Dosewallips Engineered Log Jam Project USDA Forest Service Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest Jefferson County, Washington

Home , Dosewallips River

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Dosewallips Engineered Log Jam Project USDA Forest Service Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest Jefferson County, Washington

Introduction The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Dosewallips Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Project has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 40 CFR 1500- 1508) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 36 CFR 219). An EA was prepared and submitted to interested and affected members of the public on April 19, 2012, initiating a 30-day notice and comment period. Following review of comments received, the EA was updated to clarify information; however, the purpose and need, proposed action, and effects analyses have not been substantially changed to necessitate a second 30-day notice and comment period. This Decision Notice documents my decision to implement Reach 3 of the Proposed Action of the Dosewallips ELJ Project Environmental Assessment, and the rationale for my selection. Background The project area is located on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Dosewallips River watershed west of the town of Brinnon, in Jefferson County, in the northeast portion of Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. The legal land description of the Dosewallips ELJ Project planning area is T26N, R3W, Sections 15, 16, 20, 23 and 25. Five individual project reaches span from approximately river mile (RM) 6.0, just below 6 Mile Bridge on Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610-010, upstream to about RM 11.0, just below the current washout on FSR 2610. The planning area is accessed by FSR 2610. The Dosewallips ELJ Project described in the EA is intended to be a muti-phase project that would be implemented over multiple years dependent on funding. The entire project includes five separate project reaches. This Decision Notice only addresses the implementation of Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project. Implementation of the other reaches would only occur after Decision Notices were signed for them. The purpose of the project is to accelerate restoration of appropriate habitat-forming processes and to improve the quality and quantity of aquatic habitat for salmon and trout species, including Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed Chinook and steelhead, on NFS lands in the middle reaches of the Dosewallips River (EA p. 16). Several regional and local salmon recovery and watershed restoration plans recognize the importance of the Dosewallips River and its potential role in salmon recovery efforts. Restoration of large wood in the Dosewallips River is a high priority recovery action in the joint Puget Sound Shared Strategy/ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. The Dosewallips River is also designated as a Tier I Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan. As such, there is an expectation that the watershed will serve as a refugia and an anchor for recovery of at-risk salmonid stocks, and the watershed is a high priority for restoring degraded habitat conditions. The project is necessary because in-stream habitat conditions for fish are in a degraded condition as a result of past management activities in the watershed, including clear-cut logging and the removal of

1 naturally occurring logjams and other instream large wood. The creation and maintenance of stable large wood complexes in stream channels is one of the key aquatic habitat-forming processes in Pacific Northwest Rivers. Large woody debris jams play a dominant role in controlling channel morphology, storing and routing sediment, and forming fish habitat. Stable wood jams create habitat diversity by forming pools, back eddies, and side channels, and by increasing channel sinuosity and hydraulic complexity. Reach 3 is one of the five reaches on NFS lands in the Dosewallips River that have the highest potential to help restore habitat-forming processes and improve fish habitat conditions. Reach 3 was selected for implementation first because it is a low gradient, unconfined reach (alluvial reach) which would typically serve as a biological “hot spot” in undisturbed systems and where stable accumulations of large wood would naturally be expected to occur, but are currently lacking. It is important to complete the Reach 3 project now because it is critical to protect and maintain the high quality spawning habitat that currently exists at the site. Recent observations suggest that if nothing is done, the existing spawning gravels will eventually disappear as the accumulation of small logs below the site breaks up and the logs and gravel are washed downstream. This project is the result of a strong collaborative effort between the Olympic National Forest, Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest, and the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Management direction for the project comes from the 1990 Olympic National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD). The 1994 ROD, along with its Standards and Guidelines, is commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan. The 1990 LRMP, as amended by the 1994 ROD, is referred to as the Forest Plan in this Decision Notice. On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2011. Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ project lies between RM 8.2 – 8.3 and is located in T26N, R3W, Section 23. Forest Plan land allocations within the project area are Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) and Riparian Reserve. Decision and Rationale After careful review and consideration of the public comments and analysis disclosed in the Dosewallips ELJ Project EA, I have decided to implement Reach 3 of the Proposed Action, as described in the EA (p. 23-28). My decision includes implementing all of the project design criteria and mitigation measures described in the EA (p. 28-34). My decision is based on a review of the EA and the project record, which shows a thorough evaluation of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project includes construction of 3 engineered log jams to simulate natural stable log jams; removal of approximately 370 feet of existing earthen berms to restore channel connectivity with floodplains; placement of rock armoring near the outlet of an existing culvert on FSR 2610 to prevent a channel head cut on a tributary from propagating upstream; placement of logs on the

2 floodplain within areas disturbed by construction activities to dissipate high flows when the floodplain is inundated; and planting appropriate native vegetation on the new stable protected floodplain areas. In order to access the ELJ construction sites, Reach 3 activities also include the reconstruction, use, and post-project decommissioning of approximately 0.2 miles of existing unclassified roads and the construction, use, and removal of two temporary bridges to provide log and machinery access to the south side of the river. Effective decommissioning of temporary access roads will be achieved through a combination of measures, such as decompacting road surfaces, reestablishing appropriate native vegetation, and blocking road entrances. In making this decision, I examined the proposed construction of the ELJs, other restoration treatments, and related activities in relationship to the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. I also considered the results of a recent habitat assessment study completed on the Dosewallips River and resource concerns noted in the watershed analysis, the EA, and project consultation documents. I considered the responsiveness of the alternatives to the issues identified in the EA; applicable laws and policy; Tribal Treaty rights, and public input. I considered the effects of implementing Reach 3 of the proposed action alternative and the no-action alternative on the physical, biological, social, and economic environment. I believe Reach 3 of the Proposed Action provides the best balance among these considerations. Implementing Reach 3 of the Proposed Action with its project design criteria and mitigation measures will provide long-term benefits to the resources with minimal adverse impacts and is necessary to improve habitat conditions for salmon and trout within the watershed. I would like to specifically address three concerns that have been raised during the development of the EA by respondents concerned about the project: the potential impact on aesthetics, the potential impact on spawning habitat, and consistency of the project to recommendations contained in the recent habitat assessment study of the Dosewallips River by Labbe et al. Aesthetics The long-term effects of implementing Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ project on visual quality and aesthetics within the Dosewallips River corridor will be very limited. The project area is only one tenth of a mile long. The three ELJs will be designed to imitate natural instream wood accumulations. As the wood weathers and the structures accumulate natural pieces of wood debris carried down the river by floods, within a few years they will be more-or-less indistinguishable from natural logjams. Comments received during development of the EA from respondents opposed to the project because of aesthetic concerns typically referred to a very large, mid-channel ELJ structure that was recently constructed near the mouth of the Dosewallips River in Dosewallips State Park. The large ELJ structure in the Dosewallips State Park is not representative of ELJ structures that will be constructed under this project. The ELJ structures to be constructed in Reach 3 will be substantially smaller, will be built off the streambank rather than in mid-channel, and the vertical elements will have a lower profile and be more disguised. The EA pages 25-27 describes the proposed ELJ structures and includes photographs that clearly display the difference between the Dosewallips State Park ELJ and the structures that will be constructed under this project. Potential Impact on Spawning Habitat Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, and coho are known to spawn within the project area. Monitoring information suggests that the existing high quality spawning habitat at the project site is degrading and will eventually disappear if nothing is done to stabilize the streambed (EA p. 15). One of the objectives of the Reach 3 project is to protect, maintain, and improve the existing spawning habitat at the project site over the long-term. There is clearly some potential for short-term adverse effects to the existing spawning habitat within the project area during construction activities as the ELJ structures displace some of the gravels and during the first several high flow events the following fall and winter as

3 the stream channel adjusts to the new ELJ structures. The three ELJ structures will be designed and located to minimize these impacts to the extent possible. The structure on the north bank will specifically be relocated slightly further away from the river channel to reduce potential impacts to existing spawning gravels. The NMFS Biological Opinion (BO) concluded that sufficient alternate spawning habitats were available and that the project’s short-term displacement of spawning locations would not be detrimental to spawning behavior or potential productivity for listed Chinook or steelhead. Over the long-term, NMFS expects the project to create enough new potential spawning habitat to compensate for any short-term losses (BO p. 28). I concur with this assessment and accept the tradeoff of minor short-term adverse impacts to existing spawning habitat in return for long-term maintenance and improvement of spawning habitat, rearing habitat, and stream function. Consistency with Dosewallips River Habitat Assessment At least one respondent has questioned whether the Dosewallips ELJ Project is consistent with the findings and recommendations from the habitat assessment study of the Dosewallips River completed by Labbe et al. in 2005 for the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. This assessment clearly describes the preponderance of relatively small, mobile, wood within the river channel and the lack of key large woody debris pieces or jams to serve as anchor points for long-lasting wood accumulations that are necessary to recreate functioning stream processes in the Dosewallips River. The assessment also identified key alluvial reaches that could be expected to serve as biological hotspots for salmonids production. The Dosewallips ELJ Project is specifically designed to address the need for stable accumulations of large wood identified in Labbe’s assessment. Ted Labbe, primary author of the 2005 Dosewallips River habitat assessment, submitted a letter to me in June 2012, strongly supporting the proposed Dosewallips ELJ project. In his opinion, the ELJ project is necessary, addresses a specific identified need identified in his assessment, and is located in the appropriate stream reaches to maximize benefits to fish and wildlife. My decision to implement Reach 3 of the Proposed Action meets the purpose and need for action established for this project, and is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. Construction of the ELJs and the other associated riparian restoration treatments follow ecosystem management policies and scientific recommendations. These actions follow recommendations found in the Dosewallips Watershed Analysis. Reach 3 of the Proposed Action meets requirements under the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and all other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Implementing Reach 3 of the Proposed Action assists in the recovery of at-risk salmonids populations by implementing a priority action in the joint Puget Sound Shared Strategy/NMFS Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Chinook and by addressing a high priority restoration need in the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s Three Year Watershed Implementation Priorities. Mitigation Measures and Design Features Project design criteria and mitigation measures were developed for the action alternative and will be implemented to insure compliance with direction in the Forest Plan and Forest program direction, as well as to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of project implementation. Specific project design criteria and /or mitigation measures were developed for the following areas: terrestrial wildlife; invasive plants; botany; water quality; fisheries; cultural resources; recreation and public safety. These requirements,

4 which are described in the EA on pages 28-34, are expected to minimize potential adverse effects of management activities. Implementation of these features is considered to be highly effective. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Specific monitoring activities will be implemented to assure that implementation of elements of my decision are carefully tracked during and after project implementation. Monitoring activities are described on page 34 of the EA, and pages 32-33 of the NMFS Biological Opinion. The information gained through post-implementation monitoring will be used to inform the planning and design of future ELJ projects in the Dosewallips River.

Other Alternatives Considered I originally considered five alternatives, three of which was eliminated from detailed study. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study I considered three additional alternatives, but eliminated them from detailed analysis in the EA for the reasons described below. Passive Restoration Only. Comments received during public scoping suggested reducing man-made interference and relying on natural processes to achieve aquatic habitat objectives. In Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ project area, passive restoration is already being implemented through current land management practices, which emphasize riparian values and late-successional forest conditions. Clear- cut timber harvest and the removal of instream large wood no longer occur on the Olympic National Forest. Silvicultural practices now emphasize the development of old-growth forest conditions in both riparian and upslope habitats. Road management emphasizes road drainage improvements to maintain stability and reduce hydrologic effects, re-establishing fish passage where it has been blocked by culverts, and decommissioning unneeded roads. Although current land management practices will promote improvement in aquatic habitat conditions in the project area over time, the recovery of natural sources of large instream wood will take many decades, and perhaps centuries. Past clear-cut timber harvest, especially in riparian and floodplain areas, has removed the sources of large wood necessary for the formation of stable log jams. Relying only on natural processes would mean that the lack of stable log jams within the project area would persist for the foreseeable future until riparian trees grow large enough so that the combination of tree height, diameter of the root wad, and mass of the trees counteract the ability of the river to transport the wood and enough of the trees are recruited into the river to form stable key pieces to anchor ensuing log jams. This alternative was eliminated from consideration in the EA because passive restoration efforts alone will not fully address the need identified for this project within a timeframe that would benefit depressed salmon and steelhead stocks including ESA listed species. A passive restoration only alternative is effectively equivalent to the no-action alternative.

Restore High Priority Reaches on other Ownerships. Labbe’s 2005 Habitat Assessment of the Dosewallips River and the watershed analysis both identified high priority restoration needs on private lands in the lower Dosewallips River, downstream from the Olympic National Forest boundary. Several respondents suggested that restoration opportunities on private lands were a higher priority than the proposed ELJ project on NFS lands and encouraged the Forest Service to pursue the high priority projects on private lands before implementing the proposed project. This alternative was eliminated

5 from consideration in the EA because potential restoration projects that are not on NFS lands are outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and the agency cannot implement them. I believe active restoration is needed at this time on NFS lands.

Decommission Forest Road 2610. As part of the Conservation Recommendations included in the BO for the project, NMFS recommended that the Forest Service remove segments of FSR 2610 that prevent the river from accessing its channel migration zone and floodplain. This comment was echoed by other respondents during the development of the EA. Forest Service Road 2610 is part of the Forest’s permanent road system. It is the primary access route into the upper Dosewallips watershed. Our Forest-wide Access and Travel Management Planning process (ATM) completed in 2003 evaluated the needs for motorized access and the level of aquatic risk associated with FSR 2610. The ATM plan recommends maintaining FSR 2610 for motorized vehicle access. There are currently no plans or funding available to decommission the road or to re-route portions of the existing FSR 2610 away from the Dosewallips River floodplain. This alternative was eliminated from consideration in the EA because decommissioning FSR 2610 is well outside the scope of the proposed project.

Alternatives Considered in Detail Two alternatives were considered in detail in the EA: one that included activities to help restore appropriate habitat-forming processes and improve the quality and quantity of aquatic habitat for salmon and trout species on National Forest System lands in the middle reaches of the Dosewallips River (Proposed Action), and one that would not (No-Action Alternative). I did not select the No-Action Alternative because it does not meet the purpose and need of accelerating the restoration of appropriate habitat-forming processes and improving the quality and quantity of aquatic habitat for salmon and trout species, including ESA-listed Chinook and steelhead, on NFS lands in the middle reaches of the Dosewallips River. Fish habitat conditions in the project reach would remain in their current degraded condition for the foreseeable future. The lack of large key pieces of instream wood and stable natural log jams would continue to inhibit the creation and maintenance of juvenile rearing habitat, suitable spawning sites, and habitat diversity. The existing riparian trees would eventually grow large enough to form key pieces and begin to be recruited into the stream channel in large enough numbers to begin to form stable log jams, but the trees would need to be very large (i.e 36 inch diameter) to be effective. Recovery would be a very long-term process that would likely take 50 to 100 years or more. Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Dosewallips ELJ Project was listed on the Olympic National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on January 1, 2011, and remained on the SOPA throughout the planning, analysis, and decision process. Letters of consultation were mailed to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, and Skokomish Tribe on September 15, 2011. On September 30, 2011, I sent a scoping letter to concerned citizens, organizations, and state, federal, and local government agencies that have expressed an interest in the Forest’s management activities. The letter described the proposed action, and requested comments. Information about the project was presented at a public open house hosted by the Hood Canal Ranger District and the Wild Fish Conservancy in Brinnon on November 30, 2011. Based on comments received from the Tribes, the public, and other agencies, the Forest’s interdisciplinary team and I developed a list of issues to address when considering alternatives to the proposed action.

6 Two site visits to the proposed treatment reaches were held with concerned land owners in February and March of 2012. In April 2012, a group of aquatic biologists from the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Long Live the Kings, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Wild Fish Conservancy, and Forest Service had a site visit to Reach 3 to discuss the project. I have also communicated with several interested citizens numerous times while the EA was being developed to discuss and understand issues and concerns. On April 9, 2012, I initiated government to government consultation about the project with interested recognized Tribes. An EA was circulated for a 30-day comment period beginning on April 19, 2012. Ten responses were received during the comment period. An additional four comments were received after the close of the comment period. The comments and my responses are found in Appendix B of the EA. A BO for Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ project was received from NMFS on July 10, 2012. The EA was updated to include additional information and respond to comments and information received during the comment period. Finding of No Significant Impact After considering comments from the public and the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that implementation of Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project Proposed Action does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Thus, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.27). This determination of no significant impact is based on the EA, the design of the selected alternative, and on the following factors: Context of Action: Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project activities will be local and short-term. Three ELJs will be constructed within a 0.1 mile reach of stream on NFS lands in the Dosewallips River. This represents less than 0.7 percent of the length of stream habitat potentially available for use by anadromous salmon and steelhead within the watershed. ESA listed Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound steelhead are known to spawn within the project area in low numbers. The NMFS BO for the Reach 3 project concluded that sufficient alternate spawning habitats were available and that the proposed project’s short-term displacement of spawning locations would not be detrimental to spawning behavior or potential productivity. The BO also concluded that potential effects to spawning and rearing habitat would be local, unlikely to persist for more than a few years and effects to designated critical habitat would be minimal. Intensity of Effects: The environmental effects of the following actions are documented in Chapter 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project EA: construction of 3 ELJs to simulate natural stable log jams; removal of approximately 370 feet of existing earthen berms to restore channel connectivity with floodplains; placement of rock armoring near the outlet of an existing culvert on FSR 2610 to prevent a channel head cut on a tributary from propagating upstream; reconstruction, use, and decommissioning of approximately 0.2 miles of existing unclassified forest roads to provide access for heavy equipment and maintenance vehicles to the project site; construction, use, and removal of two temporary bridges to provide log and machinery access to the south side of the river; placement of logs on the floodplain within areas disturbed by construction activities to dissipate high flows when the floodplain is inundated; and planting appropriate native vegetation on new stable protected floodplain areas. The beneficial and adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of these activities have been disclosed in the EA. Effects are expected to be low in intensity because of standard management practices and the project design criteria and mitigation measures described on pages 28-34 of the EA. 1. Potential beneficial and adverse effects were considered in the analysis of the proposed action. The analysis considered both direct and indirect effects, and also the project’s contribution to

7 the cumulative effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the watershed. Potential adverse effects of Reach 3 of the Proposed Action will be reduced or eliminated by the application of the required project design criteria and mitigation measures. Potential adverse effects include localized increases in turbidity, sedimentation, substrate embeddedness, riparian road density, and disturbance within the Riparian Reserves during construction activities. Spawning habitat may also potentially be adversely affected by localized disturbance during construction activities and during the first several high flows the following fall and winter after the project is implemented as the streambed adjusts to the new structures. Beneficial effects include accelerating the restoration of appropriate aquatic habitat-forming processes, a long-term, localized increase in the frequency of stable logjams; long-term, localized improvement in the amount and stability of spawning gravels; long-term, localized improvement in the amount of high quality, complex rearing habitat; and long-term, localized reduction in the density of riparian roads within the project area. Neither the beneficial nor adverse effects as discussed in the EA are deemed to be of sufficient intensity to be identified as significant. 2. The project will not have a significant effect on public health or safety. ELJ structures will be designed to mimic naturally occurring accumulations of instream wood. Structures will not span the river channel and will be designed to allow safe passage by kayakers. No cabling or artificial anchors will be used to stabilize the structures. Construction areas will be closed as needed to protect public safety during project operations. Mitigation measures and design features will protect worker safety during project implementation. Effects on water quality (sediment) will be limited in magnitude, short-term, and localized due to mitigation measures and project design features. 3. There will be no significant effects to unique characteristics of the area. No historic or cultural resources will be affected with this proposal. The project is not in close proximity to prime farmlands or ecologically critical areas. Wetlands located within the project area would be protected by project design criteria. No project activities will occur within designated Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or within the Olympic National Park. The Dosewallips River is not designated as a Wild and Scenic River so there will be no effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers. The project will be beneficial to Riparian Reserves and floodplains through accelerating restoration of appropriate aquatic habitat-forming and stream channel processes and by reestablishing appropriate native vegetation on new, stable floodplain areas and disturbed riparian areas within the project site. 4. The effects of this project on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The three ELJs will be designed to imitate natural instream wood accumulations. Within a few years after project completion they will be more-or-less indistinguishable from natural logjams. Comments received during development of the EA from respondents opposed to the project because of aesthetic concerns typically referred to a very large, mid-channel ELJ structure that was recently constructed near the mouth of the Dosewallips River in Dosewallips State Park. The large ELJ structure in the Dosewallips State Park is not representative of ELJ structures that will be constructed under this project. The ELJ structures to be constructed in Reach 3 will be substantially smaller, will be built off the streambank rather than in mid-channel, and the vertical elements will have a lower profile and be more disguised. The EA (pages 25 – 27) describes the proposed ELJ structures and includes photographs that clearly display the difference between the Dosewallips State Park ELJ and the structures that will be constructed under this project. The Forest Plan allows fish habitat restoration and road development in the project area, and these activities have historically been conducted in this area.

8 5. The effects of this project are not highly uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks. Engineered Log Jam structures have been constructed throughout the Pacific Northwest to restore stream channel processes and improve fish habitat for over a decade. At least five ELJ projects have been completed on rivers on the Olympic Peninsula. Results for individual structures have been somewhat variable, however, ELJ projects that have been designed and implemented by knowledgeable and experienced personnel have consistently had good results and have met project objectives. The instream structures in Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ project have been designed by Cardno Entrix, an engineering firm with recognized expertise in designing stream restoration projects and ELJs. 6. This action will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, and does not represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Fish habitat restoration and instream large wood placement projects are not new activities on the forest, and follow common practices with known results. The project design criteria and mitigation measures are known to be effective in reducing risks associated with project activities. I believe the EA sufficiently addressed and analyzed all major issues associated with the project. 7. Implementation of Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project does not represent potential cumulative adverse impacts when considered in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. My review of the discussion of effects in chapter 3 of the EA indicates no likelihood of cumulatively significant impact to the environment. Potential restoration projects in the watershed on other ownerships and in the estuary are speculative at this time. Any other restoration projects implemented within the watershed would also be designed to improve habitat and would likely result in small incremental improvements in overall aquatic habitat conditions over time. 8. It was determined that the action will not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. No eligible historic properties were found during surveys of the project area. The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (SHPO) concurred with the No Effect finding (letter on file at the Olympic National Forest). 9. This action is covered by a Biological Opinion (BO) from the USDC National Marine Fisheries Service: USDC National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. July 10, 2012. The finding for the project is that implementation of Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project is Likely to Adversely Affect but will not jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound Steelhead. The project will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook. Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound steelhead are known to spawn within the project area in low numbers. There is some potential for short-term negative effects to the spawning habitat within the project area as the stream channel adjusts to the new ELJ structures. The NMFS BO concluded that sufficient alternate spawning habitats were available and that the proposed project’s short-term displacement of spawning locations would not be detrimental to spawning behavior or potential productivity. NMFS expects the project to create enough new potential spawning habitat to compensate for any short-term losses. They also expect the ELJ project to improve juvenile rearing and adult holding habitat over the long-term. Recent information obtained since the BO was issued indicates that the Reach 3 ELJ project is necessary to maintain the existing spawning habitat at the project site and that, if the project is not implemented, the existing spawning gravel will eventually disappear as the logjam below the project area breaks up and is washed away (EA p. 15). Juvenile steelhead are present within the project area and may be exposed to elevated turbidity and to disturbance and handling during dewatering and instream construction activities. The EA contains numerous

9 Project Design Criteria and Mitigations to reduce the potential for incidental take of juvenile steelhead. The BO also contains mandatory Terms and Conditions that will be implemented as part of the project to reduce the potential for incidental take (BO p. 32-33). The Essential Fish Habitat consultation conducted by NMFS determined that the project would adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook, coho, or pink salmon as designated under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act (BO p. 35). Potential effects include a temporary loss of up to 0.5 acres of rearing habitat for coho due to dewatering and instream construction at the project site during project implementation, increased suspended sediment within 300 feet of the project site during construction activities, and loss of spawning habitat due to covering by the ELJ footprint. This action is also covered by a Letter of Concurrence and Biological Opinion (BO) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence for Effects to Bald Eagles, Marbled Murrelets, Northern Spotted owls, Bull Trout, and Designated Critical Habitat for Marbled Murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls from Olympic National Forest Program of Activities for August, 2003 to December 31, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington (revised 2004, 2010). The finding for the project for both Marbled Murrelet and Spotted Owl is that implementation of Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect these species. The finding for the project for Marbled Murrelet and Spotted Owl critical habitat is that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect that habitat. The finding for Bull Trout is that the project is No Effect to bull trout/native char. The Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly is currently proposed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the project is determined to have No Effect on the Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly. 10. This action does not threaten a violation of any Federal, State, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Reach 3 of the Dosewallips ELJ Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and is in compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. It was designed to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations The decision to approve Reach 3 of the Dosewallips Engineered Log Jam Project is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan’s long-term goals and objectives. The project was designed in conformance with standards and guidelines in the 1990 Olympic National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. I have carefully reviewed the EA including the supporting analysis for consistency with the Northwest Forest Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (EA, pages 61 -63) in accordance with the 1994 ROD. The applicable watershed analysis and the EA include descriptions of the existing condition, range of natural variability of important physical and biological components of the watersheds, and how the proposed project maintains the existing condition or moves it within the range of natural variability. Based on my review of the EA, the 1994 ROD, and the watershed analysis, I have determined that this project does not prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. I have determined that this project is consistent with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements at USC 1604. Implementation Date If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of this project may begin on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When one or more appeals are

10 filed, implementation may begin on, but not before, the fifteenth business day following the date of the last appeal disposition.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215. Any individual or organization who submitted comments during the comment period specified at 36 CFR 215.6 may appeal. Written notice of appeal must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Deciding Officer, Forest Supervisor, ATTN: Appeals, USDA Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, 1835 Black Lake Blvd SW, Olympia, WA 98512-5623 within 45 days of the date of publication of the notice regarding this decision in Peninsula Daily News, newspaper (Port Angeles, Washington). The appeal must state that the document is an appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215, and at a minimum must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14, and include the name and address of the appellant, and must identify the decision by title, subject, date of decision, and name of the Responsible Official. The appeal narrative must be sufficient to identify the specific change(s) to the decision sought by the appellant or portions of the decision to which the appellant objects, and must state how the Responsible Official's decision fails to consider comments previously provided. If applicable, the appeal should state how the appellant believes this decision violates law, regulation, or policy.

Appeals (including attachments) may be filed by regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand delivery, express delivery, or messenger service. The publication date of the notice regarding this decision in the newspaper is the sole means of ca lculating the appeal filing deadline, and those wishing to appeal should not rely on dates or timelines from any other source. E-mail appeals must be submitted to: [email protected], and must be in one of the following three formats: Microsoft Word, rich text format (rtf), or Adobe Portable Document Format (pdf). Appeals submitted by FAX must be faxed to: 306-956-2330. Appeals may be hand-delivered to the Olympic National Forest Supervisors Office, 1835 Black Lake Blvd SW, Olympia, Washington between 8:00AM and 4:30 PM Monday-Friday, excluding federal holidays.

It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure their appeals are received in a timely manner. For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender's responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means.

Contact

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Greg Wahl, Environmental Coordinator, Olympic National Forest, at 1835 Black Lake Blvd SW, Olympia, WA, 98512; by email at [email protected], or by phone at 360-956-2375.

Dean Yoshina DATE District Ranger Hood Canal Ranger District