the overall impression created by scenery resulting from both natural processes and positive human influences” (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1997). The project area’s overall current landscape character is typical of the Northeastern Cascade (Glass portion) and Recent High Cascade (Angel portion) land character types.

Scenic integrity (condition) is defined as the present condition of level of visual wholeness or intactness of landscapes considering the amount of human caused deviation in form, line, color, and texture of that landscape. Scenic integrity serves as a baseline measurement upon which potential changes can be measured in relative terms. The scenic integrity of the project area ranges from natural appearing to altered, with most of the project area appearing slightly altered to altered in the foreground and middleground.

Visually Sensitive Areas within the Project Area Forest Road 1500 is promoted by the District as a Sightseeing Road Trip. This road connects Highway 12 and Highway 410, and provides access to trailheads, scenic viewpoints, and other dispersed opportunities within and adjacent to the project area throughout the snow free season. The area as viewed from this road is a mixture of natural appearing and modified areas as it has had multiple harvests, precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning activities.

The location of Forest Road 1500 has changed since the Forest Plan was written, when Plan allocations with corresponding VQO’s were assigned. The original 1500 road location was allocated to ST-2 (Scenic Travel - Partial Retention), with a corresponding VQO. A segment of this road washed out in the late 1990’s. At that time, Road 1504, which was assigned the General Forest allocation with a corresponding VQO of Maximum Modification, was re-designated as Road 1500 (the old 1500 road segments re-designated as 1504 and 1506). Consequently, the newly designated 1500 corridor became the route recommended for pleasure driving, and recreational use on the 1506 road and on Road 1504 past the junction with 1504185 (Rattlesnake Trailhead) decreased quite a bit.

III - 107 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The Rattlesnake Watershed analysis considered Forest Road 1500 and Rattlesnake Springs as “special places” in the watershed.

Management strategies recommended in the Rattlesnake watershed analysis to achieve the desired future condition include the following:  Provide a natural appearing forest green setting.  Blend human caused alterations to the landscape with existing character so the landscapes appear natural.  Rehabilitate altered landscapes.  Maintain large tree character where it occurs.

Visual Quality Objectives The project area contains the following Visual Quality Objectives (VQO’s) as identified in the Forest Plan:

Retention as required in the Forest Plan (approximately 59 acres) – The Retention VQO corresponds to the Dispersed Recreation, Unroaded, Motorized (RE-2) allocation. The goal of RE-2 is to provide dispersed, unroaded recreation in a semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunity setting. Four Wheel Drive Trail 620 lies within the RE-2 allocation. A visual analysis is required to blend activities with the naturally established landscape.

Partial Retention as required in the Forest Plan (approximately 3,196 acres) - The Partial Retention VQO corresponds to the Scenic Travel-Partial Retention (ST-2) allocation. The goal of ST-2 is to provide a near natural appearing foreground and middleground along scenic travel corridors. A 638 acre corridor of ST-2 lies adjacent to Forest Road 1600 and Four Wheel Drive Trail 696 in the Glass portion of the project area. Within the Angel portion of the project area, the 2,558 acre ST-2 allocation lies adjacent to Forest Roads 1504, 1506, and 1502. Currently, the majority of these areas, with the exception of portions of 1504 and 1506, meet the Partial Retention VQO. Changes in form, line, color, and texture resulting from management activities such as ski trails, landings, and prescribed burning should not be evident for more than two seasons.

Maximum Modification (approximately 8,199 acres) – This VQO corresponds to the General Forest (GF) land allocation which is the primary allocation of the project area. Approximately three miles of Forest Road 1500 and all of OHV Trail 697 lie within this VQO. Cutting units may dominate natural patterns but must repeat natural form, line, color, and texture. A higher VQO may be considered along roads, trails, and dispersed sites within this prescription.

Left blank for formatting

III - 108 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.35. Required Visual Quality Objectives for the Glass Angel Restoration Project.

Forest Road Number Approximate Current visual Required Visual Length in appearance from the Quality Project Area road/trail corridor Objective 1600 1.4 miles Meets VQO Partial Retention OHV Trail 696 0.4 miles Meets VQO Partial Retention 1500 5.0 miles Meets VQO Partial Retention/ Maximum Modification 1504 to Road 1504185 2.0 miles Does Not Meet VQO Partial Retention in some areas 1504 south of Road 0.9 miles Does Not Meet VQO Partial Retention 1504185 in some areas 1506 3.7 miles Does Not Meet VQO Partial Retention in some areas OHV Trail 620 Meets VQO Retention OHV Trail 697 1.9 miles Meets VQO Maximum Modification

Environmental Consequences

Effect of the Proposed Silviculture and Fuels Treatments on the Visual Resource (Also refer to the Recreation Section Environmental Consequences)

No Action Alternative

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments

If no management action were taken, the health of the stands within the project area would continue to decline as forest pathogens persist to add an above-endemic level of dead and dying component. Stressed and dead trees would become more visually dominant. Fuel build up from the dead trees would lead to higher risk of stand replacement wildfire. Effects to the visual resource from stand replacing wildfire would take many years to soften, and the area would appear altered for the next few decades.

Invasive Species Management

There are currently no observable effects to the visual resource to most area users from invasive species. If no action were taken, no changes to the visual resource would be anticipated.

Road Management

If no action were taken, no changes to the visual resource would be anticipated.

1605 Crossing If no action were taken, no changes to the visual resource would be anticipated.

III - 109 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

697 Trail Meadow Reroute

There would be no effects to the area’s appearance under the No Action alternative. The required VQO of Maximum Modification would still be met.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action – Visual Resources Vegetation and Fuels Treatments

Direct and Indirect Effects Table III.36. Effects of Treatments on Visual Quality Objectives. Approximate Ability to Meet Required Forest Road/Trail length of Anticipated VQO VQO within Number Road/Trail after treatment Recommended Time Corridor Affected Frame by Treatments 1600 0 miles Partial Retention Yes OHV Trail 696 0 miles Partial Retention Yes 1500 7.9 miles Partial Retention to Yes Maximum Modification 1504 to Road 1504185 2.0 miles Partial Retention to Meeting Partial Retention would Maximum Modification not occur in all treated areas within two years, but could likely

achieve in most of the areas within five years 1504 south of Road 0.9 miles Partial Retention to See above comments for Road 1504185 Maximum Modification 1504 to Road 1504185

1506 3.7 miles Partial Retention to See above comments for Road Maximum Modification 1504 to Road 1504185 OHV Trail 620 0.6 miles Retention The ability to meet Retention guidelines of natural appearing within one year will be dependent on specific fire plan details and coordination with visual specialist - could be achieved if area viewed trail does not show evidence of unnatural appearing human manipulation (chain saw marks, piling, etc) and appears to have naturally burned. OHV Trail 697 4.3 miles Maximum Modification Yes

Long-term, the scenic appearance of the project area would improve due to the improved health of surrounding trees, a reduction in dead and dying trees, and a reduction in fuels.

III - 110 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to the visual resource is the project area. Within the project area, management practices, especially timber harvest, have affected the visual resource for decades. Today the area ranges from natural appearing to altered, and although more of the area will appear altered in the short term, long term cumulative impacts to the visual resource would not be measurable as the landscape returned to more natural appearing conditions. There are no other known projects occurring within the project area during this same time period, however, there may be future projects occurring within the same area within the next decade that would extend the length of time the overall area would appear visually altered.

Invasive Species Management

Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no anticipated direct or indirect effects to the visual resources from treatment of invasive species.

Cumulative Effects There would be no anticipated measurable cumulative effects to the visual resources from treatment of invasive species.

Travel and Access Management

Refined Proposed Road Management

Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no anticipated direct or indirect effects to the visual resources from the proposed road management actions.

Cumulative Effects There would be no anticipated measurable cumulative effects to the visual resources from the proposed road management actions.

Refined Proposed Action 1605 Crossing

Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no anticipated direct or indirect effects to the visual resources from the proposed 1605 crossing action.

Cumulative Effects There would be no anticipated cumulative effects to the visual resources from the proposed 1605 crossing action.

Refined Proposed Action Trail 697 Reroute

Direct and Indirect Effects An opportunity to continue for a pleasing view of the meadow in the foreground and long distance views of Cleman’s Ridge would be retained while crossing the meadow on Trail 697, but for a shorter distance than under the No Action alternative. The trail traveler would view the effects of management activities along approximately

III - 111 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

0.4 miles of trail rerouted to the north of the meadow for several years. The required Visual Quality Objective of Maximum Modification would be met.

Adaptive Management There would be a net gain of 0.85 miles of system OHV Trail for four-wheel drivers to use under this alternative. The visual quality as seen from the trail would change– rather than viewing the meadow in the foreground and Cleman’s Ridge in the distance, users would instead view the effects of management activities under Glass Angel activities along approximately 0.4 miles of trail for several years. The view along the remaining 0.45 miles would be of closed canopy forest. The visual quality as seen from the trail would meet the required Visual Quality Objective of Maximum Modification.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative impacts from proposed trail reroute actions would be the Naches District boundaries. There are no known projects currently underway on the District that would affect visual resources on OHV Trails outside of this project and the visual effects from burning along OHV Trail 620. There are no other known proposals currently under analysis which may affect the visual quality of additional OHV travel routes on the Naches District. Foreseeable proposals include the Travel Management Planning process. This process is underway at the Forest level – potential future effects to visual quality along OHV trails from this analysis are not known at this time.

Left blank for formatting

III - 112 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

RECREATION

Affected Environment Table III.37 lists the identified recreation activities in the project area.

Table III.37: Recreation Activities Occurring within the Glass Angel Project Area. Activity Location and Timing of Activity Driving for pleasure Forest Road 1500 is promoted by the District as a Sightseeing Road Trip. Viewing scenery This road connects Highway 12 and Highway 410, and provides access to trailheads, scenic viewpoints, and other dispersed opportunities within and adjacent to the project area throughout the snow free season. The area as viewed from this road is a mixture of natural appearing and modified areas as it has had multiple harvests, precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning activities. The original location of Road 1500 was allocated to the Partial Retention – Scenic Travel Retention (ST-2) in the Forest Plan and therefore had corresponding management practices associated with scenic travel corridors, but a washout in the 1990’s resulted in a “through” road in the General Forest allocation to be redesignated as Road 1500 without the protection of a ST-2 travel route. Snowmobile Trails/Sno-Park Forest Roads 1500, 1503, and 1600 are managed as designated snowmobile trails and are groomed annually. This is funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission under an agreement with the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Hunting The entire area is heavily hunted, especially for big game (deer and elk) in the fall season using (modern firearm, muzzleloading, and archery). Four Wheel Drive (OHV) System Trails Four Wheel Drive (OHV) System Trail 697 lies along part of the southern boundary and then crosses through the middle of the Glass Creek portion of the project area. This trail is managed at a More Difficult level. The westernmost segment of Trail 697 (approximately 3 miles from Clover Springs to the first junction with the 1605 road is natural appearing, with little evidence of management activities. This trail segment travels through a closed canopy forest and is narrow enough along much of this length to necessitate slow speeds and skill in turning. The trail crosses through a large meadow and then traverses the meadow before crossing 1605. The middle trail segment (from the 1605 road junction in Section 24 to the 1605 junction in Section 17) was used as a haul route and/or a skid road during past harvest activities, and as a result, it has been widened, straightened, with much of the canopy and obstacles removed. The easternmost segment of Trail 697 from Section 17 to the 1600 junction provides a more technical experience under a combination of closed and open forest canopy. Four Wheel Drive Trail 620 lies on the western edge of the Angel portion of the project area. This trail is managed at a Most Difficult level and travels primarily through previously harvested forest. Trailheads Clover Springs Trailhead provides parking for stock users and hikers accessing the William O. Douglas Wilderness via Nile Ridge Trail #974 and Windy Ridge Trail #985, and is also a staging area for Four Wheel Drive Trail #696, which leads to Four Wheel Drive Trail #697. This primitive trailhead provides vault toilets and is an outstanding scenic viewpoint.

III - 113 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Activity Location and Timing of Activity Dispersed Camping (No facilities or Approximately 150 dispersed campsites have been recorded along Forest fees) system roads during recent field inventories. Approximately 30 of these sites lie within the Glass portion of the project area, and 120 lie within the Angel portion. Rattlesnake Springs and the Three Creeks dispersed areas are among the areas with concentrated traditional dispersed camping use. There are primitive vault toilets at Rattlesnake Springs and Clover Springs. Several other dispersed sites within the project area are used primarily during big game hunting season. The location of traditional and/or heavy use sites does not change, but the location of more lightly used dispersed sites can fluctuate.

Special Permitted Events Two permitted annual events held by two groups have been held annually for several years in the Glass Creek portion of the project area. Central Washington Endurance Riders holds an equestrian event on portions of Forest Road 1605 and Trail 697 and in areas adjacent to the project area in early to mid-July. The Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Association holds trail runs on Four Wheel Drive Trails 696 and 697 in early to mid-July. Rattlesnake Springs is sometimes also used for special permitted events.

Other recreation activities, including The project area is used for these types of activities throughout the snow small organized group activities; free season. Local residents find the area desirable due to its close horseback riding, nature exploration, proximity, and others are attracted to the area accessed by the 1500 Road geological study, plant due to the easy access off US Highway 12 and Highway 410. Some identification/gathering, bird nonsystem motorized use occurs in the area. watching, fishing, miscellaneous forest products gathering (mushrooms, plants, Christmas trees, etc.) Firewood cutting The Angel area is mostly open to personal use firewood cutting (under permit), except for a small portion of the area north of Forest Road 1500 near Rattlesnake Springs (refer to a current firewood cutting map). The Glass area is closed except for firewood gathering associated with dispersed camping.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) current area classification is as follows:  Roaded Modified – approximately 6,277acres (primarily in the project area’s northern portion (Glass Creek) due to past timber harvest). This also includes Road 1500.  Roaded Natural – approximately 3,406 acres (between Forest Road 1500 and Rattlesnake Creek near Rattlesnake Springs, along Road 1504, and along Road 1600 and including Clover Springs)  Semi Primitive Motorized – approximately 1,985 acres (the area surrounding OHV Trail 620, the southwest corner of the Angel project area, and the area north and west of Four Wheel Drive Trail 697 except for Forest Road 1600/Clover Springs area).

III - 114 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences – Recreation

No Action Alternative Vegetation and Fuels Treatments Recreation opportunities would not change under the No Action Alternative. In the long term, No Action may result in the increased risk of catastrophic fire, which could displace recreationists for several years after the event.

Invasive Species Management, There would be no anticipated change to recreation opportunities under the No Action Alternative.

Road Management There would be no anticipated change to recreation opportunities under the No Action Alternative.

1605 Crossing If no management action were taken, vehicle access to the Glass Creek area via Forest Road 1605 would become increasingly difficult as the existing ford deteriorated. Recreationists who desire motorized vehicle access into the area (primarily hunters) would be unable to access the area; recreationists who desire additional solitude or a non-motorized setting would have additional area in which to recreate. Other recreation opportunities would not change. If no action on the 1605 road is taken, it would result in an additional loss of area open to vehicles other than high clearance vehicles over the long term (within 10 years).

Trail 697 Meadow Reroute There would be no direct or indirect effects to recreationists wishing to use System Trail 697 under the No Action alternative. Those recreationists currently driving cross country or on nonsystem roads to access the northwestern perimeter of the meadow and ultimately the 1605 road would not be prevented from doing so under the No Action alternative.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative impacts to the recreation experience is the project area for all activities. There would be no cumulative effects to recreation opportunities anticipated from no action, except for no action on the 1605 road crossing. Due to lack of maintenance funding over the last several years, some Level II and III roads across the District are deteriorating to the point where some types of vehicles are being restricted due to the road condition. If no action on the 1605 road is taken, it would result in an additional loss of area open to vehicles other than high clearance vehicles over the long term (within 10 years).

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action - Recreation Vegetation Treatments (Commercial Timber Harvest & Precommercial Thinning)

Driving for Pleasure and Viewing Scenery The Glass Creek area is not heavily used for pleasure driving or viewing scenery, therefore changes to the recreation experience from an altered landscape are estimated to affect only a relatively small amount of people who use the area for these opportunities.

Groomed Snowmobile Trails Although winter logging is not required in this project, and may be unlikely due to the haul distance, it is not prohibited. If winter logging were to occur, snowmobilers in the Nile area would be affected by logging

III - 115 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences operations (including road plowing and log hauling) as all units in the project area would be hauled several miles down Forest Road 1600, which is a groomed snowmobile trail. This route would be closed to snowmobilers for the number of seasons winter logging occurred (up to 3 years). Notifying the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and Yakima County Snow Grooming Committee of planned activities would help to minimize effects to snowmobilers by giving them advance notice and a chance to change their plans.

Big Game Hunting Direct effects to big game hunters within the project area could include physical changes to areas they’ve traditionally hunted as trees are removed. Increased traffic and log hauling on Road 1605 and on adjacent area roads, and down Road 1600 would affect big game hunters on the road and at their camps through increased vehicle contacts, and noise and dust disturbance to their traditional camps. Hunters may also be indirectly affected by changes in animal use patterns if their traditional hunting area undergoes vegetative treatment or if the animals react to increased activity during the life of the project - they may have to change their hunting strategy or location for the first few years. Long-term, hunting success may improve as forage conditions would be expected to improve for big game.

Four Wheel Drive (OHV) Trails OHV enthusiasts and others using System Trail 697 would be directly affected as 1.36 miles of the 1.94 miles of system trail within the project area are closed and used for timber hauling. Direct effects would include 1) a short term effect of the lost opportunity to drive or use the trail during the time logging activities are occurring and 2) a longer term effect of loss of quality due to the trail corridor being straightened with obstacles (such as rocks) removed, and widened from use by logging trucks. Indirect effects would include a change in the experience as the previously narrow corridor is opened up from removal of canopy and adjacent smaller trees on approximately 1.25 miles of system trail located within harvest units.

Figure III.13. The narrowness of the existing Trail 697 corridor in Section 24 is important to the OHV user’s recreation experience as it provides a sense of adventure and retains the difficulty level. This opportunity would be directly affected on trail segments used as haul routes as obstacles are removed and the trail is widened for log trucks.

Photo courtesy of Yakima/Kittitas Forest Watch Association.

Dispersed Campsites Up to 20 recorded dispersed sites lie within or adjacent to proposed units and could be affected by vegetation treatments within the site and from their use as landings. Disturbed ground within dispersed sites could affect those recreationists using dispersed campsites in the short term if their preferred site is used as a landing or located within a harvest unit. Removal of vegetation within or adjacent to the site could result in a loss of screening, increased wind and dust through the sites, and a loss of privacy for several years. Up to 45 additional dispersed sites within the project area and along Road 1600 would be affected by noise during the life of the

III - 116 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences logging and hauling activities. These sites appear to be used primarily during hunting season, and noise and dust impacts would probably be noticed most during the life of the project, especially during the fall.

Special Permitted Events The two permitted events both use sections of OHV Trail 697 and Forest Road 1605 as part of their event. (These permittees hold five-year permits). Permittees would lose the use of these segments of their routes during the life of the project. Notifying the permittees in advance of activities would help minimize the impacts to their event.

Other Recreation Activities Recreationists involved in small, organized group activities, or in activities such as horseback riding, nature exploration, geological study, plant identification/gathering, bird watching, or miscellaneous forest products gathering may be displaced in the short term during the life of the project, and for a longer term if their traditional area is heavily treated.

Firewood cutting Effects to personal use firewood cutting (under permit) are expected to remain neutral. Although some currently available wood would be removed through burning or biomass removal, it is anticipated that other trees would be killed and could become available for personal use firewood cutting.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum There would be no anticipated direct or indirect effects to the ROS classifications of the area.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative impacts to the recreation experience is the project area for all activities except snowmobiling and OHV trails, which are discussed below. Cumulative impacts to recreation activities (such as impacts from displacement during harvest or contact with log truck traffic) should be of a short duration and not measurable.

Impacts to Snowmobile Trails and Snowmobilers The analysis area for cumulative impacts to snowmobiling from silvicultural activities is the combined area of the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Watersheds. Winter logging is allowed in the vicinity of Roads 1701 and 1702 (Rock Creek/Bald Mountain area) under the Canteen Environmental Assessment Decision Notice. During the 2011-12 winter season, both logging truck traffic and snowmobilers accessing the Sno-Park may be using these roads. Winter logging and hauling is also expected to occur during the next several years in the Gold Creek and Spring Creek area (Forest Roads 1703, 1705, 1707, and 1708) under the Gold Spring Timber Sale. Winter timber removal and hauling (although unlikely) would not be prohibited in the Glass Angel analysis. If winter logging did occur, it would occur along Forest Roads 1600 and 1605, which are also groomed snowmobile trails. Cumulatively, if two or all three projects involve plowing and winter hauling on snowmobile trails, most of the groomed snowmobile trails in the Naches River area of Chinook Pass could be affected by hauling activities at the same time (approximately 10 miles closed with potential for access to Whistlin Jack and access to the Nile Sno-Park to be blocked at the same time). This could potentially impact snowmobilers and local businesses relying on income from snowmobilers during the next 2 to 5 years.

Impacts to OHV Trails and Users In the short term, one other OHV system trail is closed to public use and is resulting in a loss of opportunities on the District. This trail is the 2.3 mile long OHV, Copper City in the Bumping Drainage, has been closed for several years, but it scheduled to reopen in 2012.

III - 117 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Fuel Treatments

Driving for Pleasure and Viewing Scenery/Developed Sites Those driving for pleasure along Forest Road 1500 would have the potential to be affected by prescribed fire activities during burning if the road is closed to public traffic temporarily and/or also from residual smoke from adjacent units. These effects could be very short in nature, just for the length of time drivers are near the project area (20 to 30 minutes) or up to several days, depending on various factors, including the size of area burned and wind direction.

Long-term effects would be an improved scenic appearance of the project area as existing fuel piles and slash left from previous management activities are reduced.

Snowmobile Trails/Sno-Parks There should be no direct effects to snowmobilers as burning would occur outside the winter season.

Hunting If burning activities are conducted in the fall, some hunters could be displaced from their traditional camps or from their hunting area for several days, and possibly the entire season from smoke from fall burning operations. After the burn, hunters may be affected by a short term change in traditional animal area use patterns as they may need extra time to scout the area. In the long-term forage would be expected to improve for big game attracting them to those burned areas which could positively affect the hunting experience.

Four Wheel Drive Trails 620 and 697 Prescribed burning would occur adjacent to approximately 0.6 miles of Four Wheel Drive Trail 620 and adjacent to approximately 1.3 miles of Four Wheel Drive Trail 697. OHV enthusiasts and others using these trails would be indirectly affected for several years by the change in scenery adjacent to the corridors from these activities. The opportunity to keep the corridors narrow, and the trails adventuresome and moderately challenging would be lost in these segments as woody obstacles (trees and slash) are removed. Recreationists would also be indirectly affected by smoke during the burning activities.

Dispersed Camping Removal of understory vegetation adjacent to dispersed sites through underburning could result in a loss of screening, increasing wind and dust at some sites, and a loss of privacy, affecting campers for several years. Up to 163 recorded sites lie within the project area and could be directly affected by underburning. Users could be displaced for the short term (a few weeks) as areas were closed for burning or from smoke, especially during the fall hunting season, if burning occurred during their planned stay. The area of most concern would be the Rattlesnake Springs and Three Creeks areas as they are the most heavily used dispersed areas in the project area. Notifying the public of burning plans as discussed under design criteria and/or mitigation measures listed in Chapter II would help minimize effects to campers.

Other Recreation Activities Recreationists involved in small, organized group activities, or in activities such as nature exploration, geological study, climbing, plant identification and gathering, bird watching, or miscellaneous forest products gathering may be affected in the short-term if their traditional area is treated because they would need to change their preferred location or not recreate at all. In general, long-term effects to recreationists would be improved scenic appearance of the project area from the reduction in fuels.

III - 118 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum There would be no anticipated direct or indirect effects to the ROS classifications of the area.

Cumulative Impacts The analysis area for cumulative impacts to the recreation experience is the project area for all activities. Cumulative impacts to recreation activities, such as impacts from displacement during burning, should be of a short duration and not measurable.

Invasive Species Management

Direct and Indirect Effects Herbicide applications proposed to manage invasive plant populations would have the potential to directly affect a few recreationists by displacing them for a very short period of time (less than one day) during the snow free season. Effects to recreationists, if any, would be minimal as application would occur over small areas, during a time period in which human activity within the area is rather light, and displacement, if any, would only be less than a few hours.

There would be no direct effects to the ROS classifications.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for invasive management would be the project area. Other herbicide applications within the project area are not anticipated during the same time period. No lasting noticeable effects to the recreationist, cumulative effects are not considered measurable.

Travel and Access Management

Refined Proposed Action Road Management

Direct and Indirect Effects Closing up to 4.42 mile of system road would affect recreationists who enjoy hunting and exploration through driving, but provide additional area to those who prefer to access these areas by foot. The roads proposed for closure would also result in the loss of approximately 10 dispersed campsites, all of which are most likely associated with big game hunting. Access to seven dispersed sites would be lost with the reduction of Forest Road 1500134 to a maintenance level 1 (closure), and one site would be lost on each of these three roads: 1605225, 1605228, and 1605244. Recreationists who may currently use these sites would be displaced – probably to other sites within the project area.

Decommissioning up to 4.61 miles of system road would affect recreationists who enjoy hunting and exploration through driving, but would provide additional area to those who prefer to access these areas by foot. Decommissioning these roads would also result in the loss of access to approximately 13 dispersed sites, all of which are most likely associated with big game hunting. Access to four sites would be lost with the decommissioning of 1506646, three sites on each of roads 1503665 and 1506184, two sites on 1502119, and one site on 1500139. Recreationists who currently be using these sites would be displaced – probably to one of the other available sites within the project area.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for road management would be the Naches District. Gold Spring Environmental Assessment Decision Notice decommissioned roads and the Forest Travel Management Plan is expected to be finalized

III - 119 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences within the next two years. If additional roads will be scheduled to be decommissioned across the District upon this decision, those recreationists who prefer a nonmotorized experience would benefit for the long term from decommissioning and closures. Those recreationists who prefer to access areas using a street legal vehicle would lose opportunities from these actions.

Refined Proposed Action 1605 Crossing

Direct and Indirect Effects Improving the Forest Road 1605 crossing would benefit all recreationists who prefer to continue to access the project area using motorized vehicles by retaining this type of access to the area. .

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for the 1605 Road crossing would be the Naches District. Roads 1800 and 1808, currently closed to public motorized use, are expected to reopen in the next year re-establishing several miles of previously motorized access. Motorized users would be expected to benefit from the repair of these road systems.

Refined Proposed Action Trail 697 Reroute

Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no net mileage loss or gain for OHV Trail 697 under this alternative. A foreground view of the meadow and long distance views of Cleman’s Ridge would be retained for a short distance, and a new view of a recently harvested and burned forest would also be experienced on the trail reroute. Those recreationists currently driving the nonsystem route to access the northwestern perimeter of the meadow and campsites, and ultimately the 1605 road, would be displaced or could access the area by walking.

Adaptive Management Option There would be a net gain of 0.85 miles of system OHV Trail for four wheel drivers to use under this alternative. The view from the trail would change – rather than viewing the meadow in the foreground and Cleman’s Ridge in the distance, the user would view a recently harvested and burned forest. Those recreationists who are currently driving the nonsystem route to access the northwestern perimeter of the meadow and ultimately the 1605 road would be displaced or could access the area by walking.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative impacts of proposed system OHV Trail management actions would be the project area. There are no other system OHV routes within the project area that would be impacted, so cumulative effects would not be measureable.

III - 120 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

SOIL AND WATERSHED RESOURCES

Affected Environment Analysis methods used include review of the Forest Plan and Watershed Analysis documents mentioned in Chapter I and review and verification of existing field inventories (field notes in analysis file).

Physical Setting

The Glass Angel Planning Area is located primarily on the slopes to the south of Nile Creek and north of Glass Creek for the Glass portion. The Angel portion is located in the Angel Lake, Devils Canyon and Three Creeks area of the Rattlesnake Creek drainage. The Glass area is within the Naches fifth field and Nile sixth field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds. The Angel area is within the Rattlesnake fifth-field and Lower Rattlesnake sixth field HUC watersheds. Elevation ranges from approximately 3200 at lower Devil Canyon to slightly over 5600 feet above sea level in the upper Glass Creek and Three Creeks areas. Average annual precipitation ranges from approximately 35 to 45 inches divided between winter snows and late fall/early spring rain events. The area is characterized by moderate to steep slopes with relatively deep and productive coarse textured soils. Approximately 6 percent of the Glass area and 14 percent of the Angel area is classified as non-forested. The area below approximately 3500 feet elevation is included in the rain-on-snow hydrologic regime and totals approximately 25 percent of the planning area.

Soil Series Descriptions for Soils in the Glass Angel Project Area

Soils in the Glass Angel Project Area are derived almost entirely from basalts and andesites with volcanic ash in the upper surface layers. The varying soil depth, surface texture, and rock content result in varying degrees of susceptibility to compaction, physical disturbance, surface erosion, and suitability for restoration treatments. Soil characteristics for the project area and acreage by soil mapping unit are summarized below (USDA Forest Service, 1996) and in Table III.38.

The Bearrun series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in colluvium from basalt and bentonite with a mantle of volcanic ash on hummocky toe slopes and foot slopes. These soils have a moderate surface erosion hazard, severe compaction hazard, and high available water holding capacity. The Bearrun series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and less than 5 percent cobbles in the top 24 inches.

The Bocker series consists of very shallow, well drained soils formed in basalt residium mixed with loess and a small amount of volcanic ash on plateaus, ridges and mountain slopes. These soils have a slight erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard and very low available water holding capacity.

The Bograp series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in colluvium from basalt or andesite with a mantle of volcanic ash on ridges and mountain slopes. These soils have a moderate surface erosion hazard, severe compaction hazard, and high available water holding capacity. The Bograp series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and less than 5 percent cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Fifesridge series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium from basalt or andesite with a mantle of volcanic ash on ridges and mountain slopes. These soils have a severe erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard, and high available water holding capacity. The Fifesridge series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 10 percent or less pebbles in the surface 24 inches.

III - 121 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The Fiscus series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in volcanic ash over colluvium from basalt or andesite on mountain slopes. These soils have a severe erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard, and low available water holding capacity. The Fiscus series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 5 to 10 percent or less cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Icksix series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in volcanic ash and colluvium from basalt and andesite mixed with volcanic ash on mountain slopes. These soils have a moderate erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard, and low available water holding capacity. The Icksix series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 5 to 15 percent or less cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Loneridge series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium from basalt or andesite with a mantle of volcanic ash on mountain slopes and ridges. These soils have moderate surface erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard, and moderate available water holding capacity. The Loneridge series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 10 to 25 percent cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The McDanielake series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium from basalt or andesite with a mantle of volcanic ash on mountain slopes and ridges. These soils have slight to moderate surface erosion hazard, severe compaction hazard, and low available water holding capacity. The McDanielake series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 10 to 30 percent cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Mippon series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in recent alluvium on flood plains. These soils have slight surface erosion hazard, slight compaction hazard, and low available water holding capacity. The Mippon series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 20 to 30 percent or cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Nile series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils over colluviums from conglomerate tuffaceous sandstone of the Ellensburg Formation on mountain slopes. These soils have severe surface erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard and low available water holding capacity. The Nile series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 10 to 25 percent pebbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Pachic Argixerolls consist of very deep, well drained soils in upland meadows on mountain slopes. These soils formed in colluviums from basalt or andesite mixed with minor amounts of loess and volcanic ash. These soils have severe surface erosion hazard, severe compaction hazard and high available water holding capacity. The Pachic Argixerolls have a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 10 to 25 percent pebbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Singh series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in volcanic ash over colluvium from basalt or andesite on mountain slopes. These soils have a moderate erosion hazard, severe compaction hazard, and moderate available water holding capacity. The Singh series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 5 percent or less cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Snowplow series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in volcanic ash mixed with basalt or andesite colluvium on mountain slopes and ridges. These soils have a moderate erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard, and moderate available water holding capacity. The Snowplow series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 5 percent or less cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Stemilt series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in colluvium from basalt or andesite with a mantle of volcanic ash on plateaus, ridge tops, shoulders, back slopes, foot slopes, and toe slopes. These soils

III - 122 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences have a moderate surface erosion hazard, moderate compaction hazard, and low available water holding capacity. The Stemilt series has a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 5 to 15 percent or less cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

The Xeralfs consist of deep or very deep, well or moderately well drained soils formed in a mixture of colluvium from basalt, andesite, and bentonite, with a mantle of volcanic ash on hummocks of mountain slopes. These soils have a moderate erosion hazard, severe compaction hazard, and moderate available water holding capacity. The Xeralfs have a soil depth of 60 inches or greater and 5 percent or fewer cobbles in the surface 24 inches.

Table III.38. Summary of Soil Characteristics for Soil Mapping Units. Soil Map Soil Map Unit Total Acres in Erosion Compaction Available Unit# Name Project34 Hazard Hazard Water Content 10 Bearrun sandy loam, 283 Moderate Severe High 15-30 % slopes 19 Bograp ashy fine 868 Moderate Severe High sandy loam, 10-35%

slopes 26 Darland-Naxing 268 Severe Moderate Moderate Complex, 15-55% slopes 27 Fifesridge-Pileup- 316 Slight Moderate Moderate Fiscus Complex, 10- 30% slopes 30 Fiscus-Pileup- 1,108 Severe Moderate Moderate Fifesridge Complex, 30-55% slopes 52 Littlebald medial 296 Moderate Moderate Moderate sandy loam, 0-15% slopes 53 Littlebald-Millerpoint 835 Severe Moderate Moderate Complex, 5-25% slopes 57 McDanielake ashy 254 Slight Severe Low sandy loam, 15-30%

south slopes 58 McDanielake sandy 138 Moderate Severe Low loam, 30-55% slopes 62 McDanielake- 751 Moderate Severe Low Bearrun-Bograp

Complex, 30-55% slopes 63 McDanielake-Bograp 160 Moderate Severe Low

34 Soil Mapping Units with acreages which comprised less than one percent of the planning area were omitted from this table.

III - 123 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Soil Map Soil Map Unit Total Acres in Erosion Compaction Available Unit# Name Project34 Hazard Hazard Water Content Complex, 30-55% slopes 69 McDanielake-Singh 200 Moderate Severe Low Complex, 30-55%

slopes 90 Rock outcrop- 1,121 Slight Slight Low rubbleland association 102 Singh ashy sandy 766 Moderate Severe Moderate loam, 30-55% slopes 103 Singh-Bograp 1,095 Moderate Severe Moderate Complex, 20-35% slopes 106 Snilec-Seeburg 317 Moderate Moderate Low Complex 107 Snowplow ashy fine 127 Moderate Moderate Moderate sandy loam, 10-30% slopes 108 Stemilt ashy sandy 338 Moderate Moderate Low loam, 25-45% slopes

138 Xeralfs fine sandy 1,145 Moderate Severe Moderate loam, 5-45% slopes

Soil Disturbance Hazard Soil types with the greatest concern for potential detrimental effects from harvest and fuels reduction activities include severe erosion hazard ratings on steep slopes and severe compaction hazard ratings on tractor yarded slopes. Soils with severe erosion hazard ratings on steep slopes include mapping units 19, 57, 62, 102, 103, and 138 which total 5625 acres or 50 percent of the planning area. Soils with severe compaction hazard ratings on slopes accessible with ground based equipment include mapping units 10, 19, 57, 62, 86, 102, 103, and 138 which total 5750 acres or 50 percent of the planning area.

Soils were also evaluated for potential sediment delivery risk. Inherent soil erodibility based on surface texture ratings were evaluated along with slope gradients to produce a sediment risk rating of low, moderate, or high for the planning area. More erodible textured soils on steeper slopes were rated higher than less erodible textures on gentle slopes. For the entire Glass Angel planning area approximately 4,020 acres or 35 percent were rated low, 4,400 acres or 39 percent were rated moderate, and 2,980 acres or 26 percent were rated high sediment delivery potential.

III - 124 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Past Watershed Disturbance

Harvest Past regeneration harvest entries have occurred on approximately 100 acres or 3 percent of the forested lands within the planning area and a large percentage of the planning area has had some kind of harvest activity in the past. Soil compaction from repeated timber harvest operations and tractor piling for fuels treatment on some of these areas has resulted in levels of soil compaction that exceed WFP Standards and Guidelines. This soil compaction concern is highest in the old regeneration harvest areas where skid trail patterns are more concentrated than would be allowed under current standard operating procedures, particularly on the Bograp and Xeralfs soil series (soil mapping units 19 and 138). Approximately 50 acres of old regeneration harvest units are on these soil types. Soil types with greater amounts of rock content in the upper layers (such as the Fiscus and Littlebald series) in general have lower compaction levels while the deeper soils with higher clay content (such as the Bograp series and Xeralfs) are more compactable.

Existing conditions were evaluated for the project area using the Forest Service protocol for soil disturbance based on visual site disturbance classes from past activities. These results are summarized below in Table III.42. The average disturbance level under current conditions in the proposed project area is approximately 8 to 10 percent.

Cumulative watershed effects are influenced by past impacts, proposed future impacts and susceptibility to high intensity rain-on-snow storm events. The last sales in the Glass area occurred more than 20 years ago and recovery of compacted areas by natural processes has begun to occur as deep-rooted vegetation is reestablished. In the Angel area recent timber harvest has occurred in the past 5 years. Skid trails, landings, and temporary roads utilized during the most recent harvest entry were treated by ripping or scarification following yarding. A large percentage of the project area has had some level of timber harvest in the past but the most recent regeneration harvest occurred over 20 years ago. Existing clearcut harvest units have recovered to the level that crown closures exceed 70 percent and are considered to be fully recovered hydrologically in terms of water yield and evapotranspiration rates (Troendle, 1980). The project area as a whole has 57 percent of the acreage in crown closures greater than 40 percent and the overall area weighted canopy closure is 46 percent.

The Glass Angel Planning Area is located within the Naches Mainstem Watershed and the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed. The analysis areas for cumulative effects were separated into the two sub-watersheds: Nile Creek and Lower Rattlesnake. Sub-watershed acreages and percentage of area within the Glass Angel Planning Area can be found in the analysis file.

Approximately 25 percent of the project area is in the rain-on-snow zone which is predominately less than 3500 feet in elevation. The most recent major regional flood events occurred in the winter of 1995-96. Major road damage occurred in the planning area during those winter storms including the main Rattlesnake access Road 1500 and the 1605 Nile Creek crossing. This area regularly receives high intensity rain events but because of its distance from the Cascade Crest total rainfall amounts are considerably less than at similar elevations further to the west.

Slope Stability Past slope failures have been minimal in the Glass Creek area and in general the terrain is considered fairly stable. Geologic mapping has identified historic landslide landforms throughout the Angel area but none of these is currently active except for some minor road slumping in the Three Creeks drainage (Campbell, 1991).

III - 125 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Road Condition Roads including system roads, temporary roads, skid trails, ORV trails, and unauthorized roads can all have a substantial impact on water quality, slope stability, routing of sediment into stream channels, and timing of peak runoff. Road density is an overall indicator of watershed health. While road location and condition is an important factor, road densities greater than 2.5 miles per square mile have been associated with degraded watershed conditions (Lee, et al., 1997). The overall road density for the Glass Angel Planning Area is approximately 4.65 miles per square mile. Road densities by sub-watershed are summarized in the analysis file and range from a high of 5.3 miles per square mile in Upper Glass Creek to a low of 3.0 miles per square mile for Upper Three Creeks. Another index of the effects of roads on watershed condition is the increase in channel network due to stream and road intersections (Wemple, 1994). This is an indicator of the potential for sediment input to surface waters and the potential for increased rates of streamflow due to more rapid delivery of precipitation into the stream system. Percent increases greater than 20 percent are considered a high risk for detrimental watershed effects. Channel network increases were evaluated in the Naches Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1995) and are summarized for the sub- watersheds in the Glass Angel Planning Area in the analysis file. None of the sub-watersheds in the planning area exceed 20 percent with the maximum being 18.6 percent in the Willow Springs drainage of Rattlesnake Creek.

Water Temperature Water temperature affects the physiology and behavior of fish and other aquatic life. Temperature may be the most influential factor limiting the distribution and health of aquatic life. Water temperature can be greatly influenced by human activities.

Temperature levels fluctuate over the day and night in response to changes in climatic conditions and river flows. Since the health of aquatic species is tied predominantly to the pattern of maximum temperatures, these criteria are expressed as the highest 7-day average of the daily maximum temperatures (7-DADMax) occurring in a waterbody.

In the Washington State water quality standards, aquatic life use categories are described using key species (salmon versus warm-water species) and life-stage conditions (spawning versus rearing) [WAC 173-201A-200; 2006 edition].

The beneficial uses designated within the Naches River basin include Char Spawning and Rearing, Core Summer Salmonid Habitat, and Salmonid Spawning, Rearing and Migration. The applicable temperature criteria for the designated uses are contained in 173-201A-200(c) as:

(1) To protect the designated aquatic life uses of “Char Spawning and Rearing,” the highest 7-DADMax temperature must not exceed 12°C (53.6°F) more than once every ten years on average.

(2) To protect the designated aquatic life uses of “Core Summer Salmonid Habitat,” the highest 7-DADMax temperature must not exceed 16°C (60.8°F) more than once every ten years on average.

(3) To protect the designated aquatic life uses of “Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration,” the highest 7- DADMax temperature must not exceed 17.5°C (63.5°F) more than once every ten years on average.

The state uses the criteria described above to ensure that where a waterbody is naturally capable of providing full support for its designated aquatic life uses, that condition will be maintained. The standards recognize, however, that not all waters are naturally capable of staying below the fully protective temperature criteria.

III - 126 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

When a waterbody is naturally warmer than the above-described criteria, the state provides an allowance for additional warming due to human activities. In this case, the combined effects of all human activities must also not cause more than a 0.3°C (0.54°F) increase above the naturally higher (inferior) temperature condition.

Special consideration is also required to protect spawning and incubation of salmonid species. Where Ecology determines the temperature criteria established for a waterbody would likely not result in protective spawning and incubation temperatures, the following criteria apply: (1) Maximum 7-DADMax temperatures of 9°C (48.2°F) at the initiation of spawning and at fry emergence for char; and (2) Maximum 7-DADMax temperatures of 13°C (55.4°F) at the initiation of spawning for salmon and at fry emergence for salmon and trout.

Water temperatures have been monitored in the past for some of the perennial streams within the Glass Angel Planning Area. Segments of Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and the Naches River all downstream of the planning area have exceeded the state temperature standard for core summer salmonid habitat of 61 degrees daily maximum for several periods during the summer sampling period. These streams have been designated as water quality limited (category 5) for temperature on the current Washington State 303(d) list. Stream temperatures are summarized in the analysis file. Past timber harvest along Three Creeks may have contributed to elevated stream temperatures but riparian shading has been restored in most areas.

Water Uses and Groundwater There are several water diversions for domestic and irrigation use at private residences downstream of the planning area. These diversions are primarily spring developments or small stream diversions with surface or shallowly buried piping downslope to individual or group uses. Water diversion locations are summarized in the analysis file. Groundwater is utilized from wells located at some individual private homes downstream of the planning area within the Nile Valley.

Environmental Consequences - Soil and Watershed Resources

Introduction Proposed actions related to commercial timber harvesting, temporary road construction and fuel treatments have the potential to adversely affect soils, water quality, and associated overall watershed condition. Adverse effects of most concern for this area include those related to loss of soil productivity due to activity created soil compaction and soil erosion and their associated adverse effects on water quality and downstream aquatic habitat. Generally, the risk of negative impacts to soils, water quality, and watershed condition would increase proportionally to the acres of timber harvest, acres of fuel treatment, miles of temporary road construction, acres of timber harvest or underburning on soils rated severe for surface soil erosion, and acres of ground based timber harvest on soils rated severe for soil compaction hazard. Other effects addressed include those related to changes in hydrologic timing of water flows due to changes in canopy closure and increased interception by roads and resulting potential effects on groundwater. Removal of too much tree canopy in critical places under this project could increase early spring water flows and and/or increase summer stream temperatures. Additional general consequence information regarding soil, water, riparian resources, adverse effects of invasive weeds, and water pollution from non point sources are presented in this discussion. Other effects related to contamination from petroleum products used in logging operations are also discussed.

No Action Alternative Vegetation and Fuels Treatments Taking no management action would result in no increased project related short-term risk to site productivity, surface erosion, and water quality due to no additional area being disturbed by harvest or fuels operations and road construction. In the long-term, there would be no potential benefits from restoration of compacted areas

III - 127 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences or reduced risk of catastrophic fire due to fuel reduction treatments. Risk of detrimental effects from catastrophic wildfire would not be reduced. Potential effects would be loss of soil nutrients from vaporization during high intensity wildfire and increased rates of soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Existing soil compaction from previous harvest activities would recover more slowly as natural vegetation and physical processes restore soil function.

Invasive Species Management Noxious weeds would continue their uncontrolled expansion with this alternative resulting in displacement of deep-rooted native vegetation which is better suited for soil stabilization and restoration of compacted areas.

Road Management Continued use of unclassified (unauthorized) roads would be expected to increase with possible detrimental effects to soil and water quality. Forest Service System road density in the Glass Angel Project area would remain at 4.65 miles per square mile with this alternative. The opportunity for restoration of 4.71 miles of road by obliteration and 4.42 miles being placed in Maintenance Level 1 with resulting long-term benefits of reduced erosion and sedimentation rates would not be realized.

1605 Crossing With this alternative, increased rates of fine sediment input to Nile Creek would continue. Road drainage surface runoff would flow into Nile Creek from both sides of the crossing because current diversion structures are not performing adequately. Soil material would continue to slide off road cut surfaces and potentially be transported into Nile Creek. Vehicle traffic through flowing water at the existing ford crossing would continue to erode the channel banks and increase the rate of sediment input to surface waters. The potential for petroleum products from vehicles entering the surface waters would continue.

Trail 697 Meadow Reroute Continued use of system ORV trails in the existing meadows and riparian area locations would maintain the ongoing increased sedimentation rates at the stream crossings and detrimental soil and water resource effects from OHV use. The current trail location in meadow areas would continue to degrade and widen as use is uncontrolled during wet periods of the year. Meadow vegetation would continue in a downward trend as additional areas become compacted due to trail widening. Surface water will continue to be intercepted by rutted trail conditions resulting in faster runoff and reduction in vigor of vegetation. The opportunity to relocate Trail 697 off the severe erosion hazard rated soils in the meadow locations and onto soils with a low erosion hazard rating would not be realized. The existing system trail location would maintain accessibility to user built sections of trail within the western half of the meadow. The ford crossing on Glass Creek would continue to result in increased levels of fine sediments entering surface waters.

Effects of the Refined Proposed Action - Soil and Watershed Resources Vegetation and Fuels Treatments

Direct and Indirect Effects The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and the WFP soil standards and guidelines set forth objectives relative to the maintenance and restoration of sediment regimes, in-stream flows, and site productivity. Impacts of timber harvest and associated activities have the potential to alter hydrologic timing and flow, the amount of sediment/substrate moved through the system and where it is deposited, and upland site productivity.

Soil compaction, from the proposed forest management activities, can lead to decreases in vegetation and, subsequently, an increase in overland flow, inputs of fine sediment to streams, loss of water storage capability,

III - 128 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences and an overall lowering of site productivity. Soil compaction, from concentrated use, can lead to changes in vegetative species composition and increases in undesirable weed populations. Soils are more susceptible to compaction and rutting when in moist conditions. Concentrated use during wet periods in the early spring and late fall result in a greater risk of soil disturbance during these times of the year. Winter operating seasons with yarding over snow can reduce the risk of activities occurring during wet periods.

Effects on soils include soil compaction from logging equipment on skid trails, at landings, and on temporary roads, which leads to increased water runoff and lowered growth potential for vegetation. Displacement of ground cover can lead to increased rates of surface soil erosion when storm water flows over bare soils. Reducing tree crown canopy closure can affect soil stability by allowing greater amounts of precipitation to reach the soil surface and resulting in earlier and faster rates of snow melt. Increased rates of runoff and displacement of ground cover can also lead to increased probability of mass wasting in sensitive areas. Site productivity and nutrient cycling can be impacted by the removal of organic material from the site with resulting loss of nutrients. Displacement of coarse woody debris during timber skidding and temporary road construction could also interrupt natural processes related to water retention and nutrient cycling for soil mycorrhizae and microbial processes. Design criteria and mitigation measures (Chapter II) are expected to maintain site productivity and protect soil and watershed resources by reducing the area and degree of disturbance due to proposed activities.

Loss of ground cover or vegetation due to disturbance during harvest or fuels activities can lead to increased risk of soil erosion. Churning and displacement of soils by motorized equipment especially on steeper slopes increases the potential for erosion. Exposed surface soils are more easily transported during storm events and can potentially enter surface waters. Forest Plan standards for ground cover retention are expected to be implemented which will effectively reduce the risk of surface erosion after harvest and fuels activities.

Although mitigation measures are expected to be implemented and effective, interception of surface flows and channelization of water due to inappropriately located and constructed skid trails and road systems can lead to increased rates of runoff and erosion and adverse effects on fish and riparian habitat.

Ground disturbing activities which compact, displace, or remove the protective duff layer from soils are most likely to affect soil stability and water quality. Detrimental soil condition is defined using WFP standards and includes compaction, displacement, puddling and severely burned soil conditions. Different yarding types used by timber harvest operations can cause varying amounts of detrimental soil conditions. Tractor yarding has the greatest potential for disturbing and compacting soil (up to 20 percent or more of the activity area); less disturbance and compaction is expected from skyline or cable yarding (10-15 percent), and almost none (0-5 percent) from ground based winter (over snow) yarding (Megahan, 1981). Approximately 94 acres proposed for commercial ground-based thinning are located on soils with a severe compaction hazard rating. Requiring designated skid trails, utilizing existing trails when feasible, and skyline yarding on slopes greater than 35 percent during implementation of this project is expected to reduce the risk of any additional compaction resulting from yarding operations. Although over the snow yarding is not required for this project, compaction can be further reduced with this technique when snow conditions are appropriate.

Fuel treatments that include prescribed burning can alter soil stability depending on burn intensity. If the soil surface duff is removed, increased erosion rates and soil loss can be expected until vegetation is reestablished. High burn intensities can consume organic material in surface soil layers and result in the loss of soil nutrients and microbes. High burn intensities can also cause soils to develop a hydrophobic surface layer that restricts water infiltration. Burn prescriptions are designed to maintain a portion of the duff layer and have low enough fire temperatures to minimize volatilization of nutrients and creation of hydrophobic layers. Restricting fire

III - 129 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences from the Riparian Reserves would reduce the risk of off site soil loss. Pile burning in general is lower risk for soil disturbance than broadcast burning. Burn temperatures at the pile sites will be higher than typical for broadcast burn conditions and can result in detrimental soil conditions for a limited area under the pile. Past monitoring has shown that Forest Plan standards for ground cover retention are expected to be met which will reduce the risk of surface erosion after burning (USDA Forest Service, 2000).

Pre-commercial thinning operations have the potential for additional soil disturbance when mechanized equipment is used. Within the 171 additional acres proposed for pre-commercial thinning in the proposed action, none of these acres are located on soils with a severe compaction hazard rating. Mitigation measures and design criteria similar to requirements for tractor yarding such as only using existing previously disturbed skid trails, would be used to reduce the risk of additional soil disturbance from pre-commercial thinning biomass utilization equipment.

Fuel treatments or pre-commercial thinning operations which include mechanized equipment for grapple piling or other methods of biomass utilization can potentially increase soil compaction similarly to tractor yarded timber harvest described above. Mechanized equipment will be required to utilize the same mitigation measures as tractor yarding, including only traveling on existing designated skid trails and restrictions on soil moisture conditions for times of operation. Soil restoration actions for vegetation treatments would occur after fuels treatments were completed so no increase in disturbance would result. Because commercial harvest operations will be required to yard logs with tops attached, all material that could potentially be utilized for biomass will located at the landings in piles.

Table III.39 below displays soil disturbance with current condition and estimated effects of the commercial timber sale and biomass portion of project implementation. Restoration of skid trails would occur on any trails utilized by logging. Winter logged units would normally not require ripping or sub-soiling of skid trails because ground disturbance is expected to be minimal. All temporary roads and landings would be treated regardless of season of use. Forest Plan standards for soil disturbance (less than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions) are expected to be met on all treatment units with expected implementation of mitigation measures and restoration actions.

Table III.39: Soil Disturbance Summary for Commercial Harvest and Biomass. Unit # Unit Existing Existing Estimated Estimated Estimated Acres Current Current Additional Restoration Final Detrimental Detrimental Detrimental Acres Detrimental Soil % Soil Acres Soil Acres Soil % 1 9 0 0 0.9 0 10.00 2 10 0 0 1.0 0 10.00 3 2 12.50 0.25 0.3 0.55 13.75 4 60 0 0 6.68 0.68 10.57 5 123 7.00 8.61 19.65 21.15 14.38 6 7 0 0 0.88 0.18 11.28 7 59 5.52 3.26 10.94 11.24 14.53 8 14 8.57 1.20 2.10 2.60 14.29 9 19 0 0 2.20 0.30 10.79

III - 130 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Unit # Unit Existing Existing Estimated Estimated Estimated Acres Current Current Additional Restoration Final Detrimental Detrimental Detrimental Acres Detrimental Soil % Soil Acres Soil Acres Soil % 10 19 0 0 2.76 0.86 12.26 11 44 6.70 2.95 8.02 8.77 14.97 12 31 8.59 2.66 5.64 6.75 15.89 13 97 6.77 6.57 17.04 18.76 14.67 14 6 0 0 0.90 0.30 12.53 15 3 0 0 0.38 0.08 11.38 16 7 8.57 0.60 1.05 1.30 14.29 17 6 0 0 0.99 0.39 13.28

Temporary road construction and reconstruction associated with logging activities can affect soil stability and water quality by increasing the area of soil disturbance, increasing rates of runoff and routing of sediment into stream channels, and increasing peak stream flows. Road cut and fills on steep slopes can result in increased risk of mass failures especially in the headwater catch basin areas. Rehabilitation of temporary roads and landings would benefit soil stability by restoring natural drainage patterns and re-vegetating disturbed areas. Road density is an overall indicator of watershed health and levels were evaluated for the proposed action. Changes in channel network due to stream and road intersections (Wemple, 1994) were also evaluated because this is an indicator of the potential for sediment input to surface waters and the potential for increased rates of streamflow due to more rapid delivery of precipitation into the stream system. The proposed action would not increase the channel network percentage because no new crossings would be built.

Approximately 3.24 miles of new temporary roads would be constructed and a total of approximately 1.94 miles of existing temporary roads would be re-constructed or reopened under the action alternative. The road mileage is an estimate based on preliminary unit design and road location at this time. Specific temporary road needs will be finalized during project unit layout and implementation. The constructed or re-opened temporary roads, and a majority of the unclassified (unauthorized) roads used in timber harvest operations would be closed at the end of project activities as described in Chapter II which could be as long as 1 to 3 years after initially reopened or constructed. The temporary road construction would increase the road density temporarily in the project area from 4.65 up to 4.79 miles per square mile for the Proposed Action. This increase in road density would be reduced in 1 to 3 years once post sale restoration activities were completed by hydrological stabilizing and effectively closing temporary roads. Road closures by themselves would not reduce the overall road densities from a hydrologic perspective but would result in reduced risk of damage to drainage systems during wet season use. Re-vegetation of temporary roads is required by NFMA to be accomplished within 10 years.

In general, locations of new and reconstructed temporary roads are on gentle terrain where cut and fill depths would be minimal and the risk of adverse effects to soil and watershed resources are reduced although closure methods are typically less effective on gentle terrain. In areas where steeper slopes result in cut banks exceeding 4 feet in height, more intensive restoration such as re-shaping would be required mitigation. These areas will be identified during implementation of harvest activities and are expected to be minimal. No new crossings of stream channels by temporary roads are expected although more intensive restoration would be required at these sites including re-sloping to original contours, re-vegetating and applying protective ground cover such as mulch or slash if they are determined to be necessary during project implementation. Because no

III - 131 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences new crossings on perennial or intermittent streams will be constructed, no increase in channel network is expected and there will be no increase in risk of sediment delivery to surface waters due to temporary roads. Erosion modeling has shown that the majority of fine sediment input occurs at road crossings on streams and that riparian stream buffers are effective in filtering any upslope sources of soil erosion. None of the temporary roads are located on soils with a severe erosion hazard rating. Once restoration efforts are implemented successfully, no increased risk to soil and watershed resources is expected from these roads.

The Hillslope Erosion Model (HEM) was used to evaluate the effects of the proposed action on the delivery of sediment to stream channels. Past project experience with the WEPP and HEM models has shown that the primary source of increased sediment input is from road crossings on the stream network. The location of harvest units with substantial riparian buffers has been effective in reducing any increase in sediment to negligible amounts. For this project no new roads will be constructed with channel crossings or proximity to riparian areas. Changes in levels of road use due to log hauling were evaluated to determine changes in sediment yields at stream crossings. This project will utilize roads which have a total of 18 stream crossings. Most likely during logging operations not all of the crossings will be utilized at one time but for modeling purposes all were assumed to be used. The entire Nile Creek 6th field HUC was analyzed to evaluate the effects of log hauling at the sub-watershed level.

The calculated road crossing derived sediment yield for the Nile Creek watershed increased from a pre-project level of 6.28 tons per year to 6.75 tons per year during log hauling activities, an increase of approximately 7.5 percent. This increase is expected to remain at this level for the planned two year harvest period and then would be reduced to pre-project amounts after post haul maintenance is completed.

This estimated total watershed increase of 0.47 tons of sediment or approximately 0.56 cubic yards would be the total delivery from the 18 crossings spread throughout the haul route. Each crossing would contribute approximately 0.026 tons or 0.031 cubic yards of sediment. This estimated total annual sediment delivery would also be distributed amongst the seven storm events modeled in the representative average year. Average increased sediment delivery per storm event at each crossing is approximately 0.0037 tons or 0.0045 cubic yards. The 18 crossings are also distributed along the 20 miles of haul route roads. Because of this timing and spacial distribution the modeled increase in sediment due to log hauling operations is not expected to result in any measurable change in fine sediment levels in downstream spawning reaches of Nile Creek.

Hydrologic Timing and Flows (Rain-on-Snow) Hydrologic timing of water flows can be impacted by changes in forest canopy levels and increases in road densities. As canopy closure levels are reduced, there is an increased potential for a greater amount of snow deposition on the ground and reductions in losses due to canopy interception (i.e. snow is generally deeper in open areas than under trees). Faster rates of snowmelt can be expected on south and west aspects with slower rates on north and east aspects. Changes in snow hydrology have been shown to be measurable when canopy crown closures are reduced by 50 percent or more on a whole watershed unit (Troendle, 1980). Opening up tree canopies more than this makes areas more susceptible to adverse effects due to rain-on-snow events. These events occur when snow cover (generally less than 1- 1 ½ feet deep) receives enough warmer rainfall to exceed its storage capacity and the snow liquefies in a short period of time sending unusually large amounts of water down stream channels. In order to mitigate changes in hydrologic timing and flows, a planning goal of limiting the reduction in the area weighted percent canopy closure to a change of less than 25 percent in an individual sub-watershed in the project area has been used in project design and analysis. For example, the Refined Proposed Action would decrease the area weighted percent tree crown canopy closure from 46.26 percent down to 44.98 percent for the Nile Creek sub-watershed. This would be a 1.28 percent marginal change and at this level any change in hydrologic timing or flows is not expected to be measurable at the sub-watershed

III - 132 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences level or at the larger 5th field HUC level. The current highest level of precision in streamflow measuring techniques at best has a five to ten percent margin of error and any potential changes in hydrologic flow regimes are not expected to be measurable at a level greater than this accuracy.

Groundwater can potentially be impacted by changes in timing and flows resulting from management activities. Changes in canopy closure from harvest or fuels activities and actions which change soil infiltration rates may influence groundwater recharge rates. Roads cuts on steeper terrain can directly intercept groundwater flow and route water to streamchannels at faster rates than would occur naturally (USDA Forest Service, 2007). At the micro-site level, riparian reserves will be utilized to protect springs, seeps, and wetlands so that no impact on groundwater is expected. Since the Proposed Action is not expected to cause any measurable change in hydrologic timing or flow levels there is not expected to be any measurable change in groundwater resources.

Fueling and operation of chainsaws used in tree falling, dozers used in skidding or skyline yarding equipment used in implementing this project could result in petroleum product spills or fluid leaks that could result in soil contamination and possible water contamination and pollution from non-point sources. Locations of refueling sites will be approved by Forest Service contract administrators and spill prevention and management plans will be required which will minimize the risk of potential detrimental effects.

Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for the protection of water quality from nonpoint source pollution (sediment, fuel spills, etc.) would be implemented as described in Appendix C. Implementation of these BMP’s would reduce the risk of the Proposed Action affecting local and downstream beneficial uses of waters flowing from the project area. When BMP’s are implemented and effective, past monitoring has shown that the State water quality standards will be met (USDA Forest Service, 1988). Water diversions for domestic and irrigation use at private homes downstream from the project area would be protected. Mitigation measures and design criteria for stream protection identified in Appendix C would be implemented and are expected to be successful in protecting downstream diversions from any measurable change in water quality or quantity. Mitigation measures include a combination of unit layout and timing of operations that are expected to have an effectiveness of 90 percent or greater. Water diversions for dust abatement would be only from Forest Service approved locations. If chemical dust abatement materials are used, standard application methods have been successful in reducing the risk of contaminants entering surface waters to non-measurable levels.

Because BMP's would be fully implemented, water quality standards and the anti-degradation policy (Chapter 173-201A WAC) are expected to be met with the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is not expected to substantially alter water quality. Full implementation of BMP’s has been shown to be an effective method in preventing and controlling non-point source water pollution (Rashin, 2006), (USDA Forest Service, 2000). Monitoring would be conducted during the project in order to validate implementation and effectiveness of BMP's.

Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and the Naches River downstream of the planning area have all exceeded the state temperature standard of 61 degrees daily maximum for several days during the summer sampling period. These streams have been designated as water quality limited (category 5) for temperature on the current Washington State 303(d) list. The minor amount of thinning planned along riparian reserves for units 9 and 10 is not expected to remove enough overstory canopy to result in measurable effects on stream temperatures on- site or downstream. The stream within unit 9 is intermittent and does not measurable contribute to temperatures downstream. Unit 10 is located on the north side of the adjacent stream and any minor loss of overstory would not affect shading levels. None of the fuels treatments will remove streamside overstory vegetation or reduce shading and therefore treatments will not affect this parameter or exacerbate the 303(d)

III - 133 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences listing. If fire is allowed to back into riparian reserves, only ground cover and possibly some shrub or forbs would be burned with no changes to shading from overstory canopy expected.

Harvest and fuels activities would occur within two separate sub-watersheds of the Glass Angel Project area which would disperse and reduce the effects of treatments in any single watershed. The percentage area of the Nile sub-watershed treated by commercial thinning is approximately 5 percent and the area weighted reduction in canopy closure is only 1.28 percent. The percentage of the Lower Rattlesnake watershed potentially treated by prescribed burning is approximately 30 percent total which would be dispersed over several years of implementation. Any potential changes in hydrologic flow regimes are not expected to be measurable at a level greater than the current highest level of precision in streamflow measuring techniques which at best has a five to ten percent margin of error. Any additional canopy removal due to prescribed fire is not expected to result in any measurable changes in streamflows.

Harvest and fuel treatment activities which are designed to restore historic fire regimes can benefit soil productivity and water quality in the long-term (10–15 years or more) by reducing the risk of uncharacteristic high intensity wildfires and reducing the resulting risk of erosion and loss of site productivity (Harvey, 1994). Short-term (one to five years) increases in available nitrogen can help in establishment of vegetation (Debano, 1991).

Evaluation Summary Soil stability and watershed condition are closely tied to water quality and aquatic habitat. Most of the actions and effects described for upland soils interact and lead to effects on water quality and downstream aquatic habitat. Generally, the risk of negative impacts to soil productivity, water quality and watershed condition would increase proportional to the proposed acres of timber harvest, acres of fuel treatment, miles of new road construction, acres of commercial harvest or underburning on high sediment delivery risk soils, and acres of ground based timber harvest on soils rated severe for soil compaction hazard. Table III.43 summarizes the indicators for soil and watershed effects. Taking no management action would have less risk of short-term adverse effects to watershed resources but less benefit for reduction in watershed susceptibility to potential damage from uncharacteristic wildfires in the long-term.

The Refined Proposed Action would reduce the total area weighted canopy closure change due to harvest and fuels activities for the entire project area from 45.7 percent down to 40.8 percent. Approximately 109 acres of timber harvest or fuels treatments would occur on soils with a high sediment delivery risk rating. Approximately 94 acres of tractor yarded commercial harvest would occur on soils with a severe compaction hazard rating. Approximately 2000 acres of prescribed burning in the Angel area would occur on soils with a high sediment delivery risk rating. Potential effects would include increased rates of runoff, increased stream sedimentation, and loss of site productivity but with design criteria and mitigation measures these effects are not expected to be measurable. Increased rates of surface runoff and soil erosion could be expected from landings and skid trails or severely burned areas where the soil surface organic layer was removed but any increases due to this project are not expected to be measurable at the smaller 6th field sub-watershed level or larger 5th field HUC watershed level. Proposed mitigation measures would limit the amount of area subject to increased rates of runoff and Riparian Reserves are expected to filter and trap any eroded soils before being transported to surface waters. No measurable change in streamflow timing or amounts is expected and no change in on-site or off-site groundwater supplies is expected. Disturbances on steep slopes (greater than 35 percent) are more susceptible to surface erosion because of higher velocities of surface runoff as gradients increase. In the Proposed Action, use of skyline yarding methods on all sustained unit slopes greater than 35 percent will mitigate any risk of increased erosion rates by reducing the amount of surface disturbance. The implementation of BMP’s is expected to mitigate any potential adverse effects from these alternatives to levels which are not measurable.

III - 134 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

WFP standard and guideline requirements for ground cover retention following logging and fuels treatment operations require higher levels of protection on severe erosion hazard soils which will reduce any potential risk of increased surface erosion in these areas.

The overall area in detrimental soil conditions (compaction, displacement, and severely burned) is expected to meet standards when post sale restoration of skid trails, landings, and temporary roads is completed (see above table III.42). In order to minimize soil disturbance, design standards are proposed which are expected to result in tractor harvesting methods meeting the WFP standards (WFP, Table IV-20, pg. IV-97). Designated skid trails, utilization of existing skid trails when in desirable locations, and winter logging when sufficient snow cover or frozen ground conditions to prevent compaction, are some of the design standards that would be implemented in order to meet soil standards. Past monitoring of harvest activities has shown that these mitigation measures are greater than 90 percent effective when implemented as designed (USDA Forest Service, 2000).

The differences in treatment acreage and roads between the No Action and the Refined Proposed Action are summarized below in Table III.40. The Refined Proposed Action would treat approximately 517 total acres by commercial harvest. A total of approximately 7,406 acres could potentially be treated with burning with the Proposed Action.

Table III.40. Evaluation Summary -- Soil and Watershed Resources.

No Action Refined Proposed Watershed Resource Evaluation Criteria Action Total Acres of commercial timber harvest with underburning 0 517 Acres Treated by Ground Based Yarding Systems 0 377 Acres Treated by Ground Based Yarding on Severe 0 94 Compaction Soils Acres Underburned 0 7406 Acres Commercial Timber Harvest on High Sediment Delivery 0 109 Risk Soils Acres Underburn on High Sediment Delivery Risk Soils 0 2010 Area Weighted Canopy Closure Percent (total planning area) 45.73% 40.75 % and (Marginal Change) (0%) (-4.98 %) Nile Creek Watershed Canopy Closure Percent and 46.26% 44.95 % (0%) (-1.28 %) (Marginal Change) Miles New Temporary Road Construction 0 3.24 Miles Temporary Road Re-Construction 0 1.94 Road Density for Glass Angel Project Area 4.65 4.79

The treatment alternative shows weighted canopy closure percent will decrease from 1.28 percent marginal change. Most all of the harvest activity occurs in stands within the 40 to 69 percent canopy closure category which are reduced into the 10 to 39 percent category. The actual percentage of canopy closure being removed by timber harvest in the proposed action is approximately 25 to 35 percent on the commercially thinned

III - 135 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences treatment acreage. Commercial thinning treatments would generally only remove smaller diameter understory material with minor amounts of overstory canopy closure reduction and fuels treatments are not expected to reduce canopy closures measurably. At this level of tree crown canopy removal, changes in hydrologic timing and flows are not expected to be measurable at the watershed scale (Troendle, 1980).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from past, current and foreseeable future activities are an important concern in the Naches Watershed and can be affected by actions on private lands as well as National Forest System lands. For Glass Angel there are no private lands within or immediately adjacent to the analysis area although there are private lands within the Rattlesnake and Naches Watersheds approximately five miles to the east of the project boundary. The cumulative effects analysis boundary for this project is the 5th field watershed scale. Within the 5th field watershed smaller sub-watersheds were analyzed in order to address affects that might be masked at the larger scale. The time scale for cumulative watershed effects is considered the time required for vegetation to achieve hydrologic recovery. For conifer stands this is achieved when greater than 70 percent canopy closure occurs typically in 20 to 30 years for a regeneration unit. For soil compaction recovery by natural processes, generally a 30 to 40 year period is necessary.

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

Most of the acres within the Glass Angel Project area have been subject to timber harvest activity, heavy recreation use, and impacts from grazing by elk and domestic range animals. Past harvest entries have occurred on approximately 75 percent of the forested lands within the project area. Soil compaction from repeated timber harvest operations and tractor piling for fuels treatment on some of these areas has resulted in levels of soil compaction that exceed WFP Standards and Guidelines. This soil compaction concern is highest in the old clearcut harvest areas where skid trail patterns are more concentrated than would be allowed under current standard operating procedures, particularly on the Bograp and Xeralfs soil series (soil mapping units 19 and 138). Based on field assessments and past monitoring, approximately 50 acres of the project area have detrimental soil disturbance levels ranging from 20 to 45 percent, exceeding the Wenatchee Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines, as a result of past harvest activity (USDA Forest Service, 2000). Because these old harvest units were logged 20 or more years ago, natural processes and re-vegetation with deep rooted perennial grasses has reduced the compaction level by approximately 50 percent. These compacted soil areas occur outside of proposed harvest treatment areas for the Glass Angel Project but would add incrementally to the cumulative effect of increased rates of surface water runoff within the 5th field watershed.

The potential for additional soil compaction from tractor yarding and fuels reduction operations is expected to be reduced by implementation of the design standards described in Appendix C and standards and guidelines for soil disturbance are expected to be met (see direct and indirect effects above). Soil restoration activities are expected to reduce the effects from past harvest entries and improve soil conditions in the long-term. The overall area in detrimental soil conditions (compaction, displacement, and severely burned) is expected to meet standards when post sale restoration of skid trails, landings, and temporary roads is completed (see above table III-X). Implementation and effectiveness monitoring from past projects has shown that the proposed design standards are successful in meeting Forest Plan requirements (USDA Forest Service, 2000).

III - 136 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Cumulative watershed effects are influenced by past impacts, proposed future impacts and susceptibility to high intensity rain-on-snow storm events. As mentioned above, past timber harvest operations have occurred over approximately 75 percent of the project area. The last sales within the Nile 6th field HUC area occurred over 20 years ago and recovery of compacted areas by natural processes has begun to occur as deep-rooted vegetation is re-established. Existing clearcut harvest units have recovered to the level that crown closures exceed 70 percent and are considered to be fully recovered hydrologically in terms of water yield and evapotranspiration rates (Troendle, 1980). The project area as a whole currently has 56.8 percent of the acreage in crown closures greater than 40 percent and this would be reduced to 48.5 percent.

The Refined Proposed Action would decrease the area weighted percent tree crown canopy closure from 46.26 percent down to 44.98 percent for the Nile Creek sub-watershed. This would be a 1.28 percent marginal change for the Proposed Action. This level of change is well within the planning goal of not reducing the canopy closure for any individual sub-watershed by more than 25 percent. At this level of tree crown canopy removal, changes in hydrologic timing and flows are not expected to be measurable at the watershed scale (Troendle, 1980). Any increases in soil moisture and groundwater levels that result from increases in snow deposition after thinning would most likely be utilized by increases in vigor and rates of evapotranspiration of the remaining vegetation.

Harvest and fuels management effects would also be mitigated by the fact that the proposed activities would be dispersed in time over a span of two to three years. Harvest and fuels activities would occur within two separate sub-watersheds of the Glass Angel Project area which would further disperse and reduce the effects of treatments in any single sub-watershed and the much larger two 5th field watersheds. The maximum percentage area of the Nile sub-watershed treated by commercial thinning is 5 percent. Any potential changes in hydrologic flow regimes are not expected to be measurable at a level greater than the current highest level of precision in streamflow measuring techniques which at best has a five to ten percent margin of error. Since changes are not expected to be measurable at the smaller sub-watershed level they would also not be measurable at the larger 5th field HUC level.

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

Cumulative Effects of Other Activities The area has also received soil compaction and displacement from cross country motorized vehicle use, wild ungulates, and sheep grazed on the Nile Allotment but these activities are not expected to contribute to levels that would exceed Forest Plan standards. Minor amounts of hazard tree removal have occurred by Washington State DOT along Highway 410 and within summer home residence areas.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Hazard tree removal will continue along Highway 410 and within summer home residence areas which will add incrementally to the lowering of canopy closure within the 5th field watersheds. Continued soil compaction and displacement from cross country motorized vehicle use, wild ungulates, and cattle grazing will add incrementally to the disturbed soil conditions within the 5th field watersheds.

These activities have been evaluated with the proposed actions and a determination has been made that their effects combined with those of the proposed actions would contribute incrementally to cumulative effects in

III - 137 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences the project analysis area but the increase would not be measurable in terms of streamflow, site productivity or sediment yield at the 5th field watershed level or the smaller sub-watershed level. Best Management Practices (BMP's) are expected to be fully implemented and cumulative effects as a result of this project and anticipated similar types of activities on nearby State and private lands are expected to be insignificant.

Invasive Species Management

Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed commercial timber harvest and underburning have the potential to create additional seedbeds for noxious weeds and could contribute to their spread but because proposed invasive plant control measures will be fully implemented no spread is expected. Increases in populations of invasive species can have a detrimental effect on soils. Native deep-rooted perennial vegetation is more effective in stabilizing surface soils, reversing the effects of compaction, and providing protective ground cover. Invasive species can inhibit the re-vegetation of disturbed areas by desirable native species that provide effective long-term benefits.

Noxious weed treatments include manual, chemical, mechanical, cultural and bio-control methods. Treatments which create bare soil conditions or cause soil disturbance have the potential to increase surface erosion rates in the short-term until native vegetation is reestablished. Mitigation measures described in Appendix C for water quality utilized with the chemical treatment options are expected to have 90 percent or greater effectiveness in protecting surface waters. See the Fisheries section for more discussion on the effects of herbicide use.

Cumulative Effects Noxious weed treatments would add incrementally to the risk of increased surface erosion rates in the short- term until native vegetation is reestablished. Treatment sites are dispersed in location and are not expected to lead to measurable increases in off-site sediment yields at the 5th field watershed level or the smaller sub- watershed level. In the long-term, reestablishment of native deep rooted perennial species will reduce the risk of soil erosion and lead to the restoration of compacted soil areas. The forest wide invasive EIS currently under preparation could potentially increase the acreage treated annually with herbicides.

Travel and Access Management

Refined Proposed Action Road Management

Direct and Indirect Effects For this alternative, road analysis during the planning process identified approximately 4.71 miles of existing system roads which are proposed for obliteration if funding becomes available from sources separate from the timber sale contract. An additional approximately 4.42 miles would be closed and put into Maintenance Level 1 storage condition with resulting long-term benefits of reduced erosion and sedimentation rates. These actions would result in a permanent reduction in road density from 4.65 down to 3.56 for the planning area. The closed roads placed in storage condition would not be considered obliterated but would reduce the risk of damage during wet season use. Road obliteration can increase the short-term erosion risk until vegetation is reestablished.

Cumulative Effects Road closures and obliteration would result in an incremental benefit to overall watershed condition. However, at the 5th field watershed level the incremental change in sediment yield due to this project would most likely be not measurable either as a short-term (1 to 5 years) increase or long-term (10 to 15 year) decrease.

III - 138 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Refined Proposed Action 1605 Crossing

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would provide more reduction in fine sediment input to Nile Creek than the No Action Alternative. Vehicles would continue to travel through flowing water whenever the area is accessible. Improvements to road drainage would reduce the input of fine sediment from road surface runoff on both sides of the crossing. The streambanks on approaches to the crossing would be reinforced with the concrete planks which would stabilize the road surface and reduce erosion. The risk of petroleum products from vehicles entering the surface waters would continue. The risk of disturbance to the streamchannel bed and dislodging of sediment from vehicle traffic would continue although would be improved from the existing condition.

Cumulative Effects The improved ford design with this alternative would result in an incremental benefit to overall watershed condition and improvement to water quality. However, at the 5th field watershed level the incremental change in sediment yield due to this project would most likely be not measurable either as a short-term (1 to 5 years) increase or long-term (10 to 15 year) decrease.

Refined Proposed Action Trail 697 Reroute

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would relocate approximately 0.5 miles of system trail out of the meadow location but maintain the meadow crossing section including the steep hill climb on the southern edge. Approximately 0.25 miles of system trail would remain on soils with a severe erosion hazard rating. The effectiveness of closures on user built sections of trail within the meadow would be reduced because the existing system trail location would maintain accessibility to the entire meadow. The importation of approximately 100 yards of coarse fill material to stabilize the 300 foot long 55 percent slope gradient hill climb section would reduce the infiltration capacity on this section of meadow. Additional meadow area would be disturbed to create drainage structures to divert water away from the trail surface on the hill climb. The potential for continued rutting and trail widening would continue if the drainage features are not successful in diverting surface water from the trail. This alternative would also preclude the restoration of the small meadow area south the larger meadow. Obliteration of portions of the existing route through the meadow would restore the hydrologic function on approximately 4.8 acres of meadow soils.

Adaptive Management Option If the relocation and trail restoration activities implemented under the Refined Proposed Action are not successful in controlling surface water drainage, effectively closing user built trails through the meadow, and restricting further degredation of meadow soils, the adaptive management alternative would be implemented.

The adaptive management alternative would remove approximately 0.55 miles of system trail which are currently located on fine textured meadow soils with a severe erosion hazard rating. The 1.6 miles of proposed new trail construction outside of the meadow are located on coarser textured upland soils which have a low erosion hazard rating. Obliteration of the existing route through the meadow would restore the hydrologic function on approximately 13 acres of meadow soils. The water concentration and diversion that is currently occurring would be eliminated and surface erosion would be reduced. The improved infiltration of water would result in increased vigor of meadow vegetation in proximity to the obliterated trail locations. Water storage in

III - 139 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences the meadow would be enhanced which would contribute to restoration of the natural hydrologic regime. Effectiveness of closures on user built trails within the meadow would be enhanced because accessibility from the system trail would be eliminated.

Cumulative Effects Trail closures and rerouting would result in an incremental benefit to overall watershed condition through reductions in fine sediment input to surface waters and improved regulation of streamflows. However, at the 5th field watershed level the incremental change in sediment yield and streamflow due to this project would most likely be not measurable either as a short-term (1 to 5 years) increase or long-term (10 to 15 year) decrease.

Consistency Findings The Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and the Naches River downstream of the planning area have all exceeded the state temperature standard of 61 degrees daily maximum for several days during the summer sampling period. All of the streams have been designated as water quality limited (category 5) for temperature on the current Washington State 303(d) list. This project would have no effect on the stream temperatures within the planning area or the downstream segments of Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and the Naches Rivers. With mitigation requirements for limited harvest in riparian reserves and only allowing fire to creep into riparian reserves without active lighting, none of the treatments will effect streamside vegetation or shading to measurable levels and therefore treatments will not affect this parameter or exacerbate the 303(d) listings downstream.

Because BMP's would be fully implemented, water quality standards and the anti-degradation policy (Chapter 173-201A WAC) are expected to be met with the Refined Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is not expected to substantially alter the water quality. Full implementation of BMP’s has been shown to be an effective method in preventing and controlling nonpoint source water pollution (Rashin, 2006), (USDA Forest Service, 2000). Monitoring would be conducted during the project in order to validate implementation and effectiveness of BMP's and assure compliance with the Clean Water Act, State water quality regulations and forest plan standards.

Implementation of mitigation measures for Riparian Reserves will ensure compliance with EO 11988 Floodplain Management (11988, 1977), and EO 11990 Wetland Protection (11990, 1977). Harvest planned on the perimeter of the northwest corner of the meadow is designed to improve and restore the function of this area and will meet the intent of these executive orders.

III - 140 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISHERY RESOURCES

Affected Environment

Affected Watersheds (Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek) The Glass Angel Project areas are located in the Naches Mainstem 5th field watershed (Glass project area) and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field watershed (Angel project area). These watersheds are adjacent to each other, with Rattlesnake Creek watershed located directly south of the Naches Mainstem watershed. Watershed analyses were completed for the Naches Mainstem (USDA Forest Service 1995) and Rattlesnake Creek (USDA Forest Service, 1997). The Naches Mainstem watershed area (105,921 acres) includes the Naches River from its confluence with Rattlesnake Creek upstream to the confluence of the Bumping and Little Naches Rivers, and all tributaries between. The Rattlesnake Creek watershed includes all lands within the drainage to its confluence with the Naches River (86,047 acres), including the Little Rattlesnake Creek drainage. The Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds were designated as Tier 1 Key Watersheds in the Northwest Forest Plan.

The Glass project area is located in the headwaters of Nile and Glass Creek drainages, and the Angel project area includes lands in the mainstem Rattlesnake Creek drainage. Nile Creek is an intermediate sized tributary of the Naches River at river mile 29. Rattlesnake is a major tributary of the Naches River at river mile 28.

Road densities within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake 5th field watersheds are calculated using system roads and system jeep trails only within the National Forest boundary, since a substantial amount of private lands (within the watersheds) occurs outside of the National Forest, where complete road data is not available.

The Naches Mainstem watershed encompasses 105,921 acres, of which 77,905 acres (121.7 square miles) are within the National Forest. Approximately 406.2 miles of system road, and 25.4 miles of system jeep trails occur within National Forest in the Naches Mainstem watershed. Total system road/OHV trail density is 3.55 miles/square mile. Including the non system roads, the total road density is 4.12 miles/square mile.

The Rattlesnake Creek watershed encompasses 86,047 acres, of which 76,099 acres (118.9 square miles) are within the National Forest. Approximately 101.5 miles of system road, 13.2 miles of system jeep trails, and 20.4 miles of non-system roads occur within National Forest in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Total system road/OHV trail density is 0.96 miles/square mile. Including the non system roads, the total road density is 1.13 miles/square mile. Within the watershed, approximately 49,768 acres are within the William O. Douglas Wilderness Area. Road density within National Forest, but outside of wilderness is 3.29 miles/square mile.

Naches Mainstem Watershed Fish Distribution Steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss), chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhyncus keta), westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarki), redband/rainbow (Oncorhyncus mykiss), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), sculpin (Cottis spp.), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and suckers (Catostomus spp.), occupy the Naches Mainstem Watershed. Rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, brook trout, and sculpin are known to occur throughout the Naches mainstem watershed.

Steelhead occur throughout the Naches Mainstem Watershed, however the only mainstem tributary with verified spawning is Nile Creek, upstream to RM 5.6, approximately three miles downstream of the Glass project area. Steelhead could potentially spawn in lower Rock Creek or Milk Creek (Naches Mainstem tributaries outside of the project area), but this has not been verified by spawning surveys.

III - 141 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Within the Naches Mainstem watershed, bull trout occur in the Naches River, and several sub-adults were observed in lower Nile Creek in 2009 (river mile 0.5 and 3.5). Prior to this observation, bull trout had not been documented in Nile Creek since 1971, at river mile 6.6. No bull trout are known to occupy streams in the project area, and no bull trout spawning has been documented in the Naches Mainstem watershed.

Table III.41. Nile Creek Drainage Fish Distribution (miles) (USDA Forest Service, 1995). Steelhead Rainbow Cutthroat Bull trout Coho Sculpin Unknown Trout trout salmon salmonid Nile Creek 5.6 6.6 10 6.6 5.4 3.6 - N.F. Nile - 0.4 - - - - 1.75 Orr Creek - - 2.5 - - - - Glass Creek - - 2.1 - -- - -

Within the Glass project area, Nile and Glass Creeks are the only known fish bearing streams, both occupied by cutthroat trout only. Cutthroat trout occupy Nile Creek to a presumed natural barrier cascade/falls at stream mile 11, approximately one mile upstream of the FR1605 stream crossing ford on Nile Creek. Cutthroat trout occupy Glass Creek to approximately RM 2.1, according to 1990 stream survey. Distributions described here include only verified occurrences, and do not imply that fish distribution is restricted to these areas.

Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Fish Distribution Steelhead, redband/rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), sculpin, and chinook salmon are present in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Distributions described here include only verified occurrences, and do not imply that fish distribution is restricted to these areas.

Table III.42. Rattlesnake Creek Drainage, Known Fish Distribution (miles) (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Steelhead Rainbow Cutthroat Bull Brook Sculpin Chinook Trout Trout Trout Trout Salmon Rattlesnake 12.4 16.5 19.4 19.6 6.7 19.2 11.5 Creek Little 1.75 1.75 12.6 - - 12.3 0.3 Rattlesnake N.F. 0.1 4.5 6.7 1.6 - - - Rattlesnake Three - 0.1 1.8 - 1.8 - - Creeks Hindoo - - 3.4 0.6 - 2.3 - Creek Dog Creek - 0.1 0.7 0.1 - - - Shell Creek - - 1.0 0.2 - - - Little - - 1.5 0.7 - - - Wildcat McNeil - - 0.25 0.1 - - - Creek

III - 142 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Within the Angel project area, Rattlesnake Creek and Three Creeks Creek are the only known fish bearing streams (see fish distribution table). The Angel project area does not occur within the Little Rattlesnake Creek drainage.

Naches River Basin Fishery Populations Spring chinook salmon in the Naches River are considered depressed (SASSI 1992). MacDonald et al. (1996) identified the Mainstem Naches watershed as important for spring chinook, because it contains primary spawning areas. Spring Chinook spawn and rear in the Naches River throughout the Naches Mainstem watershed and in Rattlesnake Creek, but are not known to spawn in other tributaries, likely due to habitat availability. Other tributaries lack sufficient size and flow during the spawning season (early September) to provide large holding pools and fish migration passage (USDA, 1995).

Adult spring chinook enter the Yakima River between late April and July (Yakama Nation, 1990). In 1993, adult chinook were jumping the Wapatox diversion dam, on the Naches River, during the first two weeks of June. Adult fish then hold in deep pools with cover in the Naches River until the last week of August when spawning begins. Spawning activity peaks in the second week of September. Emergence begins as early as mid-March and continues through the first half of June, with an overall mean in mid-April. The fry then move downstream, with some staying in the upper Naches River, and with others moving downstream into the lower Naches River, below the forest boundary. The outmigration of smolts peaks around the second week of April and dwindles to a few fish per day by late June (Yakama Nation 1990).

The Yakama Nation has been conducting annual spawning surveys of Chinook salmon in the Yakima River basin since 1981 (ykfp.org). Counting redds (spawning nests) annually is a reliable method for monitoring the status of a salmonid population. The Mainstem Naches River contains a large amount of the spring Chinook spawning habitat in the Naches basin. From 1981 to 2009, the Mainstem Naches River (including Rattlesnake Creek) accounted for 36% of the total number of redds in the Naches basin, with an average of 179 redds. In recent years (2000-2009), returns of spring Chinook (and spawning redd counts) in the Yakima River and the Naches River have increased. Between 2000-2009, the Mainstem Naches River averaged 247 redds. Between 2000- 2009, the entire Naches River system (American, Mainstem Naches, Bumping, and Little Naches Rivers) averaged 698 redds.

Hockersmith et al. (1995) conducted a radio telemetry study on adult steelhead between 1989 and 1992 in the Yakima River basin. Of the 105 fish tagged that completed migration to spawning reaches, 34 (32 percent) spawned in the Naches River drainage. Within the Naches River drainage, tagged fish spawned in the mainstem Naches River, Rattlesnake Creek, Bumping River, and Little Naches River.

Adult steelhead begin to enter the Yakima River in September and overwinter in the river below the mouth of Satus Creek. The fish continue their migration in February when they begin ascending tributaries to spawn. Steelhead spawning activity in the Naches basin occurs between mid-February thru mid-May, and peaks in mid- April thru mid-May (Hockersmith et al, 1995), but may extend into June within higher elevation tributaries. Fry emergence has been estimated to occur from May to August (Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation 1990). It is also thought that the majority of steelhead fry have emerged by the end of June (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Most juvenile steelhead rear in their natal stream, while some move downstream to rear, and a few move as far downstream as Prosser to rear. According to monitoring at Prosser, the smolt outmigration begins in April and ends around mid-June (Yakama Nation, 1990). Returning adult steelhead to the Yakima basin are counted at Prosser Dam. In recent years (post 2000), returns of summer steelhead to the Yakima basin have increased. Average returns of adult steelhead counted at Prosser dam have increased from 1,197 (1988-1999) to 3,160 (2000-2010). The Yakima River Basin is not supplemented with hatchery steelhead.

III - 143 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The Naches District has been coordinating steelhead spawning surveys in the Naches River drainage since 2004 (Naches Ranger District Files). Steelhead redd surveys have been conducted each year in Nile Creek from 2004- 2010, and the Rattlesnake Creek drainage was surveyed in 2004-2006. Nile Creek has averaged 20.2 redds for this period, excluding data from 2006 and 2008, when surveys were incomplete due to consistent high water and poor visibility. Only the 2005 survey in Rattlesnake Creek drainage is considered to be a complete data set, when 22 redds were observed. The Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds are considered to be major steelhead spawning areas due to the known steelhead spawning areas in Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, and the mainstem Naches River.

The resident native redband/rainbow and anadromous steelhead may be one population exhibiting multiple life history strategies (Pearsons et al., 2007), and ecological and genetic evidence indicates that rainbow trout and steelhead in the Yakima Basin interbreed when in sympatry. Pearson et al. (2007) found the habitat occupation overlap of rainbow trout and steelhead spawning to be very high, and commonly observed suspected breeding between rainbow trout and steelhead. Steelhead and resident rainbow trout breeding interactions have also frequently been observed within the Naches River drainage during spawning surveys. The status of redband/rainbow populations is further confounded by a long history of stocking hatchery rainbow trout. Therefore, if redband/rainbow type fish are found in a stream and there are no migration barriers it is assumed steelhead could be present.

Coho salmon historically inhabited the Naches River watershed but the native runs were considered extirpated by 1979 (USDA Forest Service, 1995). The Yakama Nation began re-introducing coho salmon to the watershed in 1995, in cooperation with NOAA and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Coho stock came from lower Columbia River hatcheries, and the intent is to develop a Mid-Columbia stock over time.

Adult bull trout present in the mainstem Naches River are primarily fluvial fish. They spawn in cold headwater streams (Rattlesnake Creek, American River, and Crow Creek) in late summer, and then forage/overwinter in larger rivers from fall through spring. Rattlesnake Creek contains the only local spawning population of bull trout within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field watersheds. Since 1996, Rattlesnake Creek has averaged 41.4 redds annually. In a radio tracking study by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, adult bull trout in the Naches River were found to migrate downstream to near the confluence of the Naches and Yakima Rivers.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Fish Species Two fish species within the Rattlesnake Creek and Naches Mainstem watersheds are considered Sensitive by the Forest Service. Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) and interior redband rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) are on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. The actual distribution of genetically pure westslope cutthroat and interior redband rainbow trout is not well known, and has been confounded by widespread introgression with primarily non-native rainbow trout strains (coastal). Westslope cutthroat trout and interior redband rainbow trout are both present within the Rattlesnake Creek watershed, but not verified to occur within the project area. According to Proebstel (1998), “essentially pure” westslope cutthroat trout occur in upper Rattlesnake Creek and upper Little Rattlesnake Creek, and “essentially pure” interior redband rainbow trout occur in lower Little Rattlesnake Creek.

The pygmy whitefish is also a Sensitive Species on the Forest. Pygmy whitefish are primarily found in relic populations in western North America from the Columbia River drainage north to Alaska. It is most commonly found in cold lakes deeper than 20 feet, and cold streams with moderate to swift currents (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). Currently pygmy whitefish are found in four lakes on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National

III - 144 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Forest. None of the lakes are within or downstream of the project area, therefore pygmy whitefish will not be discussed further in this analysis.

Threatened and Endangered Fish Species and Designated Critical Habitat Steelhead in the Yakima River basin are part of the Mid-Columbia Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which were listed as Threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1999, and are federally protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical Habitat was designated in 2005. MCR steelhead Designated Critical Habitat in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed includes Rattlesnake Creek (to RM 19.3), Little Rattlesnake Creek (to RM 8.0), North Fork Rattlesnake Creek (to RM 5.0), and Hindoo Creek (to RM 0.3). MCR critical habitat within the Angel project area occurs in Rattlesnake Creek. MCR steelhead Designated Critical Habitat in the Naches mainstem watershed includes the Naches River (Rattlesnake Creek to Bumping/Little Naches Rivers confluence), Nile Creek (to Glass Creek at RM 8.65), Glass Creek (to RM 0.2) Gold Creek (to RM 0.2), Rock Creek (to RM 1.0), and Lost Creek (to RM 0.2). MCR steelhead critical habitat within the Glass treatment area occurs in Glass Creek.

Columbia River bull trout were listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1998. Critical Habitat was designated in 2004, and a final revised critical habitat was issued in October, 2010. Bull trout Designated Critical Habitat within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds includes the Naches River (entire length), Rattlesnake Creek (to RM 24.4), Little Rattlesnake Creek (to RM 1.0), North Fork Rattlesnake Creek (to RM 6.5), Dog Creek (to RM 1.0), Hindoo Creek (to RM 1.0), and Little Wildcat Creek (to RM 3.7). Bull trout critical habitat within the Angel project area includes only the mainstem Rattlesnake Creek. No bull trout critical habitat occurs within the Glass project area.

Approximately 3 miles downstream from the Glass treatment area, bull trout utilize the lower 5.6 miles of Nile Creek as foraging habitat, and >8.5 miles downstream, bull trout utilize the Naches River as winter foraging and migratory corridor habitat. Steelhead utilize the lower 5.6 miles of Nile Creek, and the Naches River as spawning and rearing habitat. Adjacent to the Angel treatment area, bull trout use Rattlesnake Creek as foraging and migratory corridor habitat, and steelhead utilize the Rattlesnake Creek as spawning and rearing habitat.

Wenatchee Forest Plan (WFP) Management Indicator Species (MIS) Management Indicator Species listed in the WFP (1990) include Chinook salmon, steelhead, sockeye salmon, bull trout, and cutthroat trout.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Within the Naches mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds, the Naches River, Rattlesnake Creek, and all tributaries are considered Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook and coho salmon, under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. EFH for Chinook and coho salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, tributaries and other water bodies currently viable, and most of the habitat historically accessible to Chinook and coho salmon. Spring Chinook salmon are widespread in the Naches River and Rattlesnake Creek.

The Glass and Angel treatment areas includes streams that have been designated as EFH for various life stages of chinook and coho salmon, but these streams (Nile, Glass, and Three Creeks) are not occupied by salmon, and lack sufficient water depths/flows and large pools needed to accommodate the migration and habitat needs of large, fall spawning fish species. Chinook salmon and coho salmon, utilize the Naches River (> 8.5 miles downstream of the Glass treatment area) as spawning, rearing and holding habitat. In the Angel treatment area, Chinook salmon utilize Rattlesnake Creek (< 0.25 miles downstream) as spawning, rearing and holding habitat.

III - 145 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Aquatic Habitat

Stream reaches surveyed in the project area include Nile Creek (1990 and 1999), Glass Creek (1990), Rattlesnake Creek (1991 and 1996), and Three Creeks Creek (1992), using the Forest Service Region 6 stream inventory protocol. Stream survey data can be used to evaluate if WFP riparian area standards are being achieved in distinct stream reaches. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Matrix of Watershed Condition Indicators for evaluating properly functioning conditions of habitat indicators will also be used in this document to evaluate current habitat conditions to properly functioning conditions. The NMFS matrix evaluation process will be used when the data format of current habitat conditions cannot be compared to WFP Standards.

Large Woody Debris (LWD) LWD plays an important role in the physical condition of stream channels and the formation of complex fish habitat. LWD is a critical structural component in mountain streams, forming pools, and overhead cover; and it also regulates the transport and deposition of sediment, gravel, and organic matter. The WFP has a riparian area standard of 100 pieces of in-channel LWD per mile of stream. The standard further details that 80% of the wood should be > 12” diameter and > 50’ in length, and 20% of the wood should be > 20” diameter and > 50’ in length. In the habitat survey, LWD is counted within three size classes for eastside forests: large is > 20” X 35’ long, medium is > 12” X 35’ long, and small is > 6” diameter X 20’ long. To compare existing conditions to the WFP standard, only the large and medium sizes qualify towards the standard. Table III.43 and III.44 display LWD densities in the Nile Creek and Rattlesnake Creek drainages. Stream reaches in the project area meeting the WFP standard include Nile Creek (reach 3), and Three Creeks Creek (reaches 1-3).

Table III.43. Nile Creek drainage, LWD/Mile35. Stream Reach Length Small Medium Large Large & (miles) Medium Nile Creek 1 3.05 49.8 18.4 5.9 24.3 (1999) (1990) 2 4.1 80 60 56 116 (1990) 3 0.61 75 63.9 109.8 173.7 Glass Creek 1 0.68 207.4 42.6 39.7 82.3 (1990) 2 1.36 117.6 29.4 22.8 52.2 Orr Creek 1 3.8 112 31.6 32.6 64.2 (1990) NF Nile Creek 1 0.52 ND 25 0 25 (1992) 2 1.16 ND 42 2 44

35 Most recent stream survey data by reach

III - 146 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.44. Rattlesnake Creek watershed, LWD/Mile2. Stream Reach Length Small Medium Large Large & (miles) Medium Rattlesnake 1 2.6 25 5.8 1.5 7.3 Creek (1991) (1991) 2 1.0 25 16.3 3.8 20.1 (1991) 3 2.6 56.2 45 40.4 85.4 (1991) 4 1.2 14.2 3.3 1.7 5 1996 5 1.4 29 21 6 27 1996 6 1.4 35 46 29 75 1996 7 1.6 23 19 13 32 1996 8 1.3 45 45 19 64 1996 9 1.2 40 44 73 117 1996 10 0.3 19 7 0 7 Three Creeks 1 1.4 - 49.5 71.5 121 (1992) 2 1.6 - 50.7 60.8 111.5 3 1.6 - 83.6 119.1 202.7 Little 1 2.7 84.8 51.4 20 71.4 Rattlesnake (2002) 2 2.2 80.5 44.5 24.1 68.6 3 1.4 77.1 70.7 35.7 106.4 NF 1 3.5 - 34 38 72 Rattlesnake

Creek (1992)

2 0.7 - 37 32 69

Riparian Reserves/Streambank Stability The WFP standard states that >90% ground cover should be provided by trees, shrubs, grasses, sedges, and duff within the floodplain and true riparian zone. Stream surveys estimated streambank ground cover into four classes; Poor (0-25%), Fair (26-50%), Good (51-75%), and Excellent (>75%). More recent stream surveys measured lineal feet of unstable streambanks. Tables III.45 and III.46 display streambank stability in the Nile Creek and Rattlesnake Creek drainages.

III - 147 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.45. Nile Creek drainage, Streambank Stability by Reach36 Stream Reach Streambank Unstable Percent Streambank length (2 x Streambank Unstable Ground reach length, (feet) Streambank Cover Class feet) Nile Creek 1 32,208 422 1.3 ND 2 43,296 ND ND Fair 3 6,441 ND ND Good Glass Creek 1 7,181 ND ND Fair 2 14,362 ND ND Good Orr Creek 1 40,128 ND ND Good NF Nile Creek 1 5,470 ND ND Fair 2 12,288 ND ND Fair ND = No data

Table III.46. Rattlesnake Creek Watershed, Streambank Stability by Reach3 Stream Reac Streamban Unstable Percent Streambank Ground Cover h k length Streambank Unstable Class (2 x reach (feet) Streambank length, feet)) Rattlesnake Creek 1 27,456 ND ND Fair 2 10,560 ND ND Poor 3 27,456 ND ND Fair 4 12,672 ND ND Fair 5 14,872 6,907 4.6 ND 6 14,998 2,052 13.7 ND 7 16,444 2,155 13.1 ND 8 13,578 2,053 15.1 ND 9 12,276 987 8.0 ND 10 2,818 349 12.4 ND Three Creeks 1 15,150 ND ND Good 2 16,664 ND ND Fair 3 16,670 ND ND Fair Little Rattlesnake 1 28,512 710 2.5 ND 2 23,232 1,617 7.0 ND 3 14,784 168 1.1 NF Rattlesnake 1 36,722 ND ND Good Creek 2 7,444 ND ND Excellent

36 Most recent stream survey data by reach

III - 148 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Pools The WFP primary pool standard for low gradient streams (<2%) is one or more pools for every 6 channel widths (average bank-full width by reach). Stream reaches >2% gradient should have one or more pools for every 3 bank-full channel widths. Primary pools have a maximum low flow depth of > 3 feet. To evaluate pool habitat conditions, pool densities will be simply be reported as total pools per mile, as bank full width field measurements usually were not taken using current accepted protocol. Therefore pool habitat data will be evaluated by the NMFS Matrix of Watershed Condition Indicators, which is based on average wetted channel width. Except for reach one of Nile Creek, reach nine of Rattlesnake Creek, and reaches 1-3 of Little Rattlesnake Creek, all streams are far below the standard for properly functioning condition for pool frequencies. Tables III.47 and III.48 display pool habitat frequencies in the Nile Creek and Rattlesnake Creek drainages.

Table III.47. Pool Frequencies – Nile Creek drainage. Stream Reach Average Wetted NMFS Pools/ Observed Pools Channel Width Mile PFC37 Per Mile Standard Nile Creek 1 17.6 39 27.5 2 10.4 48 12.1 3 11.6 48 9.8 Glass Creek 1 8.9 60 2.9 2 4.7 39 0.7 Orr Creek 1 4.9 39 3.6 NF Nile Creek 1 4.4 39 7 2 2.5 39 5

Table III.48. Pool Frequencies – Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Stream Reach Average Wetted NMFS Pools/ Observed Pools Channel Width Mile PFC4 Per Mile Standard Rattlesnake Creek 1 33.3 18 4.2 2 26.8 23 7.5 3 25.4 23 12.7 4 21.9 23 7.5 5 27.5 23 9.3 6 23 23 7.6 7 23.5 23 10.6 8 20.5 23 5.4 9 20 23 22.5 10 17.5 39 16.6 Three Creeks 1 5.2 60 14.3 2 5.7 60 11.3

37 Properly Functioning Condition

III - 149 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Stream Reach Average Wetted NMFS Pools/ Observed Pools Channel Width Mile PFC4 Per Mile Standard 3 11.7 48 8.8 Little Rattlesnake 1 13.8 48 35.6 2 12.6 48 37.7 3 10.4 48 50 NF Rattlesnake 1 16.8 39 5 Creek 2 16.7 39 7

Fine Sediment Fine sediment levels influence aquatic health, channel stability and water quality. The WFP standard is to maintain <20% fines (< 1.0 mm) as the area weighted average in spawning habitat. Limited fine sediment monitoring has been done in the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds. Two reaches (24 core samples) were monitored in Nile Creek in 2009 using the McNeil core sampling method. Overall, the Nile Creek samples had 16.2 percent fines (<1.0 mm). In Rattlesnake Creek, one reach in 1997 (12 core samples), and two reaches in 2002 (24 core samples), were monitored using the McNeil core sampling method. Overall, the samples had 12.9 percent fines (<1.0 mm) in 1997 and 12.5 percent fines (<1.0 mm) in 2002. Monitoring data from Nile and Rattlesnake Creeks indicate that fine sediment levels are within WFP standards.

Environmental Effects Analysis Method To assess project effects to fisheries habitat and water quality, this analysis primarily focuses on the potential of soil erosion features (from ground disturbance) to deliver sediment to stream channels, and subsequently to fish-bearing streams. Construction of temporary logging roads can increase the drainage network within a watershed.

Important Interactions Forest management activities that disturb the soil such as road building, log yarding, burning, or scarification can alter the pathways water takes to stream channels, and hence increase (or decrease) the volume of peak streamflows. Soil can be compacted by logging equipment, or by logs dragged over the ground during yarding and site preparation. If the infiltration capacity of the soil is sufficiently reduced, water runs off over rather than infiltrating into the soil. Higher peak flows and increased sediment transport result (Chamberlin et al., 1991). In general, log skidding by tractors exposes the most amount of soil, followed by high-lead and skyline yarding. Helicopter or balloon skidding cause the least ground disturbance and soil exposure. In steep terrain, high-lead cable yarding can disturb soils over 30-60% of the logged areas. On flat terrain or over snow cover, even tractor yarding may cause negligible disturbances to soils (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

The potential for surface erosion is directly related to the amount of bare compacted soil exposed to rainfall and runoff. Roads, ditches, skid trails and landings have relatively impermeable surfaces, and water runs off them rapidly, and potentially can deliver large quantities of fine sediments to stream channels, depending on their proximity to routing channels and streams. Ditches along roads not only collect surface runoff, they can intercept subsurface flow and bring it onto the ground surface. There is evidence that roads can accelerate storm runoff and cause higher peak flows in small basins (Chamberlin et al., 1991). The best erosion control practices are to avoid operations in very wet seasons, maintain vegetative buffer zones below open slopes (landings and created openings), skid logs over snow, and ensure prompt revegetation of areas with exposed

III - 150 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences soils (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Silvicultural activities that require scarification or burning can increase sediment production (and delivery to streams) if buffer strips are not left between treated areas and stream channels. Even when prescribed fire does not expose mineral soil, a water-repellent layer can form and reduce water infiltration into the soil, increasing the runoff available for surface erosion (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Timber management activities can affect streamflows by altering the water balance or by affecting the rate at which water moves from hillsides to stream channels. The more severe an alteration of the hydrologic cycle is, the greater the effect on streamflows, and hence on fish habitats, will be (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Harvested areas contain wetter soils than unlogged areas during periods of evapotranspiration and hence higher groundwater levels and more potential late summer runoff. The effect lasts 3-5 years until new root systems occupy the soil (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Influences on Water Quality The principal water quality variables that may be influenced by timber harvesting are temperature, suspended sediment, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients.

Temperature- Solar energy is the largest component of energy available to warm stream water in summer. If streamside vegetation is removed, summer water temperatures usually increase in direct proportion to the increase in sunlight that reaches the water surface. Smaller streams have a greater potential for increases in temperature from streamside harvesting than do larger streams, because a greater proportion of their surface areas will be newly exposed to warming effect of the sun. However, they may be more effectively shaded by smaller trees (alders, willows, cottonwoods, etc.) or deciduous vegetation (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Suspended Sediment- Forest harvesting and silviculture can influence suspended sediment concentrations in a variety of ways, all related to the erosion and sedimentation processes discussed earlier. Most streams carry some sediment, and the amount varies seasonally, but we are most concerned about actions that substantially change the magnitude, timing, or duration of sediment transport and overwhelm the ability of salmonids to cope with or avoid the resulting stress (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Poorly designed/located roads and skid trails can be persistent sources of sediment, but so are open slopes with soils exposed by yarding activities, mass movements, or intense fire. Gravel surfaced roads can increase sediment runoff production when heavily used by logging trucks (Chamberlin et al., 1991). The importance of maintaining the integrity of the riparian zone (minimizing ground disturbance) during harvest operations cannot be overemphasized. In addition to disturbing surface soil, activities near streambanks may destabilize channel margins, releasing sands that settle in and clog the streambed gravels (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Dissolved Oxygen- Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in intergravel spaces may be reduced if fine organic debris accumulates on and in the streambed. The high chemical and biological oxygen demands of such debris and the bacteria on it may persist for long periods until the bottom material is removed by high flows. Logging and skidding near small streams obscured by snow are particularly likely to contribute fine organic debris to watercourses during spring runoffs. Clogging of surface gravels by fine inorganic sediments can restrict intergravel flow enough to lower dissolved oxygen concentrations. This problem usually occurs only when large or persistent volumes of sediment emanate from active road systems, mass soil movements, bank slumps, or destabilized upstream stream channels (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Nutrients- Concentrations of inorganic nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, potassium, and calcium, and phosphorus) in streams may increase after logging, but usually by moderate amounts and for short periods. Likewise, 5 to 10 fold increases in nutrient releases after slash burning have shown rapid returns to earlier levels. The

III - 151 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences mobilization of nutrients is tempered by their adsorption onto soil particles and by their uptake by microorganisms that decompose stream detritus (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Influences on Stream Sedimentation Sediment transport in forest streams involves the detachment and entrainment of sediment particles, their transport, and their deposition. The process repeats whenever flow velocities are high enough to move the streams available material. Forest harvesting directly affects these processes when it increases (or decreases) sediment quantities delivered to stream channels, when it alters the peak flow or the frequency of high flows, and when it changes the structure of the channel by removing the supply of large wood that forms sediment storage sites. Streambank erosion and lateral channel migration also contribute sediments through natural events and if protective vegetation and living root systems are removed (Chamberlin et al., 1991). When sediment delivery to streams is increased, the intrusion or infliltration of some of the sediment particles into relatively clean or porous streambed gravel layers occurs. If the sediment source persists, increased amounts may settle deeper into the streambed and have longer-lasting effects on egg and fry survival (Chamberlin et al., 1991).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Direct effects to fish would result from actions that directly degrade occupied fish habitat (ie., streamside clear cut, LWD removal, in-channel construction within a fish bearing stream), or potentially cause direct mortality of individuals. For this project, direct effects to fish and aquatic habitat are only expected from the reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford and culvert removal from fish bearing streams during road decommissioning. These affects are discussed specifically under the proposed action.

Indirect effects impact a resource or habitat conditions in the future or in a different location than the original action. For example, construction of log landings and temporary logging roads expose bare soil that is at risk of erosion. If vegetation buffers between disturbed ground and stream channels are insufficient to capture and filter out soil erosion from overland water flows, mobilized sediment may be delivered to active stream channels that drain into fish bearing streams (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Elevated sediment levels can impede the spawning process and lower the chances of salmonid egg survival. Increased sedimentation as a result of project implementation could result in less favorable fish habitat. For purposes of this analysis, indirect effects are associated with sediment delivery to intermittent and perennial stream channels from ground disturbance at skid trails, temporary logging roads and landings, road and jeep trail obliteration, 1605 stream ford reconstruction, jeep trail relocation, and culvert removal/construction in perennial streams.

No Action Implementing no management action would not cause direct effects to water quality or fish habitat, because no ground disturbance from cable yarding and log skidding, temporary road construction and use, or logging use of existing Forest roads would occur. In the long term, there would be no watershed benefits from reducing tree densities in stands that are over stocked. Tree growth and vigor would continue to be repressed due to competition and insect damage, limiting the production of large diameter trees in Riparian Reserves. Without the proposed commercial thinning, small diameter tree thinning, and prescribed burning, fuel loadings would continue to increase. There would be no potential watershed benefits from reducing the risk of stand replacing wildfires. Risk of wildfire occurrence and severe burn intensities could increase due to the cumulative increase of fuel densities. Stand replacing wildfires with severe burn intensities could indirectly increase sediment delivery to streams in the Rattlesnake Creek and Nile Creek watersheds.

III - 152 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Incremental actions to reduce high road densities in both watersheds would not occur. Without implementing road decommissioning, system road and OHV trail densities in the Naches Mainstem watershed would remain at 3.55 miles per square mile, and system road and OHV trail densities in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed would remain at 0.96 miles per square mile. Current levels of fine sediment in Rattlesnake Creek and Nile Creek are at risk of negatively affecting salmonid production and survival, but meet WFP standards, however. Two barrier culverts to fish passage on Three Creeks Creek (1506-184 road) would not be removed, and continue to negatively affect cutthroat trout migration.

Noxious weeds are expected to spread at the current rate, and possibly even faster since existing populations would not be controlled. By not controlling existing populations, the potential for spread may increase as existing populations provide a ready seed source. Further spread of noxious weed infestations within riparian areas may cause the heavy, fibrous rooted native vegetation to incrementally be replaced with shallow or single tap rooted weeds. However, newly disturbed areas susceptible to noxious weed establishment would be minimal. Noxious weeds would continue to primarily infest roadsides, old harvest units/landings, and dispersed campsites. Increased soil erosion may occur where noxious weeds have replaced native vegetation. Diffuse knapweed is probably the most common noxious weed infesting riparian habitats in the project area. A knapweed dominated site provides little ground cover, and potentially increases surface erosion. Lacey et al. (1989), as cited in USDA (1999) found that knapweed infested sites can increase surface runoff and sediment yield with adverse effects to water quality.

Direct and indirect effects (short duration) to water quality and fish habitat from reconstruction of the 1605 road ford of Nile Creek would not occur. Chronic direct effects to cutthroat trout (potential injury or death from crushing) from the existing condition would continue to occur at the 1605 road ford of Nile Creek, because vehicles would continue to drive through the stream channel. Chronic, direct, short term effects to water turbidity would also continue when vehicles drive through the stream, when very fine sediments are dislodged into the stream.

If the 697 OHV trail in upper Glass Creek is not relocated, water storage capacity within the 38 acre montane meadow would continue to be degraded from rutted OHV trails (system and un-authorized) which are intercepting groundwater and increasing surface water runoff. Indirectly, degraded water storage function of this meadow could be reducing base flows, and increasing peak flows in Glass Creek, compared to potential restored conditions. If the 665 trail ford of Glass Creek is not improved with a bridge, chronic, short term direct effects to water quality (turbidity) would continue in Glass Creek. If the 150 feet of 697 trail is not re-located away from Nile Creek, riparian habitat will continue to be degraded, and the risk of sediment delivery from floodplain disturbance will not be restored.

Proposed Action -Commercial Timber Harvest/Temporary Logging Roads, Non-Commercial Tree Thinning, and Prescribed Fire Treatments, Water Drafting for Dust Abatement

No direct effects are expected from proposed vegetation and fuel treatments because no actions would directly affect habitat within a fish bearing stream.

Timber Stand Improvement (TSI: cutting trees < 7” diameter) may occur on up to 400 acres outside of commercial timber harvest units, all within the Glass treatment area. By implementing design criteria BMP’s (no thinning of trees providing shade to perennial streams, and locating burn piles greater than 25 feet from streambanks), TSI activities would not cause any ground disturbance, or reduce stream canopy closure on any

III - 153 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences perennial stream channels, so this action would have no effect to fisheries habitat and water quality, and will not be discussed further in this effects analysis.

Effects to Water Temperature Approximately 2.5 acres of the outer portions of Riparian Reserves are proposed for commercial timber harvest. Temporary logging roads to be constructed are located at least 350 feet from non fish-bearing streams, and no closer than 1,000 feet of a fish bearing stream.

Except for units #9, #10, and #13, no proposed timber harvest units are within Riparian Reserves, closer than 225 feet of non fish-bearing stream channels, or closer than 630 feet of fish bearing streams. In harvest unit #10, approximately 20-25 trees (9”-14’ dbh) would be harvested within 30-100 feet of a intermittent stream channel, over a length of approximately 400 feet of the stream. Grand fir and Douglas fir trees would be thinned to open the canopy around alder thickets, and reduce tree stocking competition around mature ponderosa pine. Minor shade reduction to this stream channel would not affect water temperatures in Glass Creek, a fish bearing stream 0.2 mile downstream, because this intermittent stream does not have surface flow connection with Glass Creek during the hot season when elevated water temperatures would be concern.

Timber harvest in unit #9 is proposed within 100 feet of a perennial stream, for approximately 400 feet. Most trees to be harvested are 9” to 16” DBH, and less than 80 feet tall, and the unit is located on the north side of an east/west flowing stream, so stream shade would not be measurably changed. Water temperatures in the project area would not be affected by timber harvest or temporary road construction/use because stream shade on perennial streams is not expected to be measurably reduced.

Approximately one acre of Riparian Reserve outer buffer (wetland area) is proposed for commercial harvest within unit #13, on the north side of the large mesic meadow. The purpose of thinning trees here is to reduce conifer encroachment of meadow habitat, which will benefit meadow habitat by increasing ground water availability to the meadow plant community.

Areas prescribed for understory fire are largely buffered from perennial streams by a least 100 feet. Burning understory trees would not affect stream shade or water temperatures. No active fire ignition would occur within Riparian Reserves, but low intensity underburning that backs into Riparian Reserves would not be suppressed. Fire that backs into riparian habitat is expected to burn with low to moderate intensity, and would be unlikely to cause mortality of larger trees that provide stream shading.

Water temperatures would not be affected from water drafting because no more than 10 percent of a streams instantaneous flow would be drafted by pumping.

Effects to Suspended Sediment and Stream Sedimentation Forest harvesting can affect suspended sediment and sedimentation by increasing (or decreasing) sediment quantities delivered to stream channels (perennial or intermittent), altering the peak flow or the frequency of high flows, or changing the structure of stream channels by removing the supply of large wood that forms sediment storage sites. Rashin et al. (2006) found that stream buffer BMP’s (no or minimal harvest/ground disturbance) as narrow as 10 meters (33 feet) were effective in preventing most upslope erosion features from delivering sediment to stream channels in study areas in the Cascade Mountains of Washington.

In unit #10, along approximately 400 feet of stream channel (intermittent, non fish-bearing), approximately 25 trees within 30 to 100 feet of the stream channel would be harvested and cable yarded with partial suspension away from the channel. Trees would not be cable yarded across the stream channel. The log boles would be

III - 154 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences suspended off the ground, but a portion of the log and branches would drag across the ground, disturbing vegetation and soil. Because there would only be a small number of trees yarded away from approximately 400 feet of stream channel, and because there is thick ground cover (vegetation and woody debris) between harvest trees and the stream channel, increased sediment delivery to stream channels from erosion features is not expected to occur. Removal of trees that could become potential in channel LWD is warranted because tree stocking densities here are higher than historical, pre fire suppression conditions.

Unit #9 is buffered approximately 100 feet from a perennial stream, for approximately 400 feet, so increased sediment delivery to the stream channel from erosion features is not expected to occur.

All other harvest units are buffered at least 225 feet from perennial or intermittent, non fish-bearing stream channels, and at least 630 feet from fish bearing streams.

For the duration of the project (up to 5 years), construction of 3.83 miles of temporary logging roads will increase system road/OHV trail densities in the Naches mainstem watershed from 3.55 miles/sq. mile to 3.58 miles/sq. mile. Approximately 1.36 miles of OHV trail 697 will also be used for logging use. Closing these roads would incrementally decrease their potential for soil erosion after they are vegetated and properly drained with water bars. To prevent unauthorized use of temporary logging roads, they would be closed with a berm or barrier within one week after timber harvesting activity is complete for areas accessed by that road segment.

Ground disturbance from road construction/use, log skidding, yarding, and landing construction will cause soil disturbance, and increased potential for soil erosion. The proximity of ground disturbance to stream channels that connect to occupied fish habitat is an important factor in controlling indirect effects of sedimentation to fish species.

Most temporary road segments are within harvest units, and none are closer than 350 feet of stream channels. New temporary roads locations would have relatively gentle grades. Of the 3.83 miles of proposed temporary road, 1.97 miles would have average gradients from flat to 6 percent, and the remaining 1.86 miles would have average gradients between 6 percent and 9 percent. Temporary road location on slopes greater than 10 percent is generally avoided. By locating temporary roads on relatively gentle terrain, and maintaining undisturbed buffers between stream channels and harvest units, landings, and temporary logging roads, no increased sediment delivery to stream channels (indirect effect) is expected.

Areas prescribed for understory fire are largely buffered from perennial streams by a least 100 feet. Burn prescriptions within Riparian Reserves are designed to achieve fire severity to be low for 90 percent of the area, and no more than 10 percent resulting in a moderate fire severity. Handline constructed fire control lines are rarely used, and if so, handline construction stops within 100 feet of stream channels. Black lining (fire), natural barriers, and roads are the most commonly use control measures, and most preferred to minimize ground disturbance. By implementing these conservation measures, sediment delivery to perennial streams in the project area from prescribed understory fire is expected to be negligible.

Sedimentation and turbidity would not be affected from water drafting because alteration of the stream channel for water pumping is not proposed.

Effects to Instream Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients Concentrations of inorganic nutrients (e.g., Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, and Calcium) in streams may increase after logging, but usually by moderate amounts and for short periods. The mobilization of nutrients is tempered by their adsorption onto soil particles and by their uptake by microorganisms that decompose stream

III - 155 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences detritus (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Likewise, 5 to 10 fold increases in nutrient releases after slash burning have shown rapid returns to earlier levels. The mobilization of nutrients is tempered by their adsorption onto soil particles and by their uptake by microorganisms that decompose stream detritus (Chamberlin et al., 1991). This reference did not specify the proximity of harvest/burning treatments to streams, or size of stream buffers, if any. Implementing riparian buffer BMP’s should prevent any measurable adverse affects to instream dissolved oxygen levels. Stream buffers as proposed should effectively filter and catch fine organic debris from reaching stream channels. No adverse affects would occur from pre-commercial thinning, hand pile burning, or landscape understory burning because of rationale discussed under stream sedimentation.

-Road Closure and Decommissioning

Approximately 4.71 miles of system roads (4.48 miles in Rattlesnake Creek, and 0.23 miles in Naches mainstem watersheds) would be decommissioned within the Glass Angel project area. System road and system OHV trail densities in the Naches mainstem watershed would remain at 3.55 miles/square mile. System road and system OHV trail densities in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed would decrease from 0.96 miles/square mile to 0.93 miles/square mile. This would reduce the long term risk of chronic sedimentation from road surface erosion (Madej, 2001), although it can increase sediment delivery for one or more years following treatment (Macdonald, et al., 2003; Switalski et al., 2004). Indirect effects will diminish after vegetation stabilizes disturbed soils, likely within two growing seasons following the road decommissioning.

During road decommissioning, culverts and road fill would be removed from two fish bearing streams (forks of Three Creeks Creek), and one culvert on Devil Canyon, a non fish-bearing stream. Stream shade would be directly reduced at each crossing because existing trees on road fill would be removed. Because each culvert removal site would reduce shading on only 40-60 feet of stream channel, effects to stream temperature in Three Creeks Creek is expected to be negligible. Over time (15-25 years), tree growth would gradually provide stream shading along the re-contoured streambanks. Short term direct and indirect turbidity and sedimentation effects to fish and aquatic habitat would occur from in-channel work during culvert removal in Three Creeks, and would be similar as described for the 1605 simple ford re-construction. During culvert removal, unavoidable short term direct effects to fish habitat in Three Creeks Creek from increased turbidity and sedimentation would occur. In the long term, the risk of large scale sediment delivery from potential culvert failure/washouts would be eliminated. The natural open channel width would be increased and the stream valley form would be restored when culverts and road fill are removed.

Indirect sedimentation from the re-contoured streambanks should decrease as re-vegetation occurs, likely within two growing seasons. All disturbed soils and re-contoured streambanks would be seeded with native vegetation. Erosion control blankets or filter logs would be secured to re-contoured streambanks. Tree limbs, branches, and straw will be scattered on the re-contoured streambanks to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation into stream channels.

Fish passage would be restored to approximately 1.0 mile of fish habitat within two forks of Three Creeks Creek, by removing two culvert barriers (1506-184 road). This would directly benefit native cutthroat trout by restoring unimpeded migration passage.

Closing (storage) of 4.42 miles of roads to motor vehicle use should reduce chronic surface sediment erosion within the project area, by improving water drainage, eliminating motorized use. Reid and Dunne (1984) found that heavily used roads generated 130 times more sediment than abandoned (closed) roads. Approximately 3.74 miles of system road in the Naches mainstem watershed, and approximately 0.68 miles in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed would be closed.

III - 156 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

-Invasive Plant Species Management Invasive Plant Treatments: General Discussion of Potential Treatment Effects Although the objective of invasive plant control is to improve conditions for native vegetation and thus improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions, there is the potential for impacts due to the treatment methods themselves. If implementation of manual and mechanical treatment techniques cause bare soil conditions, accelerated erosion may occur. Bare soils also provide a seed bed conducive to re-invasion by weeds. Cumulative increase in soil erosion and potential increase in sediment delivery to aquatic habitats due to manual or mechanical weed control treatments are expected to be minor, as re-vegetation actions are expected to be 90 percent effective.

Manual Treatments Hand pulling of weeds could result in some soil disturbance due to loss of root structure. For a measurable amount of sediment to reach a stream due to hand pulling, large areas dominated by weeds would need to be treated adjacent to a stream, otherwise the non-target vegetation would provide a filtering buffer. Noxious weeds, especially knapweed, are not effective in preventing soil erosion, so areas that are dominated by noxious weeds are likely affected by accelerated erosion already. Handpulling at sites extensive enough to create erosion problems would have cultural treatment to prevent re-invasion of weeds so overall there should be no increase in erosion or sediment delivery to streams.

Mechanical Treatments Mowing weeds with weed whackers or road equipment is not expected to cause adverse impacts to water quality or fish habitat. Mowing would only occur at sites with vehicle access such as road right-of-ways. Mowing is used to slow the spread of weeds until a treatment to eradicate the weeds occurs. Mowing does not kill the plants, but is used to reduce or prevent seed formation that year. Since the plants are not killed, no loss of root strength or increased potential for soil erosion is expected. Streambanks would not be mowed. There should be little if any potential accelerated sediment delivery to streams from mowing.

Cultural Methods Cultural treatments would consist of vegetative plantings of native and non-native species to prevent the spread or establishment of invasive plant species. Seeding or planting is used to hasten recovery of native or other desired vegetation. Seeding and planting would occur in early spring or late fall with adequate soil moisture conditions. Seeding and planting should have no adverse impact on water quality or fish habitat.

Chemical Treatments Herbicides used to control terrestrial invasive plants can enter water through spray drift, surface water runoff, percolation, groundwater contamination, and direct application contact. Standards #18 through #20 in the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plants Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, 2005), are designed to minimize or avoid water contamination from herbicides (refer to invasive species section in this EA).

Herbicide drift is one of the mechanisms of herbicide movement when applied as a spray. Drift or off-target movement can result in unintended injury to native plant species, contamination of surface waters, and contamination of ecologically sensitive areas. Drift occurs when fine droplets of liquid herbicide become windborne and are transported to adjacent areas. The spray droplets can be subsequently deposited on surface waters that either contain aquatic species or serve as runoff conduits to water containing aquatic species.

III - 157 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Drift associated with backpack spray applicators is likely to be low although studies quantitatively assessing drift after backpack applications are not available. Application pressure, nozzle size, nozzle type, spray angle, and spray volume are all factors in determining droplet size. The risk of direct effects from herbicide treatment is expected to be limited to off-site drift from spray applications (boom, backpack). Standard #20 will reduce the risk of surface water contamination from spray drift (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Herbicides can potentially enter streams and other water bodies through water transported by runoff, leaching, or percolation. Water contamination from rain events could transport chemicals to waterways, and convey them to aquatic species habitat. Soil type and chemical stability, solubility, and toxicity can determine the extent to which an herbicide will migrate and impact surface waters and groundwater. Picloram is highly soluble and readily leaches through sandy soil. It is also resistant to biotic and abiotic degradation processes. It can also move from target plants, through roots, down into the soil, and into nearby non-target plants. Given this capability, Standard #19, and project design criteria helps protect riparian vegetation when using picloram by prescribing treatment buffers. Picloram will not be used within 100 feet of streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands and in areas with high water tables, so effects from leaching will be minimized by avoidance of sandy and coarse textured soils. Although very soluble, Glyphosate binds well with organic matter in soils and is not easily leached. Both picloram and Glyphosate are susceptible to transport in surface runoff, especially if applications are followed immediately by heavy rainfall (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Herbicides may be toxic to aquatic plants and invertebrates, thus indirectly affecting fish by reducing primary production or the trophic structure of invertebrate communities. Low concentrations of herbicides can affect benthic algae communities. The variation in toxicity to aquatic organisms between different formulations for the same herbicide can be substantial (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments modeled exposures for herbicides proposed for use in Region 6. The risk assessments model the amount of chemical that can reach water under several different scenarios, then compares results to existing monitoring data to check model accuracy. Acute and chronic exposures to representatives of the aquatic community were evaluated. These exposure scenarios include herbicide entering water through erosion, run off and/or drift. Glyphosate resulted in predicted concentrations greater than the estimated or measured ‘no observable effect concentration’ (NOEC) only at the highest allowable application rate and only for fish (acute exposures), and picloram resulted in predicted concentrations greater than the estimated or measured NOEC only at the highest allowable application rate and only for aquatic plants (acute exposures). Both Glyphosate and picloram resulted in predicted concentrations less than the estimated or measured NOEC at the typical application rates (acute and chronic exposures) for all representatives of the aquatic community (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

While the amount of herbicides expected to reach water is expected to be very low under the proposed action, it cannot be concluded with certainty that no chemicals will potentially reach streams with aquatic organisms. Toxic levels for algae and vascular plants may be of concern because they form a food supply, habitat, or both for aquatic organisms, including fish. Using appropriate application rates, timing and application techniques of herbicides should have minimal impact on aquatic plant populations. Effects can be avoided through adherence to Standards #16 and #18-#20 (refer to invasive species section in this EA).

Most direct effects on fish and aquatic invertebrates would likely be from sub-lethal herbicide effects, rather than from direct mortality as a result of herbicide exposure. It is unlikely that the use of the proposed herbicides would cause fish mortalities at the concentrations of the active ingredients likely to occur in water. Fish mortality is not likely from operational use because dilution, degradation, adsorption and other factors reduce the amount of herbicide that could enter a water body. In rare circumstances, higher concentrations of

III - 158 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences herbicides could wash into stream from heavy rainfall immediately after application along road ditches or other surfaces that rapidly generate overland flows. This is unlikely to occur because herbicides will only be applied to individual plants within 100 feet of water (no broadcast spraying). In the case of accidental spill near water, localized fish kills are plausible in small tributary streams or small water bodies where contaminated flows would not be readily diluted (USDA Forest Service, 2005). This also is very unlikely by implementing the specific BMP’s and design criteria for herbicide application (refer to invasive species section in this EA).

Glyphosate is relatively non-toxic to fish. Because of project design criteria, including focused herbicide application by wiping/wicking only (no spraying) on individual plants within 50 feet of water, the likelihood of chemicals reaching streams is very low. Only an aquic formulation of glyphosate that is EPA approved for use near water will be used within 100 feet of standing or running water.

Effects of surfactants to aquatic species have received some study. In general, aquatic species are more susceptible to adverse effects from surfactants than terrestrial species. At least some of the aquatic sensitivity to surfactants is due to irritation of gill membranes and alteration of their permeability and molecular exchange properties. Concern has been expressed about the potential for surfactants increasing the movement of other harmful materials, such as pesticides, into soils. Herbicide mobility can be increased by the use of surfactants, but effects to mobility are unlikely due to the relatively low concentration of surfactants in the soil/water matrix at Forest Service application rates. Forest Service use of surfactants is not likely to reach levels of concern for estrogenic effects to fish (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Only Agri-Dex surfactant will be used with glyphosate and picloram.

Monsanto conducted aquatic toxicity studies on surfactants recommended for use with glyphosate (SERA, 1997). For Agri-Dex, the 50 percent lethal concentration dose is rated at >1000 mg/L (LC-50 at 96 hour exposure), and the No Observable Effect Concentration (NOEC, 1/20th LC-50) is rated at 50 mg/L. By comparison, the NOEC of glyphosate is rated at 0.5 mg/L. Agri-Dex would be considered practically nontoxic to both fish and invertebrates.

-1605 Road Simple Ford Reconstruction

No direct effect to water temperature would occur from reconstruction of the 1605 simple ford because the only one sapling sized alder would need to be removed. During construction, unavoidable short term direct effects to fish habitat (cutthroat trout) would occur in Nile Creek from increased turbidity and sedimentation. Construction within the stream channel is required to place additional flat boulders to widen the crossing area. Several short term pulses of turbidity (2-3 hours or less) are expected to occur when the stream is diverted with coffer dams to dewater work areas. Short-term turbidity pulses will also occur when streamflow is re-directed through the completed construction area. Direct effects to cutthroat trout during construction will be minimized by salvaging and removing fish from the dewatering/construction sites prior to work. Fish below the construction site would be able to avoid short-term turbidity by seeking channel margin areas. Indirectly, a secondary pulse of sedimentation and turbidity may occur during the first major storm event or snowmelt period following construction. During the first high flow event, sediment and turbidity effects to fish downstream would be diluted with higher streamflow, and of short duration (1-2 hours) until streambanks adjacent to the low water crossing stabilize.

After construction is complete, chronic direct effects to cutthroat trout (potential injury or death from crushing) would continue to occur at the 1605 road ford of Nile Creek, because vehicles would continue to drive through the stream channel that may be occupied by fish. Chronic, direct, short term effects to water turbidity would also continue when vehicles drive through the stream, because fine sediment within the bankfull channel of Nile

III - 159 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Creek would be dislodged into the water column. Chronic turbidity effects are not expected to be visible for more than ¼ mile downstream, or last longer than 5 minutes after each vehicle crossing occurrence. Chronic direct effects to cutthroat trout (crushing) and turbidity, will remain similar to current conditions.

Currently there is an eroding road cut bank on the south approach to the ford that is over 50 feet long and 50 feet high. Sloughed soil and sediment from the cut bank has filled the ditch line and buried cross drain culverts. Because of non-functioning road drainage features, the 1605 road channels runoff and sediment from outside the bankfull channel directly into Nile Creek during storm events. During construction to improve the 1605 simple ford, the approaches to the ford will be improved with additional drainage features, including cross drains, drain dips, and additional surface hardening immediately adjacent to the stream channel crossing. Improving water drainage of the 1605 road will re-direct water runoff through forest vegetation, and reduce storm runoff delivery to Nile Creek. Reducing sediment delivery to Nile Creek through improvement of the 1605 road approaches to the crossing is expected to directly reduce sedimentation to Nile Creek (from outside bankfull channel), and would offset short term sediment and turbidity effects (from within the bankfull channel) expected from the 2-3 seasons of logging traffic through the simple ford, and existing recreational traffic use, in the long term.

- Trail 697 Reroute/Trail 665 Stream Ford Improvement

No direct effects to fish populations are expected, because no actions would occur in proximity to fish-bearing streams. Partial restoration of montane meadow water storage capacity would occur, as only the east-to-west portion of Trail 697 in the meadow would be decommissioned, and re-located inside the tree line north of the meadow. The north-to-south portion of Trail 697 would still bisect the meadow at its current location. Because of the current steepness and deeply rutted condition of the trail, rehabilitating the trail to effectively eliminate interception of ground water flows would be difficult to achieve, especially with continued trail use during wet conditions. Opportunity to restore a smaller mesic meadow (2 acres) south of main meadow by decommissioning OHV trail 697 would be foregone or deferred. This meadow stays wet into summer, and currently has reduced water storage capacity because of OHV trail rutting and braiding. Potential for improved streamflows in Glass Creek would be less than expected to occur under Adaptive Management.

Constructing an OHV bridge at the 665 trail ford of Glass Creek will improve water quality by eliminating chronic, short term turbidity effects from OHV traffic crossing the stream, and by improving streambank stability. This portion of Glass Creek is non fish-bearing.

-Trail 697 Reroute (Adaptive Management)

No direct effects to any fish populations are expected, because no actions would occur in proximity to fish- bearing streams. Restoring water storage capacity within the 38 acre mesic meadow, and another two acre meadow to the south, through decommissioning and re-vegetating system OHV trails and un-authorized roads within the meadows, could slightly increase base stream flow in Glass Creek by slowing water run-off from these large meadows and increasing ground water retention. Moderating the range between peak and base flows could indirectly benefit fish bearing stream reaches downstream by increasing base flow habitat availability. Relocating the 697 trail completely around the large mesic meadow would increase system OHV trail miles in

III - 160 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences the Naches mainstem watershed by approximately 0.85 miles. Total system road and system OHV trail road densities in the Naches mainstem watershed would remain at 3.55 miles/square mile.

Effects on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook and coho salmon, and ESA listed fish species and Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout

No Action The effects to listed fish species, critical habitat, and EFH from implementing no action are similar to the no action effects discussion above.

Proposed Action -Commercial Timber Harvest/Temporary Logging Roads, Non-Commercial Tree Thinning, Prescribed Fire Treatments, Invasive Plant Management, and Water Drafting for Dust Abatement

Implementing Soil, Water and Aquatic/Riparian Resources design criteria would be adequate to avoid potential adverse effects to designated EFH, threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, and Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout. A primary design criteria element is to leave adequate undisturbed buffers between stream channels and harvest areas, landings and temporary road locations. Rashin (2006), found that stream buffers are most effective where timber falling and yarding activities are kept at least 10 meters from streams and outside of steep inner gorge areas, and also reported that this minimum buffer for ground disturbance can be expected to prevent sediment delivery to streams from about 95 percent of harvest related erosion features. These activities are “not likely to adversely affect” listed fish species, critical habitat, or EFH because of rationale discussed under the proposed action, fish habitat environmental consequences.

Prescribed fire lighting for landscape underburning in the Glass and Angel treatment areas will not be initiated within 100 feet of streams, but fire will not be suppressed if it backs into riparian areas. This activity is “not likely to adversely affect” listed fish species, critical habitat, or EFH because of rationale discussed under the proposed action, fish habitat environmental consequences.

Invasive plant species control would be limited to applying the aquic formulation of glyphosate within 100 feet of streams or water. Within 50 to 100 feet of streams or standing water, only spot spraying of individual plants is permitted, and within 50 feet of streams and water, and only wicking and wiping of herbicide onto individual plants is permitted. Picloram use would be allowed only at sites greater than 100 feet from streams and water. This activity is “not likely to adversely affect” listed fish species, critical habitat, or EFH because of rationale discussed under the proposed action, fish habitat environmental consequences.

By following project design criteria and BMP’s, implementation of the proposed vegetation management actions in both treatment areas have been determined “not likely to adversely affect” threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout, and EFH for Chinook and coho salmon.

By following project design criteria, proposed water drafting from streams with listed fish has been determined “not likely to adversely affect” threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout, and EFH for Chinook and coho salmon because: stranding of juvenile fish would not occur because no more than 10 percent of a streams instantaneous flow

III - 161 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences would be diverted; water temperatures would not be affected; and no streambed alterations for water drafting would occur.

-Road Closure and Decommissioning

Road decommissioning would cause short-term turbidity and sedimentation effects within Three Creeks Creek at RM 2.5 during removal of two culverts and road fill. Known steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, and bull trout foraging distribution in Rattlesnake Creek is approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the construction site, and not considered in proximity to construction areas potentially affected by short term direct, or short term, chronic indirect effects. Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and bull trout is approximately 2.5 miles downstream in Rattlesnake Creek.

Because the effects are short term in duration, and of negligible magnitude, these actions have been determined “not likely to adversely affect” threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout, and EFH for Chinook and coho salmon.

-1605 Road Simple Ford Reconstruction

This action would cause short-term turbidity and sedimentation effects within Nile Creek at RM 10. Known steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, and bull trout foraging distribution in Nile Creek is approximately 5.0 miles downstream of the construction site, and not considered in proximity to areas adversely affected by short term direct, or short term, chronic indirect effects. Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead in Nile Creek is approximately 1.5 miles downstream at the confluence with Glass Creek, and bull trout critical habitat is approximately 10 miles downstream in the Naches River. Because the effects are short term in duration, and of negligible magnitude, this action has been determined “not likely to adversely affect” threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout, and EFH for Chinook and coho salmon.

- Trail 697 Reroute/Trail 665 Stream Ford Improvement

OHV Trail 697 decommissioning and relocation (construction) within the 38 acre montane meadow, and OHV trail 665 stream ford improvement actions are not in proximity to special status fish species. Known steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, and bull trout foraging distribution in Nile Creek is approximately 6 miles downstream. The proposed 665 OHV trail bridge on Glass Creek is approximately 4 miles upstream of MCR steelhead Designated Critical Habitat, and approximately 12.5 miles upstream of bull trout Designated Critical Habitat in the Naches River. Therefore, these actions will have “no effect” to threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout, and EFH for Chinook and coho salmon.

Relocating a 150 feet segment of OHV trail 697 out of the floodplain of Nile Creek will indirectly reduce sedimentation into Nile Creek because the trail segment will be more resistant to flood water erosion after the decommissioned trail segment is re-vegetated in 2-3 years. The project is adjacent to MCR steelhead Designated Critical Habitat, and approximately 3.5 miles upstream of MCR steelhead spawning and rearing habitat and bull trout foraging habitat. The new trail segment will be located above the floodprone area. Therefore, this action is “not likely to adversely affect” threatened MCR steelhead, threatened Columbia River bull trout, Designated Critical Habitat for MCR steelhead and Columbia River bull trout, and EFH for Chinook and coho salmon.

III - 162 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects This analysis considers the Naches mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek 5th field watersheds as the cumulative effects area under analysis.

-Commercial Timber Harvest/Temporary Logging Roads, Non-Commercial Tree Thinning, Prescribed Fire Treatments, and Invasive Plant Management

The proposed action would continue to contribute incrementally to cumulative watershed effects in the Nile Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, mainstem Naches River drainages. Short term effects include soil compaction and soil erosion of upland forest habitat from timber harvesting, and construction and use of temporary logging roads and landings. However, localized soil erosion is expected to be effectively captured and contained within stream buffer areas, preventing sediment delivery to stream channels. These watershed effects occur across the project area and contribute cumulatively to other watershed disturbances, including high road/OHV trail densities (currently 3.55 miles/square mile in the Naches mainstem). Including non-system, user built roads, road densities overall are even higher in the watershed (4.12 miles/sq.mi.).

Reducing vegetative fuel loading across the project area should continue to move both 5th field watersheds towards a more natural fire regime, and reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire. Other National Forest projects (Nile, Canteen, and Rattle timber sales) in these 5th field watersheds and private logging (mostly in the Rock, Gold and Benton Creek drainages) have already reduced fuel loadings markedly. Future proposed watershed restoration projects in the Nile Creek drainage within 5-10 years would also seek to restore natural fire regime and vegetative structure at the landscape scale by commercial thinning, TSI, and prescribed underburning.

Adjacent private landowners, both within the Forest boundary as well as outside the boundary, have actively harvested timber within these watersheds, with significantly less protection to stream channels. Increase sediment delivery to streams from road crossings and soil disturbance near streams will continue on non-federal lands and conditions on these lands are expected to contribute cumulatively to impacts on riparian and aquatic health. State forest practices are the mechanism for addressing cumulative riparian and aquatic effects from logging on private lands.

Implementation of proposed action would reduce fuel loadings in the project area and would reduce the risk of stand replacement fire by thinning overstory trees on 517 acres through commercial timber harvest and underburning approximately 7,406 acres outside of commercial timber harvest units. TSI thinning (cutting trees <7’ diameter) would reduce fuel concentrations on approximately 400 acres outside of harvest units.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze control of invasive plants, which will propose the use a variety of chemical and non-chemical control measures. A wider variety of herbicides will be analyzed for use across the forest to control known and new populations of invasive plant species. The newer suite of chemicals will improve invasive plant control effectiveness, and provide a wider range of herbicides, which generally have lower toxicity to aquatic organisms than picloram and glyphosate, when used according to labeling. This in conjunction with treatments already approved in the Rattle, Canteen, and Gold Spring projects would lower the risk of indirect affects to fish species (chemical exposure, toxicity levels) because effective chemicals with reduced aquatic toxicity risk could be used in these watersheds.

-Road Closure and Decommissioning

III - 163 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Including the 4.87 miles of system road proposed for decommissioning within the Gold Spring Restoration project area, the additional 0.23 miles to be decommissioned in the Glass treatment area would reduce the cumulative system road/OHV trail densities in the Naches mainstem watershed to 3.5 miles/sq.mi within the next 5 years. More road decommissioning and road closures are likely to be proposed in the Naches mainstem as other treatment areas are analyzed in the Nile Creek drainage over the next 5-10 years.

Approximately 4.38 miles of system roads in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed is proposed for decommissioning. System road and system OHV trail densities in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed would decrease from 0.96 miles/sq.mi. to 0.93 miles/sq.mi. Additional miles of road decommissioning and road closures are likely to be proposed in this watershed over the next 5-10 years. This would reduce the long term risk of chronic sedimentation from road surface erosion.

-OHV Trail Management

Currently there are 25.4 miles of OHV trail in the Naches mainstem watershed, and 13.2 miles in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. Relocation of system trail segments (such as Trail #697 and #665) are typically proposed to improve watershed conditions when site specific portions of trail are found to be causing resource damage to riparian areas and sensitive habitats, causing adverse effects to listed fish or critical habitat or causing excessive soil erosion. In the next 5-10 years, additional short segments of trail would likely be proposed for relocation for these reasons, based on field reviews for future landscape restoration projects. Continued incremental improvement to riparian and sensitive habitats could reasonably be expected to occur in both watersheds. Improvements to segments of OHV trail #620, adjacent to Rattlesnake Creek, are proposed. Several stream fords of small perennial and intermittent stream channels on the #620 trail would be bridged. This work would reduce sediment delivery/turbidity effects to Rattlesnake Creek, and reduce chronic adverse affects (injury or death from vehicles fording fish bearing streams) to steelhead and cutthroat trout. This project is planned for implementation in 2012.

Wenatchee Forest Plan Consistency Findings (as Amended by the Northwest Forest Plan)

Implementation of BMP’s, stream buffers and other design criteria for the various components of the proposed action show consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy at the 5th field watershed scale. In the long term, aquatic habitat at the 5th field watershed scale could show improvement as the plant community aligns towards a more natural fire regime and fire frequency. Thinning of densely overstocked stands of young trees in Riparian Reserves will favor fire resistant trees, improving their growth rates, and eventually produce larger diameter stems. Larger, fire tolerant tree species, will eventually fall into stream channels and improve floodplain function and fish habitat.

The Best Management Practices (BMP's) referenced as design criteria in Appendix C should protect soil stability and water quality and would be included in the design and implementation of all action alternatives. By implementing BMP's across the project area, ACS objectives are expected to be attained at the project level and the 5th field watershed scale. BMP's have been designed to maintain riparian function, maintain water quality and soil productivity, and provide connectivity within and between watersheds for aquatic and riparian dependent species. Riparian Reserves as defined in the amended WFP have been identified for all types of streams in the project area. Harvest activities would be designed to meet the WFP standards for soil protection which require that soil disturbance shall not exceed 20 percent of the activity area (refer to page II -13, Item 11.). Standard operating procedures such as designating skid trail locations, limiting operating times to the drier season, and utilizing cable yarding systems on slopes greater than 35 percent would ensure that WFP standards

III - 164 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences would be met. Burning prescriptions for fuel treatments in commercial timber harvest units would be designed to meet WFP standards and guidelines for ground cover retention for erosion control (WFP Table IV-20, p. IV-97 and refer to page II-12 ). Underburning would also be conducted to meet these same WFP standards for effective ground cover.

No measurable changes to water temperatures in fish-bearing streams on National Forest is anticipated since no timber harvest would occur closer than 100 feet of any perennial streams. Therefore, post treatment shading levels are not expected to produce any measurable changes in stream temperatures from the project.

Riparian Reserve widths, from the Northwest Forest Plan, have been identified for all adjacent riparian sites. The minimum designated Riparian Reserve widths, for each side of streams, wetlands, and ponds would be as follows: 300 feet for fish-bearing streams, lakes and natural ponds, 150 feet for permanently flowing non fish- bearing streams, and 100 feet for seasonally flowing or intermittent streams and wetlands less than an acre. Active silvicultural programs will be necessary to restore large conifers in Riparian Reserves. Appropriate practices may include thinning densely stocked young stands to encourage development of large conifers.

Project actions including: commercial timber harvest; fuels treatment (small tree thinning and underburning); Forest Road 1605 ford re-construction; OHV trail relocation; trail/road decommissioning; and invasive plant treatments are proposed within Riparian Reserves. Proposed actions within Riparian Reserves would be evaluated on a project site scale and would be required to meet, or not prevent attainment of ACS objectives. Activities within Riparian Reserves must follow the standards and guidelines specified in the NWFP in order to attain ACS objectives.

Project Consistency With Riparian Reserves Standard and Guidelines (Applicable Standards and Guidelines are specifically discussed below)

Timber Management (TM-1) Project is consistent because silvicultural practices are proposed within Riparian Reserves to control stocking densities, and restore stand characteristics needed to attain ACS objectives.

Roads Management (RF-2) Project is consistent because no road construction is proposed in Riparian Reserves. (RF-3) Project is consistent because un-needed roads in Riparian Reserves would be decommissioned. (RF4/5/6) Project is consistent because road improvement at the 1605 ford, road decommissioning in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed would reduce hydrologic connection between roads and streams, reduce sediment delivery from roads to streams, and stream crossing barriers would be removed during road decommissioning. (RF-7) Project is consistent because a project roads analysis completed by the planning team drove road management proposals

Recreation Management (RM-2) Project is consistent because trail locations would be adjusted to improve hydrologic watershed function of montane meadow.

Fire/Fuels Management (FM-1, FM-4) Project is consistent because restoring the natural fire regime on the watershed scale, with low to moderate fire intensity within Riparian Reserves will contribute to the attainment of ACS objectives.

III - 165 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

General Riparian Area Management (RA-3) Project is consistent because of project design criteria, and Region 6 Invasive Species EIS Standards discussed in the EA. (RA-4) Project is consistent because drafting sites are located at hardened stream crossings, and no more than 10 percent of instantaneous stream flow would be drafted from fish bearing streams.

Watershed and Habitat Restoration (WR-1) Project is consistent because proposed OHV trail relocation and decommissioning will improve hydrologic function of montane meadows.

Project Consistency with the ACS Objectives

The NWFP identifies nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (NWFP, ROD) on page B-11 that need to be reviewed for each project. The following discussion states the objective, describes relevant existing conditions / effects and determines if the project would maintain the existing conditions or lead to improved conditions in the long-term (NWFP, ROD pg. B-10).

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

Aquatic systems and landscape scale processes in the Naches mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds have been altered by historic timber harvesting, fire suppression and ungulate grazing. Past timber harvest and fire suppression within the dry forest vegetation types has converted forest conditions from a structure and composition typical of high frequency, low intensity fire to over-stocked forest lands now subject to high intensity stand replacement fires.

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments Temporary roads proposed for use and decommissioning are not located within Riparian Reserves, so current conditions would be maintained. TSI thinning (<7” diameter trees) would occur on 23 acres of Riparian Reserves. Trees that provide shade within 25 feet of perennial streams would not be cut. Lighting for prescribed burning will occur outside of Riparian Reserves, and suppression action would be taken where appropriate to control fires that back into riparian areas. The natural fuel treatments are designed to maintain all the key riparian elements: temperature, shade, vegetation cover and composition and LWD while reducing the likelihood of a ground fire climbing into the riparian tree canopy. It is predicted that this project will maintain or improve the distribution, diversity and complexity of watershed and landscape features by moving conditions towards a more natural fire regime.

III - 166 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 ford will maintain or improve current aquatic habitat conditions in Nile Creek by reducing sediment delivery to Nile Creek. System roads/trails proposed for decommissioning have several crossings through Riparian Reserves, including fish bearing streams. Slight decreases in sediment delivery to stream channels from these roads would be expected in the long term. Decommissioning 4.71 miles of road, and restoring streambank valley slope by removing culverts and road fill at stream crossings would restore this objective slightly.

A landscape mesic meadow will be restored by the proposed action of adaptive management by improving water storage capacity from the current degraded condition. Adaptive management would restore the meadow fully by completely relocating all system OHV trails around sensitive meadow habitat. The proposed action would only partially restore hydrologic function in this 38 acre meadow, but would not restore another smaller two acre meadow to the south.

No projects are planned that would adversely alter channel confinement or stream bank conditions in the long term. No projects would adversely affect the input of large woody debris (LWD). There is not expected to be any mass wasting into streams as a result of proposed access and travel activities. All projects are expected to maintain (and restore) the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape features at the project and watershed scale.

2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds.

Connectivity within the Naches Mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds has been degraded by existing road crossings over streams and loss of floodplain connectivity.

All Proposed Actions Projects would improve spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds because two proposed culvert removals would eliminate fish passage barriers in Three Creeks Creek. There would be no reduction of fish habitat, side channel habitat or floodplains as a result of road management activities. Key habitat and refugia would not be altered because changes in Riparian Reserves would be avoided. This will restore fish passage and ensure it is unimpeded in the long term in these segments of the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. The primary objective of invasive plant management is to use prevention and control methods to restore native plant communities that have been ecologically degraded by the infestation and spread of undesirable invasive plants. Projects are expected to restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds.

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

Many stream segments within the Naches Mainstem watershed have reduced streambank stability due to various management effects, and the conditions of Riparian Reserves overall are not properly functioning. Conditions of Riparian Reserves in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed are functioning at risk.

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments Temporary roads proposed for use and decommissioning are not located within Riparian Reserves, so current conditions would be maintained. TSI thinning will not cut any trees that provide shade to perennial streams. Lighting for prescribed burning will occur outside of Riparian Reserves, and suppression action would be taken where appropriate to control fires that back into riparian areas. The natural fuel treatments are designed to

III - 167 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences maintain all the key riparian elements: temperature, shade, vegetation cover and LWD, while reducing the likelihood of a ground fire climbing into the riparian tree canopy. It is predicted that this project will maintain or improve the physical integrity of streambanks by moving conditions towards a more natural fire regime, and improving the vigor and tree growth rate of conifers in the project area.

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford would maintain this objective, and would increase streambank stability by hardening the ford. System roads/trails proposed for decommissioning have several crossings through Riparian Reserves. Decommissioning 4.71 miles of system road would remove culverts and road fill from three stream crossings. This would restore streambank valley form. Streambank stability would be reduced in the short term until streambank vegetation fills in within 1-2 years. Decreasing sedimentation from these roads to streams is expected at the site scale in the long term.

The proposed action and adaptive management action would maintain or slightly restore this objective, because trail 697 relocation routes are largely outside of Riparian Reserves. A new 8 feet wide trail bridge would be constructed on a small perennial stream under adaptive management. In both alternatives, the Trail 665 stream ford on Glass Creek would be upgraded with a 8 feet wide jeep trail bridge. This would restore riparian conditions and streambank conditions.

No projects are planned that would adversely alter channel confinement or stream bank conditions at the watershed scale. No projects would adversely affect the input of LWD at the watershed scale. Projects are expected to maintain or slightly restore this objective at the site scale and watershed scale in the long term by decommissioning roads within Riparian Reserves, removing three stream crossings permanently, and upgrading a perennial stream ford with a trail bridge crossing. This would maintain and slightly restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations at the project and watershed scale.

4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems.

Both watersheds are considered not properly functioning regarding stream temperatures within steelhead rearing reaches.

III - 168 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments No projects are planned that would degrade water quality. Ccommercial timber harvest closer than 100 feet of perennial streams should have no effect to water temperatures. Trees to be harvested are fire intolerant species, which have increased in stocking rates because of fire suppression over the last century. Natural fuels treatments would reduce tree density by thinning out the small trees in the understory and providing more opportunity for retention of larger trees as future LWD.

Small diameter tree thinning projects are prescribed to remain outside of true riparian areas. TSI thinning will not cut any trees that provide shade within 25 feet of perennial streams. Lighting for prescribed burning will occur outside of Riparian Reserves, and suppression action would be taken where appropriate to control fires that back into riparian areas. Projects are expected to maintain water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems at the project and watershed scale.

Invasive Plant Management The primary objective of invasive plant management is to use prevention and control methods to restore native plant communities that have been ecologically degraded by the infestation and spread of undesirable invasive plants. Many invasive plant species that are found along roads or streambanks lack the fibrous root system of native grasses and forbs. Re-establishing native species after invasive plants are controlled should improve streambank conditions, and reduce erosion/sedimentation from road shoulders and fill slopes. This should result in less sedimentation reaching stream channels from road ditches and cross drains. By combining manual and mechanical control with cultural control (seeding/planting desirable vegetation), this project will maintain or restore this objective at the site scale and watershed scale. By implementing project design criteria, chemical control of invasive plants will maintain or restore this objective at the site scale, and watershed scale. Risk of herbicide drift from backpack or boom spray applicators will be minimized by not spraying when wind speeds exceed five miles per hour. Because Picloram is highly soluble and readily leaches through sandy soils (which are most commonly located in floodplain areas), it will not be used within 100 feet of standing or flowing waters. In riparian habitat or within 100 feet of water, only the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) will be applied to individual plants (no broadcast spraying), and herbicides will not be applied when rain is probable within 24 hours (to prevent higher concentrations of herbicide delivery to streams). Herbicide application within 50 feet of water will only occur by wicking or wiping individual plants (to prevent chemical drift from reaching water sources). Within the 50-100 buffer of water sources, wicking, wiping, and backpack spraying on individual plants will be implemented. The proposed projects are expected to maintain water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems at the project and watershed scale.

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford would have negligible effect to stream shade in Nile Creek, because only one sapling alder would need to be removed to widen the crossing structure. Decommissioning 4.71 miles of system road would remove culverts and road fill at two perennial fish bearing stream crossings (Three Creeks), and at one intermittent, non fish-bearing stream crossing (Devil Canyon). This would permanently restore fish passage and stream valley form, and initiate restoration of streambank vegetation where road fill was removed. Streambank stability but would be reduce in the short term until revegetation occurs. Stream shade at the decommissioned crossings would initially be reduced, but would improve in the long term (15-25 years) after conifer reproduction starts to form canopy cover on the streambanks. Because each culvert removal site would reduce shading on only 40-60 feet of stream channel, effects to stream temperature in Three Creeks Creek is expected to be negligible.

III - 169 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences stream (697 trail reroute bridge construction) would have negligible effects to water temperature. Projects are expected to maintain water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems at the project and watershed scale.

5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems were formed.

Limited fine sediment monitoring has occurred in the Naches mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds. Two reaches (24 core samples) were monitored in Nile Creek in 2009 using the McNeil core sampling method. Overall, the Nile Creek samples had 13.7 percent fines (<0.85 mm). The watershed is judged to be functioning at risk based on the limited monitoring data, combined with high road densities, past land management such as timber harvest, exposed banks and the natural soil and geomorphic conditions.

In Rattlesnake Creek, one reach in 1997 (12 core samples), and two reaches in 2002 (24 core samples), were monitored using the McNeil core sampling method. Overall, the samples had 10.9 percent fines (<0.85 mm) in 1997 and 11.1 percent fines (<0.85 mm) in 2002. Overall the watershed is functioning at risk, because of high road densities outside of wilderness areas, limited monitoring data, and extensive forest management and road development in the lower Rattlesnake, Little Rattlesnake, Three Creeks, and lower North Fork Rattlesnake Creek drainages.

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments Timber harvest activity is not expected to increase sediment delivery to stream channels. With the exception of unit #10 (30 feet buffer along 400 feet of stream channel), and unit #9 (100 feet buffer along 400 feet of stream channel) timber harvest units are located no closer than 225 feet of non fish-bearing streams, and no closer than 630 feet from fish-bearing streams. A recent BMP effectiveness field study (Rashin, 2006) showed that no harvest buffers as narrow as 10 meters (33 feet) were 95 percent effective in intercepting and filtering sediment from upslope erosion features caused by timber harvest activities. In unit #10, along approximately 400 feet of stream channel (non fish-bearing), approximately 25 trees within 30 to 100 feet of the stream channel would be harvested and cable yarded with partial suspension away from the channel. Trees would not be cable yarded across the stream channel. The log boles would be suspended off the ground, but a portion of the log and branches would drag across the ground, disturbing vegetation and soil. Because there would only be a small number of trees yarded away from approximately 400 feet of stream channel, and because there is thick ground cover (vegetation and woody debris) between harvest trees and the stream channel, and because proposed buffers on the vast majority of harvest units area are generally 4-10 times wider than the width discussed in the study, increased sediment delivery to stream channels from erosion features is expected to be negligible.

No projects would adversely affect the input of LWD. Natural fuels treatments would reduce tree density by thinning out the small trees in the understory and providing more opportunity for retention of larger trees as future LWD.

Fuels reduction projects are prescribed to remain outside of true riparian areas. Lighting for prescribed burning will occur outside of Riparian Reserves, and suppression action would be taken where appropriate to control fires that back into riparian areas. This project element is expected to maintain the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems were formed at the project and watershed scale.

III - 170 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences plants. Many invasive plant species that are found along roads or streambanks lack the fibrous root system of native grasses and forbs. Re-establishing native species after invasive plants are controlled should improve streambank conditions, and reduce erosion/sedimentation from road shoulders and fill slopes. This should result in less sedimentation reaching stream channels from road ditches and cross drains. This project element is expected to maintain or restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems were formed.

Travel and Access Management Actions During simple ford re-construction, unavoidable site scale, short term turbidity and sedimentation would occur in Nile Creek. Several short term pulses of turbidity (2-3 hours or less) and sediment mobilization are expected to occur when the stream is diverted with a coffer dam to dewater work areas, and then re-water the hardened ford. A secondary pulse of sedimentation and turbidity may occur during the first major storm event or snowmelt period following construction. During the first high flow event, sediment and turbidity effects to fish downstream would be diluted with higher streamflow, and of short duration (1-2 hours) until streambanks adjacent to the low water crossing stabilize. After construction is complete, chronic site scale effects to turbidity and sedimentation, and potential direct effects to fish individuals (potential injury or death from crushing) would continue to occur at the 1605 road ford of Nile Creek similar to the existing condition, because vehicles would continue to drive through the stream channel that may be occupied by cutthroat trout. Chronic, direct, short term effects to water turbidity would also continue when vehicles drive through the stream, when fine sediments are dislodged into the stream. Construction of additional drainage structures at the base of a large road cut (south side of the ford) would reduce potential sediment delivery to Nile Creek. This project element is expected to maintain or restore the sediment regime at the watershed scale under which aquatic ecosystems were formed, after a short term (construction) site scale degrade.

Decommissioning 4.71 miles of system road would remove culverts and road fill at two perennial fish bearing stream crossings (Three Creeks), and at one intermittent, non fish-bearing stream (Devil Canyon) crossing. This would cause unavoidable short term turbidity and sedimentation effects at the site scale, during culvert removal, and during the first high flow event after. This would permanently restore fish passage and stream valley form, and initiate restoration of streambank vegetation where road fill was removed. Road decommissioning should reduce the long term probability of sediment supply from road surface erosion, although it can increase sediment delivery for one or more years following treatment. Streambank stability but would be reduced in the short term until revegetation occurs. This project element is expected to restore the sediment regime at the watershed scale under which aquatic ecosystems were formed, after a short term (construction) site scale degrade.

The proposed action and adaptive management action would maintain this objective, because trail 697 relocation routes are largely outside of Riparian Reserves, and minor tree canopy reduction at a perennial stream (697 trail adaptive management trail bridge action) would cause no effects to turbidity and sediment delivery to Glass Creek. Bridging the trail 665 ford on Glass Creek will reduce chronic turbidity and sedimentation effects to the stream. Relocating the 697 trail out of sensitive montane meadow habitats could also reduce sediment delivery to stream channels.

The natural sediment regime is expected to be degraded in the short term at the project scale, but maintained and restored in the long term at the watershed scale by implementing the design criteria and BMP’s discussed in Chapter II and decommissioning system roads.

6. Maintain and restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient and wood routing.

III - 171 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Timber harvest has occurred extensively across the Naches Mainstem watershed. Seventy two percent of the public forested lands have had some level of harvest since the 1950’s (USDA, 1995). This does not include timber harvest on private land, or harvest on public land prior to 1950, so is an underestimate of the total area harvested. Harvested areas from 20 or more years past however are likely reforested to the extent that canopy closures have recovered, and no longer exhibit snow retention/melt patterns like clear cut areas. The watershed is functioning at risk.

A large montane meadow is located in the upper Glass Creek drainage. This 38 acre mesic meadow is degraded by approximately 0.75 miles of system jeep trail 697, which follows the partial length of meadow, than bisects straight across it, and approximately 0.6 miles of un-authorized jeep trail which follows the remaining length of the meadow, with branching segments of trail. Groundwater within the meadow is being intercepted within the deep ruts of the system trail and un-authorized trails, accelerating and concentrating surface water runoff. Groundwater interception and accelerated runoff from this landscape sized meadow may be elevating peak stream flows and decreasing base flows in the Nile Creek drainage because of degraded water storage capacity.

Hydrograph data for the Rattlesnake Creek watershed is minimal, but approximately 56 percent of the watershed is within wilderness. Three Creeks meadow, Coral Meadow, and Soda Springs Meadow areas are degraded due to compaction, which has reduced their water storage capacity, which will affect peak/base flows. Some soil rehabilitation work (disc and seed) was completed in Coral and Soda Springs Meadows in the past to reduce compaction caused by historic domestic grazing, but dispersed recreation is currently causing compaction problems. The watershed is functioning at risk.

Vegetation, Fuels, and Invasive Plant Treatments To avoid measurable project effects to peak/base flows, the decrease in area weighted percent canopy closure (from timber harvest) would not exceed 25 percent in an individual 6th field watershed. Over the entire Nile Creek watershed, canopy closure would decrease about 1 percent. Any potential changes in hydrologic flow regimes are not expected to exceed the current margin of error in streamflow measuring techniques (5-10 percent). Canopy closure would not be affected by invasive plant management.

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford would not affect this objective. In the long term (15-25 years), the decommissioning of 4.71 miles of system road in the project area should move peak/base flow timing towards restoration, when canopy cover is re-established on the obliterated road segments.

Proposed restoration of montane meadow water storage capacity would occur, but at a reduced scale, as only 0.2 miles of the 0.55 miles of trail in severe erosion hazard soils within the meadow (the east-to-west portion of Trail 697 in the meadow) would be decommissioned, and re-located onto low erosion hazard soils north of the meadow. The north-to-south portion of Trail 697 would still bisect the meadow at its current location. Because of the current steepness and deeply rutted condition of the trail, rehabilitating the trail to effectively eliminate interception of ground water flows would be difficult to achieve, especially with continued trail use during wet conditions. Opportunity to restore a smaller mesic meadow (2 acres) south of main meadow by decommissioning OHV trail 697 would be foregone. This meadow stays wet into summer, and currently has reduced water storage capacity because of OHV trail rutting and braiding. Potential for improved streamflows in Glass Creek would be less than expected under adaptive management action.

Under adaptive management action restoring water storage capacity within the 38 acre mesic meadow, and another two acre meadow to the south, through decommissioning and re-vegetating system OHV trails and unauthorized roads within the meadows, could slightly improve stream flows in Glass Creek by slowing water run-

III - 172 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences off from these large meadows and increasing ground water retention. Obliterating 0.75 miles of OHV trail 697 (0.55 miles in severe erosion hazard soils, 0.2 miles in low erosion hazard soils) and relocating the trail completely around the large mesic meadow onto low erosion hazard soils would improve water storage capacity within meadow habitats.

Projects are expected to maintain or slightly restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of nutrient and wood routing at the watershed scale.

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

Vegetation, Fuels, and Invasive Plant Treatments Forest thinning in the vicinity of the large mesic meadow is proposed to increase groundwater availability to montane meadow plant communities. Approximately one acre of forest thinning would occur on the outer Riparian Reserve buffer of wetland habitat within this mesic meadow.

Fuels reduction projects are prescribed to remain outside of true riparian areas. Lighting for prescribed burning will occur outside of Riparian Reserves, and suppression action would be taken where appropriate to control fires that back into riparian areas. Invasive plant management would be implemented to control the invasion of shallow rooted species into meadows. This would maintain or slightly restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands at the project and watershed scale.

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford, and road decommissioning would not affect this objective because these sites are not located adjacent to wetlands or meadows.

Under adaptive management action, restoring water storage capacity within the 38 acre mesic meadow, and another two acre meadow to the south, through decommissioning and re-vegetating system OHV trails and unauthorized roads within the meadows, could slightly improve stream flows in Glass Creek by slowing water runoff from these large meadows and increasing ground water retention. Obliterating 0.75 miles of OHV trail 697 (0.55 miles in severe erosion hazard soils, 0.2 miles in low erosion hazard soils) and relocating the trail completely around the large mesic meadow onto low erosion hazard soils would improve water storage capacity within meadow habitats.

Projects are expected to maintain or slightly restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands at the project and watershed scale.

III - 173 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

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

Stream segments within the Naches mainstem watershed has reduced streambank stability due to various management effects, and the conditions of Riparian Reserves overall have been degraded. The watershed is functioning at risk in regards to large wood debris and streambank condition, but Riparian Reserves are not properly functioning.

The Rattlesnake Creek watershed is properly functioning in regards to large wood debris, but streambank condition and Riparian Reserves are functioning at risk.

Vegetation, Fuels, and Invasive Plant Treatments Timber harvest treatments would maintain species composition, structural diversity, riparian functioning and components because only 2.5 acres of timber harvest is proposed within Riparian Reserves. Restoration of the natural fire regime will lessen the risk of stand replacing wildfires in the project area.

Natural fuels treatments would reduce tree density by thinning out the small trees in the understory and providing more opportunity for retention of larger trees as future LWD. Approximately 23 acres of TSI would occur in Riparian Reserves.

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford would not affect this objective. In the long term (15-25 years), the decommissioning of 4.71 miles of system road in the project area should begin to restore vegetation species composition along streams, and restore future streamside LWD supply when canopy cover is re-established on the obliterated road segments. Projects are expected to slightly degrade this objective at the project scale in the short term, but maintain and slightly restore at the watershed scale in the long term.

III - 174 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

The proposed action would slightly restore this objective by bridging the ford of Glass Creek on the 665 OHV trail. One stream fords on the 665 trail would be restored by trail obliteration and trail bridge construction.

Adaptive management action would slightly degrade at the site scale because of a new trail bridge stream crossing on an headwater non fish-bearing stream.

Projects are expected to slightly degrade this objective at the project scale in the short term, but maintain and slightly restore at the watershed scale in the long term.

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

Many stream segments within the 5th field watersheds have reduced streambank stability due to various management effects, and the conditions of Riparian Reserves overall have been degraded.

Vegetation, Fuels, and Invasive Plant Treatments Riparian habitat capable of supporting well distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species would be maintained because only 2.5 acres of timber harvest would occur within Riparian Reserves. Restoration of the natural fire regime will lessen the risk of stand replacing wildfires in the project area.

Vegetation management will maintain and slightly restore this objective at the project and watershed scale. This would also reduce risk of stand replacement fires burning through Riparian Reserves.

Travel and Access Management Actions Reconstruction of the 1605 stream ford would not affect this objective. In the long term (15-25 years), the decommissioning of 4.71 miles of system road in the project area should begin to restore native riparian vegetation species at the culvert removal sites. Projects are expected to slightly restore this objective at the project and watershed scale in the long term.

The proposed action would slightly restore this objective by bridging the 665 trail ford of Glass Creek, and rehabilitating the current ford.

III - 175 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Adaptive management action would slightly degrade at the site scale because of a new trail bridge stream crossing on a headwater non fish-bearing stream.

Projects are expected to slightly degrade this objective at the project scale in the short term, but maintain and slightly restore at the watershed scale in the long term.

RANGE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

The Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1990) established a Forest range management goal to develop, protect, and manage the range resource to maintain and improve vegetative conditions compatible with the management area goal. (WFP, page IV-3). Specifically, with respect to the Glass Angel project, the range management objective is to protect, maintain, and/or enhance use of the Nile and Rattlesnake Sheep Allotments in a manner similar to the use that had occurred prior to implementation of the Glass Angel project. The effect of the proposed project on the allotments is assessed using forage response, permittee access and livestock distribution as indicators to describe the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposal.

Affected Environment The Glass portion of the project area occurs entirely within the Nile Sheep Allotment. The Glass area accounts for approximately 8% (4,502 acres) of the total allotment (61,100 acres). The Nile allotment is located within all or portions of T17N, R12E, Sections 12, 13, 23-27, 33-36; T17N, R14E, Sections 7-9, 16-22, 26-30, 31-35; T16N, R13E, Sections 1-5, 9-16, 22-26; T16N, R15E, Sections 18, 19, 30, 31; T15N., R14E., Sections 1-4; and all of T16N., R14E. The term permit authorizes 1,050 ewe/lamb pairs for a 77-day season of use from approximately June16 to August 31, annually. Currently, there is no primary routing or authorized bedgrounds within the Glass portion of the project. There is limited use of secondary routing in the area, but use here is very restricted due to dense vegetation and limited access. There are no range structural developments located within the area.

The Angel portion of the project area occurs entirely within the Rattlesnake Sheep Allotment. The area accounts for approximately 46% (6,893 acres) of the total allotment (15,032 acres). The allotment is located within all or portions T15N, R13E, Sections 1, 2, 11, 12 and T15N, R14E, Sections 5-12, 13-17, 19-30, 32-36. The term permit authorizes 1000 ewe/lamb pairs for a 73-day season of use from approximately June 20 to August 31, annually. The sheep spend approximately 52 days grazing within the Angel portion of the project area during the time period of mid-June through late-July. There are approximately 12.5 miles of routing and 26 bedgrounds within the Angel area. There are two (2) range structural developments located within the Angel area, as depicted in Figure III.20, below.

In 2005, the Manastash Allotment Management Plan Environmental Analysis was completed and suggested that although the potential for more than adequate production was present, it went on to indicate that forage availability was being reduced over time as a result of a reduction in timber harvest in transitory range areas in combination with the increased utilization of forage by wild grazing ungulates.

Environmental Consequences Effect of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatments, and Access and Travel Management Actions on Range Management and Operations Mechanical removal of forested overstory vegetation and/or burning of the associated understory vegetation would present some degree of risk in terms of logistics and safety with respect to project implementation. To avoid the potential for conflict in areas where active timber harvest or prescribed fire operations occur

III - 176 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences concurrently with domestic livestock grazing, it would be necessary to defer livestock grazing. Driving livestock past and/or avoiding proposed activity areas to relocate them to non-activity areas could result in a loss of grazing opportunity. Ultimately, this could result in an overall reduction in available forage and season of use in the short-term. The actual timing of implementation of individual activities or combinations of activities would ultimately determine the extent of the effects and the specific areas requiring modification or deferment in the annual grazing instructions. Given the most extreme situation with respect to timing of implementation and specific activity areas, there could be a complete loss of use of the allotment during the period of project implementation (up to 5 years). Temporary modification or deferment of grazing activities during post project implementation may also be necessary to mitigate potential adverse effects resulting from livestock grazing areas that have been prescribed burned and/or seeded with the intent of preventing noxious weed infestation. Grazing these areas immediately following seeding and/or during the early stages of seedling establishment has the potential to inhibit the successful revegetation of the site. Typically, a maximum of two years restriction on grazing in these areas is adequate (Wright & Bailey, 1980).

Forage Response The Refined Proposed Action recommends various amounts of mechanical removal of forested overstory. Literature indicates that thinning and/or removal of the forest component of dry forest ecosystems results in the stimulation of the associated understory component. It is also well accepted that prescribed fire can result in stimulation of vegetation (Clary & Ffolliott, 1966), (Carleton & Maycock, 1981), (Host, 1988), (Lieffers & Stadt, 1994), (Agee, 1994), (Riegel, Miller, & Krueger, 1995), (Griffith Jr., 1996), (Ricard & Messier, 1996), (Naumburg & DeWald, 1999) (Also refer to the previous discussion under vegetation). Increased plant productivity would increase the forage and browse available for grazing by permitted livestock. The actions proposed in the Glass portion of the area would also provide access to currently limited areas.

In the absence of action, the vegetation would continue to grow towards a mature condition. Continued reduction in the intensity and spectral quality of the light below the canopy would suppress understory growth and survival of intolerant species (Freyman, 1968), (Soloman, Ffolliott, & Thompson, 1976), (McLaughlin, 1978), and (Carleton, 1982). Shade tolerant species would out-compete less shade tolerant species. Over time, trees would dominate, resulting in the associated shrubs, herbs and grasses becoming less abundant due to the corresponding increase in canopy cover and associated increased shading (Naumburg & DeWald, 1999), (Host, 1988), (McConnell & Smith, 1970). Understory diversity and productivity would not only decline, but, corresponding changes in plant community structure would also occur (Camp, 1999), (Moir, 1966). Opportunity to increase the amount of available transitory forage and browse available for domestic livestock grazing in the Nile and Rattlesnake Sheep allotments would not be provided. No management action would contribute to maintaining the current vegetation condition across the landscape and consequently those conditions would lack transitory range and associated forage.

Permittee Access and Livestock Distribution Many roads existing within the Nile and Rattlesnake Sheep allotments provide permittee access to authorized grazing areas. Proposed road management activities would have a low to moderate impact on permittee access to the allotment. Of the 16 roads proposed for decommissioning or storage, 7 are utilized for allotment management purposes on the Rattlesnake allotment, as displayed in the table below. The Refined Proposed Action would reduce the permittees’ current road access by 3.5 miles (decommission). Proposed road decommissioning would not provide vehicle access for the permittee to route/bed sheep and would result in additional impacts along main roads in the Rattlesnake allotment or would reduce the available bedgrounds and season of use (e.g., number of days) on the allotment.

III - 177 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Table III.49. Road use for allotment management in the Glass Angel project area Road Miles Proposed Action Allotment Management Use 1500134 0.68 Decommission Used to access bedground 1500135 1.10 Decommission Used to access bedground 1500137 0.33 Decommission Not utilized for allotment management 1500139 0.62 Decommission Used to access bedground 1502119 0.60 Decommission Not utilized for allotment management 1502605 0.10 Decommission Not utilized for allotment management 1503656 0.29 Decommission Used to access bedground 1503665 0.12 Decommission Used to access bedground 1506184 1.02 Decommission Used to access 2 bedgrounds 1506646 0.30 Decommission Used to access bedground 1605225 0.93 Decommission Not utilized for allotment management 1605228 0.87 Decommission Not utilized for allotment management 1605244 0.41 Storage/ML 1 Not utilized for allotment management 1605245 0.29 Storage/ML1 Not utilized for allotment management 1605270 0.23 Decommission Not utilized for allotment management 1605271 1.24 Storage/ML1 Not utilized for allotment management

The construction of a simple ford or low-water crossing where Forest Road 1605 crosses Nile Creek would have no effect on the range resource as this proposed activity would continue to provide access to the allotment.

Similarly, implementing adaptive management to reroute Trail 697 out of the meadow would have no effect on the range resource, nor would relocation of Trail 697 from the floodplain in Nile Creek and construction of a bridge on Trail 665 to replace the existing stream ford.

Cumulative Effects The area of analysis considered is the Nile and Rattlesnake Sheep Allotments. In the short term (2-5 years), this action, in combination with, other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within these allotments restricts the use of the allotments by the permittee. This project would result in additional modifications (e.g., deferring and rerouting) to the current grazing plan. Multiple modifications resulting from multiple projects (e.g., fuels, recreation, travel management) occurring at the same time restrict the area and season of use available for livestock grazing. Although the immediate area of analysis is the Nile and Rattlesnake allotments, this situation is becoming prevalent across allotments over the entire south range zone, further reducing the overall grazing capacity in the short-term. In the longer-term (2-7+) years, the Proposed Action and vegetation management approved in the Rattle, Canteen and Gold Spring projects would result in an improvement in plant productivity and an incremental amount of forage and browse available to livestock at the allotment scale, ultimately improving the overall allotment condition and livestock production capacity, as well as the capacity of the south range zone.

III - 178 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

Taking no management action would have no effect on permittee access to the Nile and Rattlesnake Sheep allotments, as there would be no road management activities implemented under this decision. This option would provide current road access to grazing areas. Modifications to the grazing operation or deferment of grazing as a result of project activities would not be required. Forage would not be increased, and would continue to decrease as stands continue to develop as they are currently.

Effect of the Proposed Invasive Plant Management on Range Operations and Management In the short-term, livestock permittees and livestock could come into direct contact with invasive plant control activities. Invasive plant management activities have the potential to interrupt grazing and the ability to accomplish annual grazing objectives with respect to utilization of specific areas within the allotment. Grazing of livestock through invasive plant management activity areas could interfere with implementation of effective prevention and control. Unmitigated, direct contact with herbicides or their residues could result in contamination of livestock and/or their products (i.e., meat, milk), illness or death. Over the longer term, treatment of existing invasive plant infestations could improve forage conditions on degraded sites and enhance the quality and quantity of desirable forage and, ultimately, the grazing capacity of the livestock allotment.

Implementation of the Refined Proposed Action would result in limited isolated impacts to the permittee with respect to the annual grazing strategy; as treatment locations are contained and do not occur large-scale across the project area. Areas targeted for treatment would be avoided through permittee notification and responsive livestock distribution. In addition, the timing of herbicide application would be coordinated to avoid conflict with livestock grazing activities (as per label instructions-Design Criteria #1). The avoidance of target areas through livestock distribution would also minimize or eliminate the potential for a reduction in the effectiveness of the treatment resulting from livestock grazing through invasive plant treatment areas.

Implementation of the Refined Proposed Action would result in little to no risk to livestock permittees or livestock. The implementation of the required standards and design criteria identified in Chapter II with respect to notification, coordination, and herbicide application requirements would result in little to no likelihood that the permittee or livestock would come into direct contact with herbicides or their residues. Standard #12 ensures timely public notification, including permittees. As well, Standard #12 requires posting to inform the forest visitors of application dates and herbicides to be used. Further, Design Criteria #5 requires range permittees be notified in advance of planned spray dates to coordinate implementation and reduce potential adverse impacts to permittees and livestock. These standards and design criteria have been/continue to be highly effective in minimizing or eliminating the likelihood that the permittee or the livestock would come into direct contact with herbicides or their residues.

Cumulative Effects The area of analysis considered is the Nile and Rattlesnake Sheep Allotments and the period of time beginning with project implementation and continues for two years. There are no cumulative impacts expected as a result of overlap with past or on-going herbicide treatments in the same area. As is the case with the silvicultural and fuels treatments, the invasive species treatment in combination with other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions would restrict the use of the allotments by the permittee, in the short term. This proposal would result in small-scale, but additional modifications (e.g., deferring and rerouting) to the current grazing plan. Multiple modifications resulting from multiple projects (e.g., fuels, recreation, travel management) occurring at the same time restrict the area and season of use available for livestock grazing.

Although the immediate area of analysis is the allotment, this situation is becoming prevalent across allotments over the entire south range zone, further reducing the overall grazing capacity in the short-term. In the longer- term, the invasives species management action proposed here would contribute to the overall amount of

III - 179 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences invasive species treatment across the allotment. Herbicide treatment would result in an improvement in plant species composition and productivity with a corresponding increase in the amount of forage and browse available to livestock at the allotment scale; ultimately improving the overall allotment condition and livestock production capacity, as well as the capacity of the south range zone.

Under a no action scenario, livestock permittees or livestock would not be directly affected, however, forage conditions would not be improved on degraded sites, the quality and quantity of desirable forage would not be enhanced, nor would grazing capacity be increased within the allotment as a result of the treatment of invasive species. Combined with the continued disturbance and associated high risk of infestation resulting from ongoing forest uses within the analysis area, no management action would contribute to further degradation of forage conditions within the livestock allotment.

Left blank for formatting

III - 180 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Figure III.14. Range Structure Locations

III - 181 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences HERITAGE RESOURCES

Regulatory Framework The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA: the Act) of 1966 established the Federal government’s policy and programs on historic preservation, including the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP: the National Register). Section 106 of the Act (36 CFR 800) requires Federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally assisted or permitted undertaking to take into account the effect an undertaking may have on historic properties listed on or eligible for the National Register, and it affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such undertakings (16 U.S.C. 470f). The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the ACHP are the respective state and federal agencies responsible for overseeing the management and protection of historic properties in compliance with the NHPA. Historic properties are cultural resources that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register. Historic properties, and cultural resources that have not been formally evaluated against National Register criteria (E.O. 11593), are given consideration in planning for licensed, approved or funded Federal undertakings.

Forest Service Trust Responsibility The Glass Angel project area is located within the traditional use area of the Yakama Indian Nation. Trust responsibility is the U.S. Government’s permanent legal obligation to exercise statutory and other legal authorities to protect tribal land, assets, resources, and treaty rights, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of Federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. For the Forest Service, fulfillment of trust responsibility requires consultation with tribes.

Existing Condition Historic Properties For the purposes of NHPA Section 106 Consultation, the Area of Potential Effect [APE] for this undertaking was determined to be the project planning area boundary. At least 31 archaeological surveys and numerous archaeological testing projects have been conducted in and near the Glass Angel project area since 1978. This body of work includes a variety of intensive pedestrian sample surveys conducted to Forest standards within project planning area between 1992 and 2010. Over forty cultural resource properties have been identified in and near the project planning area, including lithic scatter sites and lithic isolates, the remains of historic sheep camps, historic trails, historic cabin ruins, historic telecommunication lines, rock features, historic dumps and isolated historic artifacts. A majority of these resources do not meet any National Register of Historic Places criteria and have been determined “ineligible” for listing on the Register in consultation with DAHP. These ineligible resources require no further consideration or management. Nine cultural properties known in the project planning area are considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. NHPA Section 106 consultation for the Glass Angel Restoration Project was completed in accordance with the terms of the programmatic agreement regarding management of cultural resources on Washington State National Forests (1997), with specific protection measures identified for all known eligible or potentially eligible properties. It was determined the project would have “no effect” on cultural resources provided that specified avoidance and protection measures were implemented (Beidl 2011: Report 2011061708001).

Indian Practices The Yakama Nation was consulted about the Glass Angel Restoration project. A government-to- government letter was sent to the tribe describing the project and soliciting concerns and information

III - 182 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences regarding resources of interest to the tribe within the project area. No specific concerns or issues have been brought forth.

Expected Future Condition: No Action Alternative Historic Properties By not implementing the project, there would be no new risk of effects to historic properties as a result of project activities. Effects to known and undocumented cultural resources would be limited to impacts from natural processes and current human use patterns. Anticipated impacts would include natural deterioration, decomposition, erosion, breakage, and displacement related to such causal factors as exposure to elements, natural catastrophes, storm events, and animal and human activity. Fuels in the project area would remain untreated and cultural resources susceptible to burning would be placed at higher risk to damage or loss from uncontrolled wildfire.

Indian Practices Effects to tribal uses, practices and resources of concern in the Glass Angel project area would be limited to impacts from natural processes and current human use patterns. By not implementing proposed project activities, there would be no risk of introducing new impacts or impediments to ongoing Tribal use patterns and practices.

Environmental Consequences: Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action and the Alternative to the Proposed Action Historic Properties The project area is considered the boundary for effects analysis [APE] with respect to historic properties because it reflects the extent of proposed project activity. No direct or indirect effects to historic properties are anticipated. Eligible and unevaluated cultural properties will be protected from all fuel, trail, road and other project activities by avoidance. Contract(s) for the project will include the Standard Clauses BT6.24 (Protection of Cultural Resources) and CT6.24 (Site Specific Protection Measures for Cultural Resources). These clauses allow the Forest service to modify or cancel portions of the contract to protect known and newly discovered cultural resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered as a result of project activity, all work in the vicinity of the discovery would cease until professionally assessed. In the event that unanticipated adverse impacts to historic properties from project activities are identified, NHPA Section 106 consultation would be re-initiated and mitigation measures designed to lessen the adverse effect(s) would be implemented as appropriate. Fuel removal would indirectly benefit historic properties by reducing potential future adverse impacts to fire- susceptible historic properties from uncontrolled wildfire in the project area.

Indian Practices The project area is considered the boundary for effects analysis with respect to Indian practices because it reflects the extent of proposed project activity. No direct or indirect effects to tribal customs or practices are known or anticipated. The U.S. government maintains a permanent legal obligation to exercise statutory and other legal authorities to protect tribal land, assets, resources, and treaty rights, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of Federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. The Forest Service will continue to fulfill its trust responsibility through consultation with tribes. Adjustments to project implementation strategies could be made in order to eliminate or minimize impacts as appropriate when the Forest Service is made aware of activities and practices within their control that are impeding Tribal activities and practices.

III - 183 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Environmental Consequences: Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action and the Alternative to the Proposed Action Historic Properties The project area is considered the boundary for cumulative effects analysis [APE] with respect to historic properties because it reflects the special extent of proposed project activity. The temporal boundary spans from the present to five years from now, the anticipated duration of the proposed project activities. No cumulative effects to historic properties in this time and space are anticipated. All eligible, unevaluated and newly discovered cultural properties will continue to be monitored and protected from management activities, or appropriate NHPA Section 106 consultation and mitigation measures satisfied, for any identified adverse effects relating to this project and/or future proposed projects in the planning area.

Environmental Consequences: Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action and the Alternative to the Proposed Action Indian Practices The project area is considered the boundary for cumulative effects analysis [APE] with respect to historic properties because it reflects the special extent of proposed project activity. The temporal boundary spans from the present to five years from now, the anticipated duration of the proposed project activities. No cumulative effects to Indian Practices in this time and space are anticipated. The U.S. government maintains a permanent legal obligation to exercise statutory and other legal authorities to protect tribal land, assets, resources, and treaty rights, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of Federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. The Forest Service will continue to fulfill its trust responsibility through ongoing consultation with tribes. Adjustments to project implementation strategies could be made in order to eliminate or minimize impacts as appropriate when the Forest Service is made aware of activities and practices within their control that are impeding Tribal activities and practices.

TRAVEL AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Affected Environment Within the Glass project area, there are 15.95 miles of National Forest System Roads (NFSR), including 1.74 miles of closed roads. The remaining 14.21miles of open road results in an open road density of 2.02 miles per square mile. Within the angel project area, there are 23.28 miles of NFSR, including 4.83 miles of closed roads. The remaining 18.45 miles of open road result in an open road density of 1.71 miles per square mile of system road.

In 2001, the National Forest System Road Management Policy required science-based transportation analysis to be developed for every National Forest, consistent with changes in public demands and use of National Forest Resources. This direction’s focus is on assuring that construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads minimize adverse environmental impacts; that unneeded roads are decommissioned and restoration of ecological process are initiated; and the additions to the NFSR network are only those deemed essential for forest resource management and use. A Forest-wide roads analysis has been completed on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest, assessing Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads, including those within the Naches water shed. The project-level road analysis conducted for this project area reviewed recommendations from the Naches Ranger District portion of

III - 184 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences the road assessment (completed March 2004). It then focused on the remaining maintenance level 1 and 2 roads in the project area.

The open road system in the project area is in generally good condition. The Nile Creek armored ford crossing needs to be improved before it could safely carry expected project and log haul traffic. Currently closed (barricaded) roads that are required to be used in the implementation of projects may need some level of maintenance. This work primarily deals with vegetation clearing and drainage structures. Further evaluation for road maintenance needs would be done when specific haul and travel routes are identified for the project.

Table III.50. Existing road miles and densities within the project area. Miles Within Road Density Miles Within Road Density the Glass Glass Project the Angel Angel Project Types of Road Project Area Area38 Project Area Area39 (Miles/Sq. (Miles/Sq. Mile) Mile All System Roads Open 15.9 2.27 23.4 2.17 and Closed

Open System Roads 14.2 2.02 18.55 1.72 Arterial40 0 0 0 0 Collector41 0 0 11.18 1.038 Local42 14.2 2.02 7.37 0.68

Closed System Roads 1.7 0.25 4.83 0.45 Arterial 0 0 0 0 Collector 0 0 0 0 Local 1.7 0.25 4.83 0.45

38 Glass Project Area= 7.03 Sq. Miles (4,502 acres) 39 Angel Project Area= 10.77 Sq. Miles (6892 acres) 40 Arterial: Authorized roads providing service to large land areas, that usually are developed and operated for long-term land and resource management purposes and constant service, connects with other arterials or public highways. 41 Collector: Authorized roads serving smaller land areas than arterials, which collect traffic from local roads and usually to forest arterial roads or State and County highways. They are operated for either constant or intermittent service depending on land use and resource management objectives. 42 Local: Roads that connect terminal activities (e.g. trailhead, log landing, dispersed camping site, etc.) to collector resource activity rather than travel efficiency. When not being used for the activity for which they were constructed, they may be used for other purposes. They are often gated to restrict motor vehicle use. The construction standards for these roads are determined by the requirements necessary for the specific activity.

III - 185 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences The Effect of the Proposed Silviculture and Fuels Treatments on Travel and Access Management

Direct and Indirect Effects The Silviculture and fuels treatments will have no direct or indirect effects on the Forest Service roads themselves. There will be a short-term effect to the amount of maintenance necessary for the roads used as part of the treatments; however, the purchaser will be responsible for the maintenance activities. There will be no long-term impacts to the Forest Service maintenance budget or workload.

Cumulative Effects For the travel management Cumulative Effects discussion for this proposed action, the analysis area will be the project area boundary.

Since there are no direct or indirect effects to the roads system, no Cumulative Effects are expected from this proposed action.

The Effect of the Proposed Road Closure and Decommissioning Treatments on Travel and Access Management

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed road closures (reducing to a maintenance level 1 road) will reduce the miles of open roads in the Glass project area by 3.74 miles and the Angel project area by 0.98 miles of road. The proposed decommissioning will reduce the total miles of system roads in the Glass project area by 0.23 miles and the Angel project area by 4.99 miles of road. The effects to access, road densities, and sedimentation relating to other resources are discussed under those resources in this Chapter.

There will be a small effect on the maintenance budget due to the proposed actions. A typical Maintenance level 2 roads receive drainage and vegetation maintenance about every 3-5 years as needed at an average cost of $644/mile. A typical maintenance level 1 is inspected every 3-5 years at an average cost of $62/mile. Therefore shifting 5.22 miles from maintenance level 2 to maintenance level 1 will save $2,529 and decommissioning 5.72 miles of road will save $3,329 for a total saving of $5,858 in maintenance.

Cumulative Effects For the travel management Cumulative Effects discussion for this proposed action, the analysis area will be the ranger district boundary.

The direct effects to the road system are approximately $5,858 which is 0.2% of the annual maintenance budget (estimated at approximately $648,000) for the Ranger District. So no Cumulative Effects are expected from this proposed action.

III - 186 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS AND PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS

There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) or Proposed Wilderness Areas (PWAs) within or adjacent to the Glass Angel project area. This project will have no effect on RA’s or PWA’s.

WATERSHED ANALYSIS and LATE SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE ASSESSMENT (LSRA)

The Glass Angel Restoration Project is consistent with recommendations outlined in the Naches Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1995), and the Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, 1997). In 1997 the Wenatchee National Forest completed an assessment of the LSR/MLSA network (USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 1997) concluding that several of the reserves, including the Haystack MLSA, that were composed of dry forests were at high risk of loss of late-successional forest habitat from fires and insects. They recommended that treatments occur within LSRs and MLSAs to reduce the risk of large-scale habitat loss to fire and to restore dry forests to more sustainable conditions. Concurrence for these recommendations was received from the Regional Ecosystem Office in a letter dated October 8, 1997. Glass Angel Restoration Project is consistent with the Regional Ecosystem Office letter exempting specific silvicultural activities (described in the LSRA) from subsequent project-level review, as they are consistent with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. This project considers potential treatment criteria and treatment areas addressed in the LSRA for the Rattlesnake Creek and Upper Nile LSR’s and the Haystack MLSA. Treatment criteria describe their relationship to achieving late- successional conditions and are consistent with the LSR criteria and Standards and Guidelines.

ECONOMICS This document examines a proposal to implement forest restoration treatments that would create a resilient landscape commensurate with natural and future ranges of variability. This section will discuss the financial aspects of this proposed investment.

Direct and Indirect Effects Benefits While the costs of implementing the proposed action can be expressed in monetary terms, the benefits are not so easily quantified and involve both market and non-market values. These benefits include the following:

Protection of Non-Market Resource Values Large-scale stand replacement fires, especially in areas where they are not characteristic of the inherent fire regime, can cause substantial damage to forest resources. Resources such as soil, wildlife habitat, and water, along with scenic values can be substantially affected at a very large scale and for an extended period. This type of loss can be difficult to measure in monetary terms but is nonetheless important in terms of ecosystem health. Returning the area to a condition where fire can play a more natural role in the ecosystem would help ensure that these resources are protected and managed in a sustainable manner. For a more thorough discussion of non-market resource benefits see the soils, water, and scenery sections of this document.

III - 187 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Protection of Existing Market Value Resources The risk of uncharacteristic wildfire is not a primary factor in the development of the Purpose and Need for this project. However, the risk of loss of resources is always present in the forest environment. The level or degree of loss will be influenced by the effectiveness of vegetation treatments. Resources that are at risk from fire, such as range, timber, recreation, and private property are more commonly assigned a monetary value. However, because of the uncertainty regarding risk, and the timing and scale of future fires, it is difficult to assign a dollar figure to the actual losses that would be avoided or reduced because of treatments. The fuels analysis in this document suggests that risk of a large-scale fire is much greater if no action is taken, or worse, if only a partial treatment with no prescribed fire is implemented.

Monetary Return from the Sale of Products The proposed action includes 509 acres of restoration treatment where commercially valuable timber would be removed as a byproduct of that treatment. The value of these marketable products can reduce the overall costs of the project.

Protection of Prior Investments Portions of the analysis area, especially in the Angel project area, have had both commercial and non- commercial treatments in the past to reduce stand density, susceptibility to insects and disease, and fuels buildup. Subsequent treatments proposed in the refined proposed action would move these stands even further towards the desired condition and in some cases would be implemented at much reduced costs and with improved revenue due to these earlier treatments. Without continued treatments these previous investments, and the gains that have been achieved, are at increasing risk of loss through catastrophic fire.

Costs Table III.51, below, displays the probable costs associated with the individual project areas (Glass and Angel). Appropriated funding and/or grants would be needed to fully implement the action. The total cost of the Glass Angel Restoration Project, offset by product value, is anticipated to be approximately $854,477.

III - 188 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Table III.51. Cost/return analysis.43 Treatments Value/Cost Units Cost/Return per unit Glass Angel Glass Angel Glass Angel Commercial Timber 3 mmbf 0 $68/mbf 0 +$204,000 0 Value Biomass Value 12,000 0 $1/ton44 0 +$12,000 0 ton Activity Fuels 509 acres 0 $179/acre45 0 -$91,111 0 Treatment cost Non-commercial 346 acres 0 $500/acre 0 -$173,000 0 Thinning (TSI) with fuels treatment46 cost Natural (non- 651 acres 6,893 acres $90/acre $90/acre -$58,590 -$620,370 activity) Fuels Treatment cost FR1605 ford 1 0 $40,000 0 $40,000 0 improvement cost Trail 697 reroute 1 0 $27,406 ea 0 -$27,406 0 cost Total -$174,107 -$620,370

Grand Total -$794,477

Budget Constraints and Prioritization The proposed actions require a level of investment that may not be possible within current or expected level of appropriations. In order to be as effective as possible within budget constraints an adaptive management approach (see page II-43) allows the decision maker flexibility to delay, forego, or select individual treatment options as is appropriate to current budgets within the context of landscape restoration.

Cumulative Effects Suppression cost savings are being displayed as a Cumulative Effect. It is recognized that the implementation of restoration treatments will Directly Effect suppression costs. However, the timing

43 The costs and values are not absolute, but are typical of recent history, and are presented for comparison. 44 Biomass is an emerging technology, and as of this writing, the infrastructure for receiving and processing biomass does not exist in Yakima County. Values vary depending on the availability of infrastructure, from having to use appropriated dollars to supplement removal, to a positive value being paid as a forest product. As an acknowledgement that this project recognizes biomass and will make it available, a minimal value of $1/ton is being displayed. 45Inflated to Contract Termination Date of 2015. Costs include fuels inventory, disposal of landing piles, burn plan preparation, underburning, and associated empirical costs. Overhead rates are not included. 46 Thin, handpile, and burn handpiles

III - 189 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences and number of fires over the foreseeable future is unknown. Each fire will contribute to maintaining the area within the natural range of variability and will contribute to keeping future suppression costs low.

It is assumed that fire for Multiple Resource Objectives would be considered the norm on restored acres to promote self-sustainability of the ecosystem and to minimize suppression cost. Historic suppression costs vary from $7,978/acre to $431/acre on the Wenatchee National Forest, depending on fire size. Treatment cost per acre will vary greatly between the Glass and Angel project areas. In the Glass project area, the treatment cost (offset by product value) as displayed in Table III.50, is projected to be $39/acre ($174,407 divided by the total project area of 4,502 acres). In the Angel project area, treatment cost is projected to be $90/acre (with no forest products returning a value). Table III.51 compares historic suppression cost on the Wenatchee National Forest by fire size to the projected suppression savings if the full range of proposed restoration treatments were applied.

Table III.52. Suppression cost by fire size, based on Wenatchee National Forest historic averages. Fire size, Suppression cost Treatment Cost Suppression Cost in acres per acre per acre Savings per acre47 From To 0 0.25 $7,978 $39-$90 $7,939-$7,888 0.25 10 $6,907 $39-$90 $6,868-$6,817 10 100 $6,304 $39-$90 $6,265-$6,214 100 300 $3,331 $39-$90 $3,292-$3,241 300 1,000 $2,698 $39-$90 $2,659-$2,878 1,000 5,000 $1,813 $39-$90 $1,774-1,723 5,000 50,000 $713 $39-$90 $674-$623 50,000+ $431 $39-$90 $392-$341

A reduction in fire suppression costs will depend on the ability to fully implement all aspects of forest restoration treatments. If the full range of vegetation treatments are implemented (see vegetation and fuels section), it is very likely that addressing the buildup of fuels at this time would greatly reduce fire suppression costs in the future. This savings would most likely far exceed the costs of implementing the strategies described in the proposed action. Implementation of mechanical treatments only (without prescribed fire) could result in an increase in suppression costs; more firefighters may be needed to bring a fire under control, longer mop-up times are needed, and the logistical support needed to sustain a prolonged fire suppression effort.

47 Assuming that, after harvest, fires burning on acres that have had full restoration treatments will be allowed to function as a natural process at the stand and landscape levels. Suppression Cost Savings per acre reflects the savings of no suppression action taken on the restored acres. Fires or portions of fires that interface with high value property would continue to be fully suppressed at costs comparable to those displayed in the table.

III - 190 Glass Angel Restoration Project Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

Social Groups, Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Civil Rights would not be affected by the Glass Angel project. The project includes purchaser work, Forest Service contracted work, and Forest Service employee accomplished work. Under Executive Order 11246 (Executive Order 11246 of 1965, 1965) companies with the Federal contracts or subcontracts are prohibited from job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The U. S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in its employment practices based on race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status.

The refined proposed action would not have any disparate effects on any consumers, minority groups, women, civil rights, or social/ethnic groups. All contracts would meet Equal Employment Opportunity requirements. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. See also Heritage section regarding Tribal Trust Responsibilities and conclusions.

Floodplains and Wetlands Harvest and prescribed burning are planned to occur within designated floodplains or wetlands. Impacts from these activities will be within acceptable ranges defined within the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Treatments would occur within Riparian Reserves and effects are described in the hydrology, aquatic and fuels sections. Floodplains and wetlands would be protected through mitigation measures, which conform to (Executive Order 11988 of 1977, 1977) and (Executive Order 11990 of 1977, 1977).

Prime Rangeland, Farmland, and Forest Land All management actions comply with the federal regulations for prime land. Most of the lands within the analysis area do not qualify as “prime’ forest land although there may be isolated pockets of forest land that do meet the definition because growth rates may exceed 85 cubic feet/acre/year at culmination of mean annual increment. Effects to forestland are described earlier in this chapter. The Glass Angel project area does not contain any prime rangeland or prime farmland. Therefore, the refined proposed action would not have any effect on prime rangeland and farmland.

III - 191

Glass Angel Restoration Project Organizations, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

Chapter IV Organizations, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

The Forest Service interdisciplinary team and other agency individuals that provided information or otherwise participated in the analysis are identified below. Any omissions from these lists are unintentional.

Table IV.1. Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Jim Bailey Team Leader/Fire & Fuels/Air Quality/Writer-Editor Jacquie Beidl Archaeologist/Heritage Resources Barry Collins Engineering/Road Management Bill Garrigues Hydrology/Soils Jodi Leingang Invasive Species/Understory Vegetation/Range/Ecosystems Coordination Dave Lucas Timber Sale Layout and Design Phil Monsanto Silviculture/Landscape Evaluation Chris Ownby Geographic Information System Sue Ranger Recreation/Visual Resources Joan St.Hilaire Wildlife Gary Torretta Fisheries

Table IV.2 Other Participants Other Participants

Irene Davidson District Ranger, Naches Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee N.F.

James Dickenson Landscape Evaluation

Jan Flatten NEPA Review

Bill Gaines Landscape Evaluation/Wildlife

Richy Harrod Landscape Evaluation

Paul Hessburg Landscape Evaluation

Rebecca Lockett Heath Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee N.F.

Miles Porter Sale Layout/Design

Leo Silva Timber Valuation

IV-1 Glass Angel Restoration Project Organizations, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

Table IV.3. Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations Consulted Agencies Consulted Conservation Northwest

State of Washington Department of Ecology

State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

State of Washington Department of Natural Resources

State of Washington Historical Preservation Office

Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative, Consisting of (signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding):  Yakama Nation  Washington State Department of Natural Resources  Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife  The Nature Conservancy  U.S. Forest Service

USDI – Fish and Wildlife Service

USDC, NOAA – National Marine Fisheries Service

University of Washington

Yakama Nation

Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency

IV-2 Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

CHAPTER V References Cited

40 CFR Part 1502, Section 1502.14.

Agee, J. (1999). A coarse-filter strategy. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 14(1) , pp. 15-19.

Agee, J. K. (1994). Fire and weather disturbances in terristrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. PNW-GTR- 320. In: Hessburg, P.F., R.B. Salter, & K.M. James. Re-examining fire severity relations in pre-management era mixed conifer forests: inferences from landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology 22. p. 5-24.

Agee, J. K. (1993). Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington DC: Island Press.

Agee, J. K. (2002). The fallacy of passive management: managing for fire safe forest reserves. Conservation Biology in Practice 3(1), (pp. 18-25).

Agee, J. K. (1996). The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Forest Vegetaion Management Conference (pp. 52-68). Redding, CA: University of California Shasta County Cooperative Extension.

Agee, J. K. (1996). The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. Seventeenth Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, (pp. 52-68). Redding, CA.

Agee, J. K. (1998). The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science 72 , 24-34.

Agee, J. K., & Skinner, C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211 , pp. 83-96.

Agee, J. K., Bahro, B., Finney, M., Omi, P., Sapsis, D., Skinner, C., et al. (2000). The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management 127 , pp. 55-66.

Agee, J., & Huff, M. (1986). Structure and process goals for vegetation in wilderness areas. Proceedings of the national wilderness research conference: current research 1985. General Technical Report INT-212 (pp. 17- 25). Ogden, UT: USDA forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Altman, R. (2000). Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Altman, R., & Holmes, A. (2000, March). Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from Oregon/Washington Partners in Flight: http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/pdf/columbia_basin.pdf

Arno, S. F., Parsons, D. J., & Keane, R. E. (2000). Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes in the Northern Rocky Mountains: Consequences of fire Exclusion and Options for the Future. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5.

Arno, S. (1999). Undergrowth response, shelterwood cutting unit. In: H.Y. Smith & S.F. Arno, editors. Eighty- eight years of change in a managed ponderosa pine forest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-23. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rocky Mountain Research Station.

V-1

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Aubry, K., & Raley, C. (2002). Selection of Nest and Roost Trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 66 , 392-406.

Aubry, K., & Raley, C. (2002). The pileated woodpecker as a keystone habitat modifier of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. Berkely, California: USDA Forest Service.

Aubry, K., & Raley, C. (2002). The pilieated woodpecker as a deystone habitat modifier of the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PSW-GTR 181. Berkley, CA: USDA Forest Service.

Barrett, S., & Arno, S. (1999). Indian fires in the Northern Rockies: Ethnohistory and ecology.

Bautista, S., Mazzu, L., Robbins, J., Perez, D., & Spiegel, L. (2005). The effects of non-herbicidal methods of invasive plant treatment on wildlife, fish, and plants. A specialists report prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Invasive Plant EIS. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Region.

Belcher, J., & Wilson, S. (1989). Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed-grass prairie. Journal of Range Management 42 (2) , 172-175.

Bennetts, R. E., White, G. C., Hawksworth, F. G., & Severs, S. E. (1996). The Influence of Dwarf Mistletoe on Bird Communities in Colorado Ponderosa Pine Forests. Ecological Applications 6 (3) , pp. 899-909.

Bigley, R., & Franklin, J. (2004). Northern Spotted Owl Status Review. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from Sustainable Ecosystems Institute: http://www.sei.org/owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm

Binder, L., Barcelos, J., Booth, D., Darzen, M., Elsner, M., Fenske, R., et al. (2009). Preparing for climate change in Washington State, pp 373-407. In: Elsner, M.M.; Littell, J.; Binder, L.W. (eds). The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans. University of Washington.

Biswell, H. H. (1960). Danger of wildfire reduced by prescribed burning in ponderosa pine. California Agriculture 14 (10) , pp. 5-6.

Blackburn, W., Knight, R., & Schuster, J. (1982). Salcedar influence of sedimentation in the Brazos River. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37 , 298-330.

Blaisdell, J. (1950). Effects of controlled burning on bitterbrush on the upper Snake River plain. Research Paper No. 20. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Bonnivier, G. (1999). Understanding the threat of bio-invasions. State of the World. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Idaho field notes. Idaho: 8p. Bright, C. 1996 , pp. 95-113.

Bowman, D. M., Balch, J. K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Carlson, J. M., Cochrane, M. A., et al. (2009). Fire in the Earth System. Science, Vol 324, no. 5926 , 481-484.

Bradley, A., Noste, N., & Fischer, W. (1992). Fire ecology of forests and woodlands of Utah. General Technical Report INT-287. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

V-2

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Bright, C. (1996). Understanding the threat of bio-invasions. State of the World. New York. W.W. Norton and Co.

Brown, J., & Arno, S. (1991). The paradox of wildland fire. Western Wildlands , 40-46.

Brown, J., & DeByle, N. (1989). Effects of prescribed fire on biomass and plant succession in western aspen. Ogden, Utah: Research Paper INT-412. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Brown, M., Duncan, C., & Halstvedt, M. (2001). Cost and efficacy of spotted knappweed management with integrated methods. Techline , 2-5.

Brown, P., Kaufmann, M., & Shepperd, W. (1999). Long-term landscape patterns of past fire events in a montane ponderosa pine forest of central Colorado. Landscape Ecology 14 , pp. 513-532.

Brown, R. T., Agee, J. K., & Franklin, J. F. (2004, August). Forest Restoration and Fire: Principles in the Context of Place. Conservation Biology, Volume 18, No. 4 , pp. 903-912.

Bull, E. L., Twombly, A. D., & Quigley, T. M. (1980). Perpetuating snags in managed mixed conifer forests of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. Proceedings, management of wester forests and grasslands for nongame birds. General Technical Report INT-86 (pp. 325-336). Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Bull, E., & Jackson, J. (2005). Pileated woodpecker (dryocopus pileatus). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: In: Poole, A. & F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. Academy of National Science and American Ornithologist Union 148.

Bull, E., Abe, M., & Shepherd, J. (2005). Short term effects of fuel reduction on pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon - a pilot study. Research Paper PNW-RP-564. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.

Burke, M., & Grime, J. (1996). an experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77 (3) , 776-790.

Byram, G. (1959). Combustion of forest fuels. In K. Davis editor, Forest Fire: Control and Use. New York, New York: McGraw Hill.

Callihan, R., Wilson, L., McCaffrey, J., & Miller, T. (1994). Hawkweeds. Weeds. Pacific Northwest Extension Publications.

Camp, A. (1999). Age structure and species composition changes resulting from altered disturbance regimes on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range, Washington. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 9 , 39-67.

Campbell, N. (1991). Geology of the Naches Ranger District. Naches: Wenatchee National Forest.

Carleton, T. (1982). The composition, diversity and heterogeneity of some jack pine (Pinus banksiana) stands in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forestry 60 (12) , 2629-2636.

Carleton, T., & Maycock, P. (1981). Understory-canopy affinities in boreal forest vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany 59 (9) , 1709-1716.

V-3

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Carman, J., & Brotherson, J. (1982). Comparison of sites infested and not infested with saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Weed Science 30 , 360-364.

Case, T. (1990). Invasion resistance arises in strongley interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, (pp. 9610- 9614).

Caton, E. (1996). Effects of fire and salvage logging on the cavity-nesting bird community in northwestern Montana. Ph.D. dissertation. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Chamberlain, T., Harr, R., & Everest, F. (1991). Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Process. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Clary, W., & Ffolliott, P. (1966). Differences in herbage-timber relationships between thinned and unthinned ponderosa pine stands. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-74, Rocky Mountain Forest and Ranger Experimentation Station.

Cook, J. G., Irwin, L. L., Bryant, L. D., Riggs, R. A., & Thomas, J. W. (1998). Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs 141.

Cook, J. (2002). Nutrition and Food. Washington, DC: In: D.A. Toweill, North American Elk: Ecology and Management. p. 259-350. Smithsonian Instituition Press.

Cook, J., Johnson, B., Cook, R., Riggs, R., Bryant, L., & Irwin, L. (2004). Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monograph 155 , 61.

Courtney, S., Blakesley, J., Bigley, R., Cody, M., Dumbacher, J., Fleischer, A., et al. (2004). Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: Sustainable Ecosystems Insitute.

Courtney, S., Carey, A., Cody, M., Engel, K., Fehring, K., Franklin, J., et al. (2008). Scientific review of the draft northern spotted owl recovery plan and reviewer comments. Portland, OR: Sustainable Ecosystems Institute.

Covington, W., Fule, P., Moore, M., Hart, S., Kolb, T., Mast, J., et al. (1997). Restoring ecosystem health in poderosa pine forest of the Southwest. Journal of Forestry 95 , 23-29.

Crane, M., Habeck, J., & Fischer, W. (1983). Early postfire revegetation in a western Montana Douglas-fir forest. USDA Forest Sevice Research Paper INT-319.

Crawford, J., Wahren, C., Kyle, S., & Moir, W. (2001). Responses of exotic plant species to fires in Pinus ponderosa forests in northern Arizona. Journal of Vegetation Science 12 , 261-268.

Crawley, M. (1986). The population biology of invaders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 314 , 711-731.

D'Antonio, C., & Vitousek, P. (1992). Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 23 , 63-87.

Davis, M., & Thompson, K. (2000). Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81 , 226-230.

V-4

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Debano, L. (1991). The Effects of Fire on Soil Properties. Management and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils, General Technical Report INT-280 . Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

DiTomaso, J. (2001, May). Yellow starthistle management possible with planning and integrated approach. Techline , pp. 6-8.

Dixon, R. (1995). Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the Central Oregon Cascades (thesis). Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho.

Dolph, K. L., Mori, S. R., & Oliver, W. W. (1995). Long-Term Response of Old-Growth Stands to Varying Levels of Partial Cutting in the Eastside Pine Type. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10 (3) , 101-108.

Elton, C. (2000). The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Engle, J. (2004). Botanical Report for the Naches, Nile, and Rattlesnake Allotment Management Plan. Wenatchee national Forest, Naches Ranger District.

Engle, J. (1996). Pinus/Swamp Devil timber Sale Environmental Assessment Input, PETS Plants. Executive Order 11246 of 1965. (1965, September 24). Equal Employment Opportunity. Federal Register 34 .

Executive Order 11988 of 1977. (1977, May 24). Floodplain Management. Federal Register 42 .

Executive Order 11990 of 1977. (1977, May 24). Protection of Wetlands. Federal Register 42 .

Fajardo, A., Goodburn, J. M., & Graham, J. (2005, November 12). Spatial patterns of regeneration in managed uneven-aged poderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest of Western Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 223 , pp. 255-266.

Findolt, S., Johnson, B., Damiran, D., & Delcurto, T. (2004). Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference., (pp. 670-689). Spokane, Washington.

Finney, M. (2001). Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science 47 , pp. 219-228.

Finney, M., Sapsis, D., & Bahro, B. (2002). Use of FARSITE for simulating fire suppression and analyzing fuel treatment economics. Proceedings of a conference on fire in California exosystems: integrating ecology, prevention and management, 1997 (pp. 121-136). Davis, CA: Association for Fire Ecology.

Fornwalt, P., M.R., K., Huckaby, L., Stoker, J., & Stohlgren, T. (2002). Non-native plant invasions in managed and protected ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 6104 , 1-13.

Freyman, S. (1968). Spectral distribution of light in forests of the Douglas-fir zone of southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 48 (3) , 326-328.

Gaines, W., Singleton, P., & Ross, R. (2003). Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife havitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-586. Wenatchee, Washington: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

V-5

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Garrett, K., Raphael, M., & Dixon, R. (1996). White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: In: Pole, F.G.A., The Birds of North America, No. 252. p. 1-24.

Gibbs, M., Jenks, J., & Sowell, B. (2004). Cervid forage untilization in noncommercially thinned poderosa pine forests. Journal of Range Managment 57 , 435-441.

Goggans, R., Dixon, R., & Seminara, C. (1988). Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National forest, Oregon. Nongame Rep. 87-3-02. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest, Nongame Wildlife Program.

Gratkowski, H. (1962). Heat as a factor in germination of seeds of Ceanothus velutinus var. laevigatus T. & G. Corvallis, Oregon: Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University.

Griffith Jr., C. (1996). Distribution of Viola blanda in relation to within-habitat variation in canopy openness, soil phosphorour and magnesium. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 123 , 281-285.

Hadfield, J., & Magelssen, R. (2006). Wood Changes in Fire-Killed Tree Species in Eastern Washington. Wenatchee, Washington: USDA Forest Service.

Halupka, K. (2001). Environmental baseline for the Northern Spotted Owl on the Wenatchee National Forest and the Washington Eastern Cascades Physiographic Province. Wenatchee, WA: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hardy, C. C., Hermann, S. M., & Mutch, R. E. (2001, December). The Wildland Fire Imperative. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition . National Wildfire Coordination Group. PMS420-2.

Harrod, R., & Reichard, S. (2001). Fire and invasive species within the temperate and boreal coniferous forests of western North America. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Conference on Fire Ecology, Prevention and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11 (pp. 95-101). Tallahasee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station.

Harrod, R., Gaines, W., Hartl, W., & Camp, A. (1998). Estimating historical snag density in dry forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-428. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Harvey, A. (1994). Biotic and Abiotic Processes in Eastside Ecosystems: The Effects of Management on Soil Properties, Processes, and Productivity. USDA Forest Service, PNW.

Hayes, G.E., and Lewis, J.C.. 2006. Washinton State Recovery Plan for the Fisher. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 62 + viii pp.

Headrick, N. E., Conover, M. R., & deVos Jr., J. C. (2003). Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Managment Strategies. Logan, Utah: Berryman Institute Press, Utah Sate University.

Hessburg, P. F., & Agee, J. K. (2003). An enviromental narrative of inland northwest U.S. forests. Forest Ecology and Managment 178 , 23-59.

V-6

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Hessburg, P. F., Mitchell, R. G., & Filip, G. M. (1994). Historical and current roles of insects and pahtogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-327. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hessburg, P. F., Povak, N. A., & Salter, R. B. (2008). Thinning and prescribed fire effects on dwarf mistletoe severity in an eastern Cascade Range dry forest, Washington. Forest Ecology and Mangement 255 (7) , pp. 2907-2915.

Hessburg, P. F., Smith, B. G., & Salter, R. B. (1999). Detecting Change in Forest Spatial Patterns from Reference Conditions. Ecological Applications 9 (4) , 1232-1252.

Hessburg, P., Mitchell, R., & Filip, G. (1994). Historical and current roles of pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-327.

Hessburg, P., Salter, R., Ottmar, R., & Alvarado, E. (2000). Recent changes (1930s-1990s) in spatial patterns of interior northwest forests, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 136 , pp. 53-83.

Highways 410 and 12 Community Wildfire Protection Plan. (2006). Yakima County, Washington.

Hobbs, R., & Huenneke, L. (1992). Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6 , 324-337.

Hobbs, R., & Mooney, H. (1993). Restoration ecology and invasions. In: Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, & P.R. Ehrlich, editors. Nature conservation 3: reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems. Surrey Beatty and Sons. p. 127-133.

Hockersmith, E., Vella, J., Stuehrenberg, L., Iwamoto, R., & Swan, G. (1995). Yakima River Radio-Telemetry Study: Steelhead, 1989-1993; Annual Report 1989-1993. Portland, Oregon: Bonneville Power Administration.

Hodges, K. (2000). Ecology of snowshoe hares in the southern boreal and montane forests. In L. Ruggiero, K. Aubry, S. Buskirk, & e. al, Ecology and coservation of lynx in the United States (p. Chapter 7). Boulder, CO: Univ. Press of Colorado.

Hodkinson, D., & Thompson, K. (1997). Plant dispersal: the role of man. Journal of Applied Ecology 34 , 1484- 1496.

Host, L. (1988). Understory production response to tree stocking reduction in a central Washington mixed- conifer forest. Master of Science Thesis . Washington State University.

Hummel, S., & Agee, J. (2003). Western spruce budworm defoliation effects on forest structure and potential fire behavior. Northwest Science 77(2) , pp. 159-169.

Hungerford, R. Microenvironmental reponses to harvesting and residue managment. Environmental Consequences of Timber Harvest in Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forests. Symposium Proceddings, Sept 11-13, 1979. Missoula, Montana: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-90. Intermountain forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Hungerford, R. (1979). Microenvironmental reponses to harvesting and residue managment. Environmental Consequences of Timber Harvest in Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forests. Symposium Proceddings, Sept 11-13,

V-7

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

1979. Missoula, Montana: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-90. Intermountain forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Hutto, R. (1995). Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9 (5) , 1041-1058.

Johnson, D., & O'Neil, T. (2001). Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.

Kauffman, J. B. (2004, August). Death Rides the Forest: Perceptions of Fire, Land Use, and Ecological Restoration of Western Forests. Conservation Biology, Volume 18, No.4 , pp. 878-882.

Keeley, J. E. (1987). Role of Fire in Seed Germination of Woody Taxa in California Chaparral. Ecology 68 (2) , 434-443.

Kerwin, A. (2007). Townsends big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii, Management Plan for the Medford District, BLM, Grants Pass Resource Area. Medford, Oregon: USDI BLM.

Klemmedson, J., & Smith, J. (1964). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Kozma, J. (2010). Characteristics of Trees used by White-headed Woodpeckers of Sap Feeding in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 91 , 81-86.

Koehler, G.M. and Aubry, K.B. 1994. Lynx In: Ruggerio et al., tech. eds. american marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States: the scientific fasis for conserving forest carnivores. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. USDA Forest Service: 74-98.

Krupka, J. (2008). Washington Eastern Cascades Provincial analysis (draft). Wenatchee, WA: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

Lacey, J., Marlow, C., & Lane, J. (1989). Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaura maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technology 3 (4) , 627-631.

Law, R., & Morton, R. (1996). Permanence and the assembly of ecological communities. Ecology 77 , 762-775.

Lee, D., Sedell, J., Rieman, B., Thurow, R., Williams, J., Burns, D., et al. (1997). Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Great Basins. General Technical Report PNW-405 . Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Lee, D., Sedell, J., Rieman, B., Thurow, R., Williams, J., Burns, D., et al. (1997). Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. Vol. III, Chapter 4. Portland, Oregon: In: Quigley, T.M. & S.J. Arbelbide, eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Technical Report PNW-405. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Leege, T., & Godbolt, G. (1985). Herbaceous response following prescribed burning and seeding of elk range in Idaho. Northwest Science 59 (2) , 134-143.

Lehmkuhl, J., Kistler, K., & Begley, J. (2006). Bushy-tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of Eastern Washington. Journal of Mammalogy 87 (2) , 371-379.

V-8

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Lehmkuhl, J., Kistler, K., Beglery, J., & Boulanger, J. (2006). Demography of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications 16 (2) , 584-600.

Levine, J., & D'Antonio, C. (1999). Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invisibility. Oikos 87 , 15-26.

Lieffers, V., & Stadt, K. (1994). Growth of understory Picea glauca, Calamogrostis canadensis and Epilobium angustifolium to overstory light transmission. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24 , 1193-1198.

Lieffers, V., & Stadt, K. (1994). Growth of understory Picea glauca, Calamogrostis cnadensis and Epilobium angustifolium to overstory light transmission. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24 , 1193-1198.

Ligon, J. (1973). Foraging behavior of the white-headed woodpecker in Idaho. Auk 90 , 862-869. Lillybridge, T. R., Kovalchik, B. L., Williams, C. K., & Smith, B. G. (1995). Field Guide for Forested Plant Associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-359.

Lincoln, R., Boxshall, G., & Clark, P. (1998). A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Mac Arthur, R. (1970). Species-packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theoritical Population Biology 1 , 1-11.

Macdonald, J., Beaudry, P., MacIsaac, E., & Herunter, H. (2003). The Effects of Forest Harvesting and Best Management Practices on Strreamflow and Suspended Sediment Concentration During Snowmilt in Headwater Stream in Sub-Boreal forest of British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research , 1397-1407.

MacDonald, K., Noble, S., & Haskins, J. (1996). An Assessment of the Status of Aquatic Resources within Subbasins on the Wenatchee National Forest. Wenatchee, Washington: Wenatchee National Forest.

Mack, M., & D'Antonio, C. (1998). Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13 (5) , 195-198.

Mack, R., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W., Evans, H., Clout, M., & others. (2000). Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10 (3) , 689-710.

Madej, M. (2001). Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26 , 175-190.

Marmorek, D. R., Robinson, D., Murray, C., & Greig, L. (2006). Enabling Adaptive Forest Management - Final Report. Prepared for the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Foresrty. Vancouver, B.C.: ESSA Technologies Ltd.

Maxwell, W. G., & Ward, F. R. (1979). Photo Series For Quanitifying Forest Residues In The: Sierra Mixed Conifer Type, Sierra True Fire Type: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Fores and Range Experiment Station.

McConnell, B., & Smith, J. (1970). Response of understory vegetation to ponderosa pine thinning in eastern Washington. Journal of Range Management, Vol 23, No. 3 , pp. 208-212.

V-9

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

McLaughlin, S. (1978). Overstory attributes, light, throughfall and the interpretation of overstory-understory relationships. Forest Science 24 (4) , 550-553.

Mech, L., Fritts, S., Raddle, G., & Paul, W. (1988). Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16 (1) , 85-87.

Megahan, W. (1981). Effects of silvicultural practices on erosion and sedimentation in the Interior West; a case for sediment budgeting. Interior West Watershed Management (pp. 169-181). Pullman, Washington: Washington State University Cooperative Extension.

Mellen, T., Marcot, B., Ohmann, J., Waddell, K., Livingston, S., & Wilhite, E. (2009). DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.0. Retrieved 2010, from DecAID: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Mellen, T., Meslow, E., & Mannan, R. (1992). Summerrtime home range and habitat use of Pileated Woodpeckers in western Oregon. Oregon Journal of Wildlife Management 56(1) , 96-103.

Mladenoff, D., Sickley, T., Haight, R., & Wydeven, A. (1995). A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes region. Conservation Biology 9 , 279-294.

Moir, W. (1966). Infuence of ponderosa pine on herbaceous vegetation. Ecology 47 (6) , 1045-1048.

Mutch, R., Arno, S., Brown, J., Carlson, C. O., & Peterson, J. (1993). forest health in the Blue Mountains: A fire managment strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Naeem, S., Chapin III, R., Costanza, P., Ehrlich, F., Golley, & others. (1999). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Maintaining Natural Life Support Processes. Issues in Ecology 4 , 11.

Naeher Ph.D., L. P., Smith Ph.D., K. R., Brauer Sc.D., M., Chowdhurry Ph.D., Z., Simpson Ph.D., C., Koenig Ph.D., J. Q., et al. (2005 (rev)). Critical Review of the Health of Woodsmoke. Ottawa, Canada: Air Health Effects Division, Health Canada.

Nagorsen, D., & Brigham, R. (1993). Bats of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 164 p.

National Academy of Sciences. (2002). Predicting Invasions of Non-indigenous Plants and Plant Pests. Washington DC: The National Academy Press.

National Resource Council. (1994). Rangeland Health - New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Naumburg, E., & DeWald, L. (1999). Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, light characteristics, and undersory graminoid species presence and abundance. Forest Ecology and Management 124 , pp. 205-215.

Nelsen, C. R., Halpern, C., & Agee, J. (2008). Thinning and burning result in low-level invasion by nonnative plants but neutral effects on natives. Ecological Applications 18 (3) , 762-770.

V-10

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

North, M., Chen, J., Oakley, B., Song, B., Rudnicki, M., Gray, A., et al. (2004). Forest Stand Structure and Patten of Old-Growth Western Hemlock/Douglas-fir and Mixed-Conifer Forest. Forest Science 50(3) , pp. 299- 311.

O'Hara, K. L., Latham, P. A., Hessburg, P., & Smith, B. G. (1996, July). A Structural Classification for Inland Northwest Forest Vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vo. 11, No. 3 , pp. 97-102.

Oliver, C. D. (1981). Forest development in North America following major disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management , pp. 3: 153-168.

Oliver, C. D., & Larson, B. C. (1990). Forest Stand Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.

Olson, B. (1999). Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. In: Sheley, R.L. & J.K. Petroff, editors. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. p. 4-18.

Oregon State University. (2009, August 27). Riparian zones recover quickly after fire, need little management . Retrieved April 14, 2010, from University Advancement>>News & Communication Services: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/aug/riparian-zones-recover-quickly-after-fire-need-little- management

Orians, G. (1986). Site characteristics favoring invasions. In: Mooney, H.A. & J.A. Drake. Editors. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Vrelag. P. 132-148 .

Ottmar, R. D., Schaaf, M. D., & Alvarado, E. (1996). Smoke Considerations for Using Fire in Maintaining Healthy Forest Ecosystems. The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration (pp. 24-28). USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-341.

Owns, T. (1982). Postburn regrowth of shrubs related to canopy mortality. Northwest Science 56 (1) , 34-40.

Paoletti, E., Bytnerowicz, A., Andersen, C., Augustaitis, A., Ferretti, M., Grulke, N., et al. (2007). Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Change on Forest Ecosystems - Emerging Research Needs. TheScientificWorld , 1-8.

Parker, I., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W., Goodell, K., Wonham, M., & others, a. (1999). Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Volume 1 , 3-19. The Netherlands: Klawer Academic Publishers.

Parker, I., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W., Goodell, K., Wonham, M., & others, a. (1999). Impact: toward a framework for undrstanding the ecological effects of invaders. Volume 1 , 3-19. The Netherlands: Klawer Academic Publishers.

Pearson, T., Phelps, S., Martin, S., Bartrand, E., & McMichael, G. (2007). Gene Flow between Resident and Anadromous Rainbow Trout in the Yakima Basin: Ecological and Genetic Evidence. Redband Trout: Resilience and Challenge in a Chaging Landscape . Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society.

Perlack, R. D., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham, R. L., Stokes, B. J., & Erbach, D. C. (2005). Biomass As Feedstock For A Bioenergy And BioProducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility Of A Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

V-11

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Podur, J., & Wotton, M. (2010). Will climate change overwhelm fire management capacity? Ecological Modeling 221 , 1301-1309.

Pollet, J., & Omi, P. N. (2002). Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11 , 1-10.

Poole, K., Wakelyn, L., & Niclen, P. (1996). Habitat selection by lynx in the Northwest Territories. Can. J. Zool. 74 , 845-850.

Quigley, T., & Arbelbide, S. (1997). An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume III. In G. T. PNW-GTR-405. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Randall, J. (1996). Weed control for the preservation of bilogical diversity. Weed Technology 10 , 370-383.

Rapheal, M., & White, M. (1984). Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monograph 86 , 1-66.

Rashin, E., Clishe, C., Loch, A., & Bell, J. (2006). Effectiveness of Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42 (5) , 1307- 1327.

Reid, L., & Dunne, T. (1984). Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resources Research 20 , 1753-1761.

Reinhardt, E. D., Keane, R. E., Calkin, D. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 256 , 1997-2006. resource media. (2010). The Nature Conservancy and Conservation Northwest. Summary: Stakeholder Interviews. Unpublished report.

Reynolds, K., & Hessburg, P. (2005). Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management 207 , 263-278.

Reynolds, K., Rodriquez, S., & Bevens, K. (2003). User guide for the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System, Version 3.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Rhodes, J. J., & Baker, W. L. (2008). Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests. The Open Forest Science Journal 1 , 1-7.

Ricard, J., & Messier, C. (1996). Abundance, growth and allometry of red raspberry (Rubis idaeus) along a natural light gradient in a northern hardwood forest. forest Ecology Management 81 , 153-160.

Rice, P., Lacey, C., Lacey, J., & Johnson, R. (1994, July). Sulfur Cinquefoil Biology, Ecology and Management in Pasture and Rangeland. University of Montana: Montana Department of Agriculture .

Riegel, G., & Miller, R. (1992). Competition for resources between understory vegetation and overstory Pinus ponderosa in northeastern Oregon. Ecological Applications. 2(1) , 71-85.

V-12

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Riegel, G., Miller, R., & Krueger, W. (1995). Theeffects of aboveground and belowground competition on understory species composition in a Pinus ponderosa forest. Forestry Science 41 , 864-889.

Rippy, R., Stewart, J., Zambino, P., Klopfenstein, N., Tirocke, J., Kim, M.-S., et al. (2005). Root disease in coniferous forests of the inland West: potential implecations of fuels treatments. General Technical Report RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Robocker, W. (1974). Life history, ecology, and control of Dalmation toadflax. Washington State University: Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture.

Rowe, J. (1981). Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and species. In: Nelson, C.R., C.B. Halpern & J.K. Agee. 2008. Thinning and burning result in low-level invasion by nonnative plants but neutral effects on natives. Ecological Applications 18 (3). p. 762-770.

Ruediger, B., Claar, J., Gniadek, S., Holt, B., Lewis, L., Mighton, S., et al. (2000). Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service.

Saab, V., Bate, L., Lehmkuhl, J., Dickson, B., Story, S., & Jentsch, S. (2006). Changes in downed woody material and forest structures after prescribed fire in ponderosa pine forests. RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Saab, V., Dudley, J., & Thompson, W. (2003). Factors Influencing Occupancy of Nest Cavities in Recent Burned Forests. Condor 106 , 20-36.

Sandberg, D., Ottmar, R., & Peterson, J. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p671/?show_cited=1: Forest Encyclopedia Network.

Schmidt, W. (1989). Plant dispersal by motor cars. Vegetation 80 , 147-152.

Scott, J. H., & Burgan, R. E. (2005). Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive set for Use with Rothermel's Surface Fire Spread Model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRM-GTR-153.

Scott, J. H., & Burgan, R. E. (2005). Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel's Surface Fire Spread Model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153.

Scott, J. H., & Reinhardt, E. D. (2001). Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of suface and crown fire behavior. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service Research Paper RMRS-RP-29, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

SERA. 1997. Effects of Surfactants on the Toxicity of Glyphosate, with Specific Reference to RODEO.

Sheley, R. (1994). The identification, distribution, impacts, biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Scientific Contract Report. In Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

Sheley, R., Kedzi-Webb, S., & Mazwell, B. (1998). Integrated noxious weed management on rangeland. Proceedings: 1998 Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course. Rangeland Weeds: Issues and Approaches. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University.

V-13

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Shiflet, T. (1994). Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, Colorado: Society for Range Management.

Shinneman, D., & Baker, W. (1997). Nonequilibrium dynamics between catastrophic disturbances and old- growth forests in ponderosa pine landscapes of the Black Hills. Conservation Biology 11 , pp. 1276-1288.

Soloman, R., Ffolliott, P., & Thompson, J. (1976). Correlation between tranmissivity and basal area in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. USDA, Forest Service Research Note RM-318. Fort Collins, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

St.Hilaire, J.E. 2011. Biological Assessment of the Effects on Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species, Glass Angel Restoration Project. Naches Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Stevens, K. (1986). Allelopathic polyacetylens from Centaurea repens [Russian Knapweed]. Journal of Chemical Ecology 12 , 1205-1211.

Stewart, G., & Hull, A. (1949). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) an ecological intruder in southern Idaho.

Stohlgren, T. (1999). USGS Research upsets conventional wisdom on invasive species invasions. News Release .

Stokes, B. J. (1992). Harvesting small trees and forest residues. Biomass and Bioenergy 2(1) , pp. 131-147.

Sutherland, S., & Nelson, C. (2010). Nonnative plant response to silvicultural treatments: a model based on disturbance, propagule pressure, and competitive ability. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25 (1) , pp. 27- 33.

Swetnam, T., & Lynch, A. (1993). Multi-century, regional-scale patterns of western spruce budworm outbreaks. Ecological Monographs 63 , 299-424.

Swetnam, T., Wickman, B., Paul, H., & Baisan, C. (1995). Historical patterns of western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreaks in the northern Blue Mountains, Oregon, since 1700 A.D. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon: Research Paper PNW-RP-484.

Switalski, T., Bissonette, J., Deluca, T., Luce, C., & Madej, M. (2004). Benefits and Impact of Road Removal. Frontiers in Ecology 2 , 21-28.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (2003). Picloram - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. SERA TR 03-43-26-01b.

Taylor, A., & Skinner, C. (1998). Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111 , pp. 285-301.

Thiel, R. (1985). Relationship between road density and wolf habitat sustainability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113 , 404-407.

Thomas, J. (1979). Wildlife habitat in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

V-14

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Thomas, J.; (Technical Editor). (1979). Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Thompson, M. (1996). Winter foraging response of elk to spotted knapweed removal. Northwest Science 70 (1) , 10-19.

Tilman, D. (1997). Community invisibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78 , 81- 92.

Tisdale, E., & Hironaka, M. (1981). The sagebrush-grass region: a review of the ecological literature. Bulletin 33. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.

Troendle, C. (1980). An approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources. Hydrology. Chapter III . Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.

Tu, M., Hurd, C., & Randall, J. (2001). Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas.

Tyser, R., & Key, C. (1988). Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: anecological assessment. Northwest Science 62 (4) , 151-160.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Environmental Protection Act fact sheet. The Environmental Protection Agency's interim air quality policy on wildland and prescribed fires.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Interim air quality policy on wildland and prescribed fires. Final report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998, March 04). SIP - YRCAA - Section 5.01. Retrieved February 01, 2010, from Air Quality in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/airpage.nsf/283d45bd5bb068e68825650f0064cdc2/40c637e115abb5b288256a 69007ce741?OpenDocument

US Forest Service. (2010). Chapter 2020 - Ecological Restoration and Resilience. In U. F. Service, Forest Service Manual 2000. Washington, DC.

USDA and USDI. (1994). Record of Decision on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for late-Successional and Old-Growth Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2001). Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.

V-15

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Survey Protocols for Bridgeoporous nobilissimus Fungi, Version 2.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Survey Protocols for Bridgeoporous nobilissimus Fungi. Version 2.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Survey Protocols for Component 2 Lichens. Version 2.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1999). Survey Protocols for Protection and Buffer Bryophytes. Version 2.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1999). Survey Protocols for Seven Protection Buffer Fungi. Version 1.3.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1997). Survey Protocols for Survey and Manage Component 2 Bryophytes, Version 2.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Survey Protocols for Survey and Manage Strategy 2 Vascular Plants. Version 2.

USDA Forest Service & USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Occuppied Mapped Lynx Habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. Missoula, Montana; Lakewood, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. (2003). 2003 amendment to the surve protocol for survey & manage category A & C lichens in the northwest forest plan area v2.1. Amendment September 2003.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Canada Lynx CVonservation Agreement, USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1.

USDA Forest Service. (1997). BMPMZ Management Guide, Management of Douglas-fi Infected with Dwarf Mistletoe in the Blue Mountains of Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington. Pacific Northwest Region, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. BMZ-97-02.

USDA Forest Service. (2010, June 28). Cummulative Effects and Climate Change. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from Climate Change Resource Center: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/cumulative-effects.shtml

USDA Forest Service. (2005). Final Evironmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05: Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program.

USDA Forest Service. (1997). Forest Fish Distribution Database, bull trout spawning surveys. Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (1995). Forest Fish Distribution Database, District stream surveys. Okanongan- Wenatchee National Forest.

V-16

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

USDA Forest Service. (1988). General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. (2005). Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels. 0577 1205-SDTDC.

USDA Forest Service. (2000). Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. (2002). Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Management and Prevention Strategy and Best Management Practices.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Biological Assessment for the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. June 17, 2005. 425pp + appendices.

USDA Forest Service. (2005). Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. R6-NR-FHP-PR- 02-05.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement Amendment. Regional 6 Forester’s letter. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. (2007). Record of Decision To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service. (2004). Region 6 Regional Forester's Sensitive Plant List.

USDA Forest Service. (2007). Technical Guide to Managing Ground Water Resources. FS-881.

USDA Forest Service. (2006). Terrestrial species assessments: Region 6 forest plan revisions. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Programmatic Biological Assessment for Selected Forest Management Activities on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. April 2008 – April 2013. 132 pp + appendices.

USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). Wildfire Threats. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center: http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/threats/wildfire.html

USDA Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest. (2009, July 27). Forest Health: Prescribe Burning. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from Daniel Boone National Forest: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/resources/forest_health/prescrib_burn.shtml

USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District. 2010. Naches Ranger District Wildlife Data Base. Naches, WA

USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District. (2008). Programmatic Biological Assessment for Selected Forest Management Activities on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District. (2007). Canteen Ecosystem Restoration Project.

V-17

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District. (1995). Naches Mainstem and Wenas Watershed Analysis.

USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District. (2003). Rattle Project Environmental Assessment. Naches Ranger District, Okanongan-Wenatchee National Forests.

USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District. (1997). Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Naches Ranger District, Wenatchee National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. (2000). Strategy for Management of Dry Forest Vegetaion - Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.

USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. (2001). Interim Draft Guidelines for the Identification of Non-High Priority Sites of Cypripedium montanum on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests.

USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. (2010). Okanongan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: a process for guiding restoration projects within the context of ecosystem management. Wenatchee, WA: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. (2010). The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape reseliency. Pacific Northwest Region: Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. (2005). Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee Forest Insect & Disease Service Center. (2010). Analysis of the 2009 Aerial Survey Data, Naches Ranger District. Wenatchee, Washington: USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. (1999). Fisheries Biological Assessment, Wenatchee National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. (1997). Forest-wide assessment for late-successional reserves and managed late-successional areas.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. (1996). Ground Based Harvest Policy, as revised. Sonny J. O'Neal.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. (2000). Monitoring Report for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Fiscal Year 1999.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. (1996). Naches Area Soil Survey Inservice Field Guide.

USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. (1990). Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. (2004). Forest Health Assessment for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Wenatchee, WA.

V-18

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

USDA Forest Service. Okanongan-Wenatchee National Forest. (2006). Wood Changes in Fire-Killed Tree Species in Eastern Washington. Wenactchee, WA: USDA Forest Service. J. Hadfield and R. Magelssen.

USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. (1991 (revised 1993)). Protocol for surveying for spotted owls in proposed management activity areas and habitat conservation areas. Portland, OR: R6, USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. (2008). Regional Forester's Special Status List. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service; Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1999). Historical and Current Forest and Range Landscapes in the Interior River Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Part 1: Linking Vegetation Patterns and Landscape Vulnerability to Potential Insect and Pathogen Distrurbances. In Table 6 - Classification rules for forest structural classes modeled for sampled subwatersheds in the midscale ecological assessment of the interior Columbia Basin (p. 47). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2000). Interior columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). Supplemental draft environmental impact statement. ICBEMP. Boise, ID.

USDI. (1973). Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended through the 108th Congress. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1992). Critical habitat for northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon: January 15. Volume 57. No. 10.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1990). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determinination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55: 26114-26194.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Federal Register (73 FR 32449 32516) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); Proposed Rule.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Federal Register (74 FR 8615 8702) Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2001). Federal Register (Vol. 66, No 11, Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001), Presidential Documents. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Review of native species that are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on resubmitted petitions; annual descriptions of progress on listing actions. September 12, 2006. Federal Register 71 (176): 53756-53835.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Portland, OR: Region 1.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1967). Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species. Federal Register. Volume 32. Number 48.

USDI National Park Service. (2001). Chinook Scenic Byway Charette. NPS D-472.

V-19

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Van Pelt, R. (2008). Identifying Old Trees and Forests in Eastern Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Van Wagner, C. (1977). Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 7 , 23-34.

Veblen, T., Kitzberger, T., & Donnegan, J. (2000). Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in poserosa pine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Ecological Applications 10 , pp. 1178-1195.

Villard, P. (1994). Foraging behavior of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers during spring and summer in a Canadian boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72 (11) , 1957-1959.

Vitousek, P. (1996). Biological invasions as global envirnmental change. American Scientist 84 , 468-478.

Vitousek, P., D'Antonio, C., Loope, L., & Westbrooks, R. (1996). Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist 84 (5) , 468-478.

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2010, April). Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Conservation. Retrieved 2006, from Deer "Hair Loss Syndrome" Fact Sheet: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hair_loss/index.html

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2002). Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendation Vol IV: Birds- White-headed Woodpeckers. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. J.C. Lewis and E.Rodrick.

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2002). Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendation. Vol. IV: Birds - White-headed Woodpeckers. Olympia, Washington: J. Lewis & E. Rodrick.

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2002). Yakima Elk Herd. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Wildlife Program. Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2009, May). Fact Sheet, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from "Hair Loss Syndrome" caused by exotic lice: http://wdfw.wa.gov/factshts/hairloss.htm

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2002). Washington State Elk Herd Plan. Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. (1992). 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory.

Wemple, B. (1994). Hydorlogic Integration of Forest Roads with Stream Networks in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon: Masters Thesis.

Westerling, A., Hidalgo, H., Cayan, D., & Swetnam, T. (2006). Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science 313 .

Wheeler, J. (2010). Botanical Survey Field Notes and File for the Dry-Orr Landscape Analysis Area. Okanogan Wenatchee NF., Naches Ranger District.

V-20

Glass Angel Restoration Project References Cited

Wightman, C., Saab, V., Forristal, K., Mellen-Mclean, K., & Markus, A. (2010). White-headed Woodpecker Nesting Ecology After Wildfire. Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (5) , 1098-1106.

Winkler, H., Christie, D., & Nurney, D. (1995). Woodpeckers: a guide to the woodpeckers of the world. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Wisdom, M., Holthausen, R., Wales, B., Hargis, C., Saab, V., & Lee, D. (2000). Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Vol 1-3. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wright, H., & Bailey, A. (1980). Fire ecology and prescribed fire in the Great Plains - a research review. General Technical Report INT-77. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Wydoski, R., & Whitney, R. (1979). Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press.

Yakama Nation. (1990). Yakima River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Columbia Basin System Planning.

Yakima County GIS. (2009). Yakima County Land Information Portal. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from Yakimap.com: http://yakimap.com/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?name=YakGISH&Cmd=Map Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency. (2005). Briefing paper for the proposed new national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter.

Youkey, D. and Gaines, W. 2011. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Management Indicator Species Report. In prep.

Young, R. (1986). Fire ecology and management in plant communities of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Thesis . Portland, Oregon: Oregon State University.

Zamora, B. (1982). Understory development in forest succession: example from the inland northwest.

V-21

Glass Angel Restoration Project Public and Interagency Involvement Summary

APPENDIX A

Public and Interagency Involvement Summary

This chapter summarizes public involvement for the environmental analysis.

Table A.1: Chronological Summary of Public/Agency Involvement Date Event June 1, 2010 Project Initiation Letter for the Glass Angel Restoration Project is distributed to the analysis team August 25, 2010 Intra-agency field trip; sensing of intra-agency partners. Participants include representatives from the Yakama Nation, Conservation Northwest, WA Dept. of Natural Resources, WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, University of Washington, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, and USDA Forest Service, Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest: Forest Headquarters, Cle Elum Ranger District, Wenatchee River Ranger District, Entiat Ranger District, and Chelan Ranger District.

October 7, 2010 Inter-governmental letter mailed to Harry Smiskin, Chairman, Yakama Nation, and other Tribal Leaders and Liason.

October 11, 2010 Scoping letter mailed to approximately 280 individuals, other government agencies, environmental groups, and timber companies. An additional 110 letters sent via email. 62 letters returned as undeliverable. November 2, 2010 Glass Angel Restoration Project is presented at the Trails and Wilderness Interest Group (TWIG) meeting. Twenty- seven members present.

January 6, 2011 Level I Consultation Meeting between IDT members, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries.

A-1 Glass Angel Restoration Project Public and Interagency Involvement Summary

Date Event January 24, 2011 Letters and Biological Assessments mailed, requesting informal consultation on the Glass Angel Restoration Project mailed to Steve Landino of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Jessica Gonzales of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 18 – 20, 2011 Information regarding the Glass Angel Restoration Project is presented as a part of the Forest Service display at the Central Washington Sportsmen Show at the Sundome, Yakima, WA. The event website estimates an average attendance of 10,000 people. March 4, 2011 Letter received from United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, dated March 2, 2011. The letter concurs with the USFS determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for bull trout and its designated critical habitat, northern spotted owl and its designated critical habitat, Canada lynx, and gray wolf. This letter serves to meet requirements for consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

A-2 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

APPENDIX B

Glossary of Terms

"A" adaptive capacity: The capacity of a system to adapt if the environment where the system exists is changing. It is applied to the ecological systems and human social systems. As applied to ecological systems, adaptive capacity is determined by

1. Genetic diversity of species. 2. Biodiversity within a particular ecosystem. 3. Heterogeneous ecosystem mosaics as applied to specific landscapes or biome regions. adaptive management: A system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting desired outcomes, and if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met of reevaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain. aerial fuels: All live and dead vegetation in the forest canopy or above surface fuels, including tree branches, twigs and cones, snags, moss, and high brush. affected enviornment: The area that will be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. aspect: Direction toward which a slope faces.

"B" basal area: 1. Cross-sectional area of a tree determined from the diameter at breast height (dbh). 2. Total area of ground covered by trees measured at breast height. 3. Actual surface area of soil covered by a plant measured close the ground (Lincoln, Boxshall, & Clark, 1998). best management practice (BMP): One or more practices designed to prevent or reduce pollution or another negative effect on a resource. biological assessment (BA): Information prepared by, or under the direction of, a federal agency to determine whether a proposed action is likely to: 1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat; 2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are proposed for listing; or 3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. biological diversity: The variety of life and its process, including complexity of species, communities, gene pools, and ecological functions.

B - 1 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

biological evaluation (BE): A documented US Forest Service review of internal programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any threatened, endangered proposed or sensitive species. biomass: Biomass used as fuel may include plant or animal matter, as well as biodegradable wastes. bone dry (as in “bone dry tons”): Having zero percent moisture content. Wood heated in an oven at a constant temperature of 100°C (212°F) or above until its weight stabilizes is considered bone dry or oven dry. broom: A cluster of branches, radiating from a single point, that results from damage in a tree from agents such as mistletoe. brush: A collective term that refers to stands of vegetation dominated by shrubby, woody plants or low-growing trees, usually of a type undesirable for livestock or timber management. burning conditions: The state of the combined factors of the environment that affect fire behavior in a specified fuel type.

"C" canopy: A layer of foliage in a forest stand. Most often refers to the uppermost layer of foliage, but can be used to describe lower layers within a multistoried stand. canopy closure: The degree to which the crowns of trees are nearing general contact with one another. Generally measured as the percent of the ground surface that would be covered by a vertical projection of foliage in the crown of trees. closure: Legal restriction on -- but not necessarily elimination of -- specified activities such as smoking, camping, or entry that might cause fires in a given area. cohort: Trees within a cohort share a common disturbance history; they are those initiated or released after a disturbance (natural or artificial). Tree ages within a cohort may span several decades. commercial thin: A silviculture treatment that "thins" out an overstocked stand by removing trees that are large enough to be sold as sawtimber. It is carried out to improve the health and growth rate of the remaining crop trees. composition: The abundance, or relative abundance of components, such as water, nutrients, and species, that make up the ecosystem. corridor: A defined tract of land, usually linear, through which species must travel to reach habitat suitable for reproduction and other life-sustaining needs.

B - 2 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

critical habitat: Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species on which are found those physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species. cumulative effect (cumulative impact): Effect on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. cumulative effects [ESA Section 7]: Those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. connectivity: 1. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move across the landscape. 2. Patches of similar habitats that are either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation. contain a fire: A fuel break around the fire has been completed. This break may include natural barriers such as a river or road, and/or fireline built by hand, and/or fireline constructed mechanically. control a fire: The complete extinguishment of a fire, including spot fires. Fireline has been strengthened so that flare-ups from within the perimeter of the fire will not break through the line. control line: All built or natural fire barriers and treated fire edge used to control a fire. cooperating agency: An agency supplying assistance other than direct suppression, rescue, support, or service functions to the incident control effort; e.g., Red Cross, law enforcement agency, telephone company, etc. crown fire: The movement of fire through the crowns or tops of trees or shrubs more or less independently of the surface fire. A fire is said to be crowning when the flames get up into the tops of trees and spreads.

"D"

DBH or dbh: Diameter Breast Height; 4.5 feet above ground level. dead fuels: Fuels with no living tissue in which moisture content is governed almost entirely by atmospheric moisture (relative humidity and precipitation), dry-bulb temperature, and solar radiation. desired future condition: Land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved. dispersal: The movement, usually one way and on any time scale, of plants or animals from their point of origin to another location where the subsequently produce offspring.

B - 3 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

dispersed recreation: Recreation that takes place in primitive settings where few, if any, constructed facilities are provided. Trail use, rock climbing, boating, hunting and fishing are examples of dispersed recreation. Contrast with developed recreation. disturbance: A significant change in structure and/or composition caused by natural events such as fire, wind, flood, and human caused events. diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their composition, structure, and process within all or a part of an area. duff: The layer of decomposing organic materials lying below the litter layer of freshly fallen twigs, needles, and leaves and immediately above the mineral soil.

"E" edge: Where plant communities meet or where successional stages of vegetation conditions within plant communities come together. ecological restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable , resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions. ecosystem: An arrangement of biotic and abiotic components and forces that move among them. ecosystem services: Benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including;

Provisioning services – such as food, fresh water, fuel, and fiber;

Regulating services – such as climate, water, pollination, and disease regulation;

Supporting services – such as soil formation and nutrient cycling; and

Cultural services – such as educational, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values as well as recreation and tourism opportunities. environmental analysis: 1. An analysis of actions and their predictable long and short-term environmental effects. Environmental anlyses include consideration of physical, biological, social, and economic factors. 2. A general term that could refer to an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. environmental assessment (EA): EAs were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. They are analytical documents prepared with public participation to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for a project or action. If an EA determines an EIS is not needed, the EA becomes the document allowing agency compliance with NEPA requirements.

B - 4 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

environmental impact statement (EIS): EISs were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Prepared with public participation, they assist decision-makers by providing information, analysis, and an array of action alternatives, allowing managers to see the probable effects of management decisions on the environment. Generally, an EIS is written for a large-scale action or geographical area. extreme fire behavior: "Extreme" implies a level of fire behavior characteristics that ordinarily precludes methods of direct control action. One or more of the following are usually involved: high rate of spread, prolific crowning and/or spotting, presence of fire whirls, a strong convection column. Predictability is difficult because such fires often exercise influence on their environment and behave erratically, sometimes dangerously. erosion: The wearing away of the earth’s surface by running water, wave action, moving ice and wind, or process of mass wasting chemical processes. Geologic erosion refers to natural erosion processes occurring over long (geologic) time spans. Accelerated erosion generically refers to erosion in excess of what is presumed or estimated to be naturally occurring levels, and which is a direct result of human activities.

"F" fire behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuels, weather, and topography. fire break or fuel break: A natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires, or to provide a control line from which to work. fire intensity: A general term relating to the heat energy released by a fire. fireline: A linear fire barrier that is scraped or dug to mineral soil after being cleared of all vegetation. fire regime: A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites. Fire regime is a description of patterns, or cycles, of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects as well, in a given area or ecosystem.

fire regime I: Frequent fire return, low severity; 0-35 years

fire regime II: Frequent fire return, stand replacement severity fire; 0-35 years

fire regime III: Mixed fire severity; 35-100+ years

fire regime IV: Stand replacement severity; 35-100+ years

fire regime V: Stand replacement severity; 200+ years

B - 5 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

fire season: 1) Period(s) of the year during which wildland fires are likely to occur, spread, and affect resource values sufficient to warrant organized fire management activities. 2) A legally enacted time during which burning activities are regulated by state or local authority. fire weather: Weather conditions that influence fire ignition, fire behavior, and suppression. flame length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the flame (generally the ground surface); flame length is an indicator of fire intensity. forb: A plant with a soft rather than permanent woody stem, that is not a grass or grass-like plant. foreground (viewing distance): The portion of a scene nearest to the viewer. Ranging from 0-500m.

Forest Supervisor: The official responsible for administering National Forest System lands on one or more national forests. A Forest Supervisor reports to a Regional Forester. fragmentation: As related to forest management, fragmentation is a process that results in habitat conversion, habitat discontinuity, and eventually the isolation or insularization of the original habitat. The process of fragmentation occurs across a range of landscape patterns. At one extreme, it is represented by small disturbance patches, which disrupt the continuity of habitat. At the other extreme, widespread habitat conversion causes isolation of the remnant original habitat into patches. fuel: Combustible material. Includes vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees that feed a fire. (Also see surface fuels.) fuel bed: In a research setting, an array of fuels usually constructed with specific loading, depth, and particle size to meet experimental requirements; also commonly used to describe the fuels composition in natural settings. fuel loading: The amount of fuels present expressed quantitatively in terms of weight per unit area (e.g., tons/acre). fuel model: Simulated fuel complex (or combination of vegetation types) for which all fuel descriptors required for the solution of a mathematical rate of spread model have been specified. fuel moisture: The quantity of moisture in fuels expressed as a percentage of the weight when thoroughly dried at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Also referred to as fuel moisture content. fuels reduction: Manipulation, including combustion or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control. Often includes thinning and/or prescribed burning. fuel type: An identifiable association of fuel elements of a distinctive plant species, form, size, arrangement, or other

B - 6 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of fire spread or difficulty of control under specified weather conditions. fugitive dust: Dust particles that are introduced or re-suspended into the air through certain activities, such as soil cultivation or vehicles operating on open fields or dirt roads. function: The process through which composition and function interact, including predation, decomposition, and disturbances, such as fire and floods.

FVS (Forest Vegetation Simulator): A forest growth simulation model. This model is able to simulate and is responsive to common management actions, including both the immediate effect of the action (e.g., density reduction) and the secondary effects (e.g., reduced mortality, or increased growth of the remaining trees).

"G" geographic information system (GIS): 1. A database designed to handle geographic data. 2. A set of computer operations that can be used to analyze geographic data. Also referred to as computerized mapping. goal: In planning, a concise statement that describes future condition to be achieved with no specific date by which it is to be attained. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms. Goal statements form the principal basis from which objectives are developed. ground fuels: All combustible materials below the surface litter, including duff, tree or shrub roots, punky wood, peat, sawdust, and other materials that can support a glowing combustion without flame.

"H" habitat: The place where plant or animal naturally lives and grows. habitat effectiveness: The ability of wildlife to utilize its habitat. It is usually measured in the form of an index that takes into account certain habitat features needed by a species and any human made features that may influence the ability of a species to use its habitat. handline (hand fireline): A fireline built with hand tools, such as shovels and pulaskis. hazard reduction: Any treatment of a hazard that reduces the threat of ignition and fire intensity or rate of spread. head of a fire: The portion of the fire having the fastest rate of spread.

B - 7 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

historic range of variability: The bounded behavior of ecosystems prior to the dramatic changes in state factors that accompanied the settlement of North America, beginning with the discovery of the “New World”. home range: The area within which an animal conducts its activities during a defined period of time.

"I" intermittent stream: A stream that normally flows in response to a seasonally fluctuating water table in a well-defined channel (flowing 10-90 percent of an average year). The channel will exhibit signs of annual scour, sediment transport and other stream channel characteristics, absent perennial flows. Intermittent streams typically flow during times of elevated water table levels and may be dry during significant periods of the year, depending on precipitation cycles. Intermittent streams do not maintain fish populations of aquatic insects that have larvae with multi-year life cycles. Contrast with ephemeral stream and perennial stream. issues: Areas of unresolved conflict concerning management of the National Forest.

"J"

"K"

"L" ladder fuels: Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata, thereby allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help start and continue crowning on a fire.

Land Management Plan (LMP): The document that guides the management of a particular national forest and establishes management standards for all lands controlled by that national forest. Also referred to as the forest plan or amended forest plan. large tree: Those trees that are 20-25 inches, diameter breast height (dbh). large fire: 1) For statistical purposes, a fire burning more than a specified area of land; e.g., 100 acres. 2) A fire burning with a size and intensity such that its behavior is determined by interaction between its own convection column and weather conditions above the surface. litter: Top layer of the forest, scrubland, or grassland floor, directly above the fermentation layer. It's composed of loose debris including sticks, branches, twigs, and recently fallen leaves or needles, little altered in structure by decomposition. long-term effects: Those effects, which will usually occur beyond the next ten years.

B - 8 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

"M" management action: Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National Forest. mesic: Refers to moist to moderately moist soil conditions. Under mesic conditions, soil moisture is predictably adequate for plant growth during the growing season. micron: One millionth of a meter, or the thousandth part of one millimeter. Also referred to as a micrometer. middleground (viewing distance): Ranging from 500m-5km. The distance at which it is hardest to achieve harmonization among different disturbances affecting the landscape. mineral soil: Soil layers below the predominantly organic layers; soil with little combustible material. mitigation: Collective actions taken to avoid, minimize, or rectify the negative impact of a land management practice.

"N"

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA is the basic national law for protection of the environment, passed by Congress in 1969. It sets policy and procedures for environmental protection, and authorizes Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments to be used as analytical tools to help federal managers make land management decisions. native species: With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat: Forest vegetation with appropriate structure and composition to meet some or all of the life needs of Northern spotted owl.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): An act to establish a program for the preservation of additional historic properties throughout the Nation, and for other purposes. no management action: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if management practices cease or continue without change, or without natural disturbance (such as wildfire or flood). Provides a basis (point of reference) for describing the environmental effects of the proposed action and other alternatives.

B - 9 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

"O" objective: In planning, a concise, time specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals. old forest multistory: Two or more cohorts and strata present including large, ole trees. Definition: Multi-ages stand with assortment of tree sizes and canopy strata present including large, old trees. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs may be present. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996) old forest single story: Single stratum of medium to large, old trees of one or more cohorts. Structure maintained through nonlethal burning or management. Description: Broken or continuous canopy of medium to large, old trees. Single or multi-cohort. Understory absent or consisting of some seedlings, saplings, grasses, forbs, or shrubs. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996) old trees: Utilizing Van Pelt’s (2008) identification guidelines:

Ponderosa pine Score of >6 Western larch Score of >7 Douglas-fir Score of >7 Grand fir No Score owl site: Any site where there has been a recent or historic observation of a single spotted owl or a pair of owls.

"P" particulate matter: Material suspended in the air in the form of minute solid particles or liquid droplets, especially when considered as an atmospheric pollutant. perennial stream: Any watercourse that normally flows most of the year (greater than 90 percent of an average year) in a well- defined channel, although droughts and other precipitation patterns may influence the actual duration of flow. It contains fish or aquatic insects that have larvae with multiyear lifecycles, and water-dependant vegetation is typically associated with it. Contrast with ephemeral stream and intermittent stream.

PETS species: The inclusive group of federally Proposed, Endangered and Threatened species, and Sensitive species as identified by a Regional Forester. pole: A tree 7-12” dbh. prescribed fire: Any fire ignited by management actions under certain pre-determined conditions to meet specific objectives related to hazardous fuels reduction or habitat improvement. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met prior to ignition. Prescribed fires are ignited and managed within a "window" (see "Prescription" below) of very specific conditions including winds, temperatures, humidity, and other factors specified in the burn plan.

B - 10 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

prescribed fire plan: This document provides the prescribed fire burn boss the information needed to implement an individual prescribed fire project. Also called burn plan. prescription: Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited, which also guide selection of appropriate management responses and indicate other required actions. Prescription criteria may include safety, economic factors, air quality, public health, and other environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations.

"Q"

"R"

Ranger District: The administrative sub-unit of a national forest, supervised by a District Ranger who reports directly to a Forest Supervisor. rate of spread: The relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal dimensions. It is expressed as a rate of increase of the total perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, or as rate of increase in area, depending on the intended use of the information. Usually it is expressed in chains or acres per hour for a specific period in the fire's history. redox active: Oxidation and reduction. Oxidative stress resulting from iron accumulation in the human brain that can lead to cognitive disorders, e.g., Alzheimer’s Disease.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities and experience opportunities along a spectrum defined by the following six classes of opportunities

primitive: No modification

semi-primitive non-motorized: Minimum modification. Motorized access not allowed.

semi-primitive motorized: Minimum modification. Motorized access is allowed.

roaded natural: Moderate modification.

rural: Heavy modification.

urban: High degree of modification. reference condition: Initial state of the natural environment in a localized area before interruptions to the disturbance regime. An estimate of the central tendency of vegetation composition refugia: Havens of safety where populations have a high probability of surviving periods of adversity.

Regional Forester: The official of the US Forest Service responsible for administering an entire region of the Forest Service.

B - 11 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

rehabilitation: Commonly referred to as "rehab," the work necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildland fire or suppression activities. Often includes restoration of firelines or dozer work, and projects such as erosion control, installation of water bars or culverts, re-seeding or other rehab of fire-damaged areas. relative humidity (RH): The ratio of the amount of moisture in the air to the maximum amount of moisture that the air would contain if it were saturated -- the ratio of the actual vapor pressure to the saturated vapor pressure. resilience: The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. resources: 1) The natural resources of an area, such as timber, wildlife habitat, grasslands, watershed values, and recreational and other values. 2) Personnel, equipment, services, and supplies available, or potentially available, for assignment to fires or other incidents. responsible official: The US Forest Service employee who has been delegated the authority to carry out a specific planning action. restoration: See ecological restoration. run-off: The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open channels.

"S" scarify: A shallow loosening of the soil surface. security habitat: Areas that are away from the influence of open roads, trails, and/or human disturbance. sediment: Material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by water, wind, ice or mass wasting and has come to rest on the earth’s surface. sedimentation: The tendency for particles in suspension to settle out of the fluid in which they are entrained, and come to rest against a barrier. seep: A wet area where a seasonal high water table intersects with the ground surface. selection cut: The silvicultural practice of removing mature timber or thinning to improve the timber stand. seral: A biotic community that is a developmental, transitory stage in an ecological succession.

B - 12 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

seral species: A species associated with a stage (sere) in the development of a biotic community. shelterwood: A timber harvest prescription that retains ten to seventeen trees of commercial size per acre. slash: Debris left after logging (commercial harvest), pruning, thinning, or brush cutting; can include logs, chips, bark, branches, stumps and broken understory trees or brush. smoke management: Application of fire intensities and meteorological processes to minimize degradation of air quality during prescribed fires. smoldering fire: A fire burning without flame and barely spreading. snag: A standing dead tree or part of a dead tree from which at least the smaller branches have fallen. soil compaction: A reduction of soil volume, which results in alteration of soil chemical, physical and biological properties and qualities. species of concern: Species for which the responsible official determines that management actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. spotting: Behavior of a fire producing sparks or embers that are carried by the wind and start new fires beyond the zone of direct ignition by the main fire. stand initiation: Growing space is reoccupied following a stand replacing disturbance. Description: One canopy stratum (may be broken or continuous). One cohort of seedlings or saplings; grass, forbs, and shrubs may be present. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996) stem exclusion closed canopy: New individuals are excluded through light or underground competition. Description: Continuous closed canopy, usually one cohort; poles, small or medium trees present. Suppressed trees, grasses, shrubs, and forbs may be absent in some cover types. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996) stem exclusion open canopy: Underground competition limits establishment of new individuals. Description: One broken canopy stratum which included poles or small trees; grasses, shrubs, or forbs may also be present. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996) structural class or stand structure: A classification of stand structures based on stand development that accounted for disturbance regimes typical of the inland northwest. Stratifying a landscape into these process-based structure classes allows subsequent analysis of landscape pattern and ecological processes, i.e. disturbance and succession. structure: The physical arrangement in space of water, nutrients, and species, that make up the ecosystem.

B - 13 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

suppression: All the work of extinguishing or containing a fire, beginning with its discovery. surface fuels: Loose litter on the soil surface, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches that have not yet decayed; also grasses, forbs, low and medium shrubs, tree seedlings, heavier branchwood, downed logs, and stumps interspersed with or partially replacing the litter. sustainability: Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, and ecological conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales, embodying the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield. system road: A road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving National Forest System land and necessary for the protection, administration and use of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. system trail: A National Forest System trail that is open to public travel and has been approved for inclusion in the National Forest Trail System.

"T" temporary road or trail: A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or a forest rrail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). tiering: Used to imply that a stand-alone management document also encompasses and is consistent with the direction of a higher level document. For example – The EA tiers to the Land Management Plan. timber stand improvement (TSI): Measures such as thinning, pruning, release cutting, prescribed fire, girdling, weeding, or poisoning of unwanted trees aimed at improving growing conditions for the remaining trees. torching: The ignition and flare-up of a tree or small group of trees, usually from bottom to top. turbidity: The cloudiness or haziness of a fluid caused by individual particles (suspended solids) that are generally invisible to the naked eye, similar to smoke in air. The measurement of turbidity is a key test of water quality.

"U" unauthorized road or trail: A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). uncontrolled fire: Any fire which threatens life, property, or natural resources.

B - 14 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

underburn: A fire that consumes surface fuels, from few to most shrubs, and causes limited mortality to medium and large diameter trees. understory reinitiation: Initiation of new cohort as older cohort occupies less than full growing space. Description: Broken overstory canopy with formation of understory stratum; two or more cohorts. Overstory may be poles or larger trees; understory is seedling, saplings, grasses, forbs, or shrubs. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996)

"V" very large trees: Those trees that are >25 inches, diameter breast height (dbh). viability: The ability of a population to maintain sufficient size so that it persists over time in spite of normal fluctuation in numbers; usually expressed as a probability of maintaining a specific population for a specified period.

"W" well distributed: A geographic distribution of habitats that maintains a population throughout a planning area and allows for interaction of individuals through periodic interbreeding and colonization of unoccupied habitats. wildland fire: Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in a wildland area.

Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI): The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Often incorrectly referred to as the "interzone" or "urban/wildland interface." wildlife snag: Standing dead trees or live trees showing evidence of disease or decay such as dead or broken tops, conks, cavities caused from large broken limbs or obvious signs of wildlife use such as woodpecker holes; Douglas-fir with dwarf mistletoe ratings greater than 3 or massive brooms; Live trees with forked tops are also valuable to wildlife and can be considered if they show signs of decay or disease. winter logging: During winter logging, snow is typically present and the ground is frozen so as to reduce impacts to soils and understory plants. Winter logging refers to the condition described, not a specific date.

"X”

“Y” young forest multistory: Two or more cohorts present through establishment after periodic disturbances including harvest events. Description: Multi-aged (multi-cohort) stand with assortment of tree sizes and canopy strata present but very large trees absent. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs may be present. (O'Hara, Latham, Hessburg, & Smith, 1996)

“Z"

B - 15 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

Acronyms and Abbreviations

µ: micron or micrometer

ACS: Aquatic Conservation Strategy

BA: basal area; Biological Assessment

BE: Biological Evaluation

BMP: Best Management Practices

Ca: calcium

CE: Categorical Exclusion

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CG: campground

CH4: methane

CO: carbon monoxide

CO2: carbon dioxide

CWPP: Community Wildfire Protection Plan

DBH: diameter, breast height

DFC: desired future condition

DNR: Washington State Department of Natural Resources

DR: District Ranger

EA: Environmental Assessment

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact

FR: fire regime

FRXXXX: Forest Road (followed by the road number)

FRCC: fire regime condition class

FS: Forest Service

B - 16 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

FVS: Forest Vegetation Simulator

GIS: Geographic Information System

HRV: historic range of variability

ID: interdisciplinary

IDR: inherent disturbance regime

IDT: interdisciplinary team

K: potassium

LMP: Land Management Plan

LSR: Late Successional Reserve

LSRA: Late Successional Reserve Assessment

MLSA: Managed Late Successional Area

N: nitrogen

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NF: National Forest

NFMA: National Forest Management Act

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NOEC: no observable effect concentration

OWF: Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

P: phosphorus

PM: particulate matter

PM2.5: particulate matter less than 2.5µ in aerodynamic diameter

PM10: particulate matter less than 10µ in aerodynamic diameter

RD: Ranger District

RF: Regional Forester

RO: Regional Office

B - 17 Glass Angel Restoration Project Glossary of Terms

ROS: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; rate of spread

SO: Supervisor’s Office

TSI: timber stand improvement

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USDI: United States Department of Interior

USFS: United States Forest Service

WDF&W: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WO: Washington Office

B - 18 Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

APPENDIX C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

The following design criteria are an integral part of the Refined Proposed Action, or are common to all action alternatives. For ease of reference and tracking, design criteria that require specialist assistance are underlined and those associated with monitoring are identified with italics. The design criteria that reference specific timber sale contract (TSC) provisions would use either the referenced provisions or their equivalent if changes in the type of contract or contract provisions occur prior to timber sale contract preparation.

Invasive Plant Management The applicable standard from the referenced EIS is listed parenthetically following each.

Invasive Species Standards (USDA Forest Service, 2005)

1. Consistent with Standard 1, prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread is being addressed as part of this vegetation management decision.

2. When operating outside the limits of the road prism, it is required that all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) be cleaned prior to entering National Forest System lands.

3. The use of weed-free straw and mulch is required for this project. If State certified straw and/or mulch is not available, sources will be certified weed free using the North American Weed Free Forage Program standards or a similar certification process.

4. Not applicable

5. No standard

6. Not applicable

7. Only gravel fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by District of Forest weed specialists will be utilized.

8. Road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of invasive plants will be conducted in consultation with District plant specialists, and will incorporate invasive plant prevention practices as appropriate.

9. No standard

10. No standard

11. Not applicable

C-1

Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

12. Consistent with Standard 12, this proposal serves as a long-term site strategy for restoring/revegetating invasive plant sites prior to treatment.

13. Native plant materials will be the first choice for revegetation. Where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur, non-native, noninvasive plant species will be used as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the reestablishment of native plants.

14. Not applicable

15. Application of Picloram and Glyphosate to treat invasive plants will be performed or directly supervised by a State or Federally licensed applicator. A herbicide transportation and handling safety plan will be developed and implemented.

16. Consistent with Standard 16, this project utilized glyphosate and picloram. As well, acceptable applications methods are being utilized.

17. No standard

18. Only adjuvants (e.g., surfactants, dyes) and inert ingredients reviewed in Forest Service hazard and risk assessment documents such as SERA, 1997a, 1997b; Bakke, 2003 will be used.

19. To minimize or eliminate direct or indirect negative effects to non-target plants, terrestrial animals, water quality and aquatic biota (including amphibians) from the application of herbicide, site-specific soil characteristics, proximity to surface water and local water table depth were utilized to determine herbicide formulation, size of buffers needed, if any, and application method and timing.

20. Invasive plant treatments were designed to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to species and critical habitats proposed and/or listed under the Endangered Species Act. Site-specific project design (e.g., application rate and method, timing, wind speed and direction, nozzle type and size, buffers, etc.) was used to mitigate the potential for adverse disturbance and/or contaminant exposure.

21. Not applicable

22. Not applicable

23. Prior to implementation of herbicide treatment, Naches Ranger District stall will ensure timely public notification. Treatment areas will be posted to inform the public and forest workers of herbicide application dates and herbicides used. If requested, individuals may be notified in advance of spray dates.

In addition to the above Standards, the following Best Management Practices (2002) are required:

1. Weeds will be treated on roads used by timber sale purchasers.

2. Soil disturbance will be minimized.

C-2

Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

3. Weed infestations at landings and on skid trails will be monitored and treated after harvest.

4. Disturbed soil (except the travel way of surfaced roads) will be revegetated in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site.

5. The success of revegetation will be monitored.

6. Contract provisions for weed prevention and cleaning equipment will be included in timber sale contract language.

7. Water for dust abatement will not be drafted from weed infested water sources.

Prescribed Burning

1. Protect four (4) known eligible/potentially eligible heritage sites. Refer to analysis file when developing prescribed fire plans: sites are not for public disclosure. Air Quality

1. The frequent application of water to the county maintained section of Forest Road 1600 (the eastern 1¼ miles) would be required as part of normal dust abatement for log haul activity as needed to reduce road dust. Wildlife Resources

1. Conservation measures for fuels treatments:

a. Fuel treatment will meet the following criteria:

i. No more than 25% of any 6th field watershed will be burning in any single year.

2. Northern Spotted Owl Design Criteria

a. Activities that create noise above ambient forest levels would be prohibited within 400 meters (¼ mile) from March 1 to July 31 to avoid disturbance (Delaney, Grubb, Beier, Pater, & Reiser, 1999). Activities that create noise above ambient forest levels include use of chainsaws, tractors, snowplows, bulldozers, graders, dump trucks, excavators, log trucks, and generators. High-intensity, low-duration activities such as blasting would be prohibited within 1 km (⅔ mile).

b. Prescribed burns would be designed so that plume trajectory is at least 45 degrees either side of a nest tree. A test-fire would be used prior to ignition to determine plume direction. If the plume direction shifts to within 45 degrees of an active nest, ignition would be stopped. If protocol surveys reveal that nesting has not been initiated, restrictions may be lifted for that year. Protection buffer zones could vary slightly depending on topographic postion of the nest stand relative to the treatment units.

C-3

Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

3. Gray Wolf Design Criteria

a. Roads constructed on previously used templates will be closed as soon as soil moistures are effective for reduction of soil compaction (BMP’s T-5 and VM-4). In the case of winter logging (if used), closing temporary roads immediately after completion of treatment would create resource damage due to the wet soil conditions. These roads will be used for commercial mechanical treatments but not for fuels treatments. While these roads are being used for project activities they will be signed as closed to the public. This will not allow public use to become established and to limit the amount of disturbance to any area.

Soil, Water, and Aquatic/Riparian Resources

Riparian Reserve widths as described in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) in the NWFP.

1. Danger trees within Riparian Reserves would be felled and left as downed wood.

For complete definitions of the BMPs, please refer to the PNW publication, General Water Quality Best Management Practices, November 1988, available at the Naches Ranger Station. For complete definitions of the contract provisions, please refer to the source book for timber sale provisions, available at the Naches Ranger Station. Mitigation measures mentioned below are cross-referenced to specific BMPs in the analysis file. The site specific BMPs in the analysis file also include qualitative ratings for the availability to implement and monitor the effectiveness of each BMP.

2. Timber harvest methods would be implemented using the Wenatchee National Forest Ground Based Harvest Policy, as described in the letter dated June 28, 1996. If a revised policy is in effect at the time of timber sale contract preparation, the revised policy will be used. The existing policy would use the following implementation criteria for this project:

a. Limit harvest to periods when soil moisture level is normally dry, soils are frozen, or there is sufficient snow cover to protect soils from compaction. (BMPs T-5 and VM-4, TSC Provision CT6.42#)

b. Requiring designated skid trails and utilizing existing skid trails that are spaced greater than an average of 90 feet apart for feller buncher operations during normal operating seasons. Exceptions to this standard can be made if other ground-based logging systems are used, or site conditions such as dry frozen ground or snow cover alleviate the concern. These exceptions would need to be agreeable to a soil specialist and the rationale would need to be documented in the Glass Angel Project EA analysis file. (BMP T-11)

3. In Unit 10, logs would be fully suspended over riparian areas, to the extent practicable, in order to minimize any disturbance to the streambed or banks. If full suspension is not possible, partial suspension would be required (BMP T-12). This mitigation measure has been added in case a situation develops where such cable yarding is necessary for resource protection.

C-4

Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

4. Except for blackline, no active prescribed fire ignition would take place within riparian areas. Any underburning that may take place within riparian areas would be low or moderate intensity, backing in from ignition sources.

5. Landings would be located on road beds, where necessary, to minimize additional ground disturbance.

6. In regard to culvert removal and area isolation for fish removal:

a. Remove culverts in the wet when it is determined that worksite isolation to divert the stream around culverts for removal will cause long term damage to riparian habitat and floodplain function, and higher fish mortalities from capture and removal methods would result, as compared to the short term affects of instream turbidity/sedimentation, and fish injury/mortality associated with culvert removal in the wetted channel.

b. Remove as much road fill from over the culverts as possible, excavating from the outlet end to the inlet before pulling the structures. Fill should be removed at least to the invert of the pipe.

c. If diverting streamflow around the construction site, construct a coffer dam (built with non-erosive materials or clean rock) and an associated pump or a bypass culvert. Small amounts of streambed substrate may be moved to help seal and secure diversion structures. Pumps must be fitted with fish screens and be operated in accordance with NMFS fish screen criteria. Dissipate waterflow at the bypass outflow to prevent damage to riparian vegetation or stream channel. If the diversion is unscreened, place diversion outlet into area that provides safe re-entry of fish into the stream channel, preferably pool habitat with cover. When necessary, pump seepage water from the de-watered construction area or bridge abutment coffer dams to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland areas and allow water to filter through vegetation prior to reentering the stream.

d. Upon project completion, slowly re-water the construction site to prevent loss of surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to prevent a sudden increase in stream turbidity. Monitor downstream during re-watering to prevent stranding of aquatic animals below the construction site.

7. Road decommissioning actions may include deep ripping, hillslope re-contouring, stream crossing road fill removal, streambank re-contouring, and revegetation.

a. For road obliteration within riparian areas, re-contour the valley side slopes to mimic the natural floodplain contours and gradient.

b. Use sediment control barriers between the project and the stream, when obliterating road segments immediately adjacent to streams.

C-5

Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

c. Seed and plant all disturbed soils from road treatments or re-contoured streambanks with native species. Place sediment filter logs, scatter logs, limbs, and/or tree branches on the bare soil areas of re-contoured streambanks after culvert fill removal.

d. Drainage features used for road decommissioning will be spaced to hydrologically disconnect road surface runoff from stream channels.

e. Dispose of excavated culvert fill outside of floodprone areas.

f. Road treatments will occur during seasons when soil moisture conditions are not saturated.

8. When drafting water for dust abatement or road grading, favor using sources from ponds or streams that are non-fish bearing. Avoid drafting from streams with listed fish species. If drafting from streams occupied with listed fish species, drafting will not exceed 10 percent of the current streamflow, the streambed will not be altered, and pump chances will not pose ay barrier to fish movement. Water drafting/pumping will maintain a continuous flow of the stream, without altering the original wetted width. Pumps (including drafting to fill water 3 trucks) in streams with listed fish will be equipped with a screen of /32 inch mesh or less, and will have an intake flow of less than 1 cubic foot/second to prevent entrain juvenile fish.

Range

1. Range improvements (fences, water developments) as identified on the map in the Glass Angel Project EA analysis file would be protected under contract provision BT6.22.

2. Operating Plans for range use, timber harvest, and natural fuel treatments would be coordinated to reduce potential conflicts.

Heritage Properties

1. If any new cultural resources are discovered during the course of project implementation, all work in that area would cease, and the resource protected, until an archaeologist assesses the find. If a newly identified property could not be avoided or protected from a project activity, appropriate mitigation measures would be satisfied in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, prior to resumption of that activity.

2. Contract provisions BT6.24 and CT6.24# for the protection of heritage properties considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be included as part of the timber sale contract. This provision provides for the protection of areas where heritage properties have been identified and for those that may be discovered in the area during the contract period. The locations listed, eligible and potentially eligible heritage properties would be identified as areas to protect.

C-6

Glass Angel Restoration Project Appendix C Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

Recreation/Visual Resources

1. Designate System Trail 697 as a Protected Improvement on the Sale Area Map. (BT6.22)

2. Close each affected segment of System Trail 697 during harvest, precommercial thinning, and prescribed fire activities, and reopening that segment when activity is completed.

3. Minimize the number of temporary roads and skid trails that cross the Trail 697 tread or parallel it within the area seen from the trail.

4. Directional fall trees away from the trail tread.

5. The Special Uses Administrator will coordinate with Vegetation, Fuels, and Road Management managers if activities are scheduled to occur during the time of the permitted event so that alternative trails may be used (Endurance Ride, Jeep Jamboree).

a. When Forest Road 1600 is used as a haul route during the snowmobile season, this road and associated Sno-Park will be posted as closed to public use. The Recreation Planner will notify the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and the Yakima County Snow Grooming Council of the closures that may affect the groomed snowmobile trail and their users.

6. The foreground on Forest Road 1500 will be managed to provide a Roaded Natural ROS experience.

C-7

Glass Angel Restoration Project

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.